I do have a question though. You accurately highlighted how the film's producer and several of his "vax-enthusiastic" subjects tended to lean on the use of such undefined and often demonstrably inaccurate smear terms such as "anti-vaxxer".
That said, it feels like you gave Del Bigtree a similar treatment, describing him as a " polarizing figure", " a grifter...a bombastic, ego-fuelled, loud TV personality who has had no experience of his own regarding vaccines".
It's not a crime to have a TV show, especially in the context of this topic, one dedicated to applying journalism to the vaccine products / infectious disease arena. If that endeavor is what you're referring to, it doesn't seem justification for using a word like "grifter" which implies someone trying to con people out of money, a serious charge. Especially without offering any evidence of any "grifting" or even a definition of what you mean by that term.
It sounds like you don't enjoy his personality, but using a term like "ego-fueled" while making no attempt to catalogue any of his significant achievements in dealing with censorship and a highly embargoed topic, and trying to make it possible for the public to hear from vaccine skeptics of many different stripes, seems without journalistic merit, and rather beside the point.
He's been viciously attacked by the pharma-public health juggernaut from the moment he made Vaxxed. I'm sure that has presented difficulties, but it can't be denied: He's walked the walk, done the fundraising, and, made a lot of valuable information and interviews available to the public free of charge. I'm not sure what the point was of dragging him, rather than dragging the producers of "Shot in the Arm" whomever you think would have been a better choice.
Again, I'm glad you took the time to try to lay bare how that particular film was put together seemingly to smother another perspective, rather than to steel man it. Thank you.
I think you make a fair point here. A couple things I'll note is that I'm trying to see things from the bigger picture, and if I disagree with how someone might operate, I'll critique them. So sometimes that means critiquing 'both sides.' But if we critique, we should be able to provide an explanation, which I didn't re: Del Bigtree, so I agree with you there.
Maybe I should have explained why I described him as a grifter, etc. but I also feel like it might have taken away from my main point that the producers deliberately selected the most controversial public figures on the 'anti-vaxx' side as a way to discredit the skeptic position.
To expand on my point: I've found that Del can be hypocritical on 'big ticket' issues (e.g., refusing to accept corporate sponsors, then later accepting millions for his org), but more importantly, I'm skeptical of his desire to educate vs. make money (i.e., he charges an exorbitant amount for speaking fees-my opinion). As far as I'm aware, he's never not done anything without significant financial backing (and without his face in front of it)--which makes me wonder how sincere he is and how much of his endeavours are fuelled by a desire to educate vs. desire to fuel his ego (and line his pockets). I think if I were to dedicate an entire post to writing about him, I could elaborate on this more - maybe one of these days.
Thanks again for the comment and for challenging my thinking here. I've noted this.
Thanks for the detailed review. It makes me sad that I can't use the word fascist any more, for what is blatant fascist propaganda. I don't think I could sit through the film without losing my cool either. What a horrible bunch of good little boys and girls eh? Such spinelessness, such unforgivable whoring.
Neil da grifter Tyson is not an expert on astrophysics either. He is a terrible person and attacked a very kind old man named Clyde Tombaugh because Neil hated the idea of a good man discovering a planet by hard work.
I'll just note that the idea of a vaccine preventing people from having severe disease or dying (as opposed to preventing the disease altogether) was not invented in the Covid-era (even if it is a dramatic departure from modern vaccine orthodoxy).
In fact, in the early 1800s, Edward Jenner started making such a claim when his cowpox pus (or horse grease) "treated" victims subsequently contracted smallpox. "Oh, but how much worse would it have been if they hadn't been vaccinated!" And when they did get a very severe case of it, "If they hadn't been vaccinated, they'd have surely died!!!"
Except that there were plenty of vaccinated that did die. But at least... well, at least they'd go to heaven for being good boys and girls!
Jenner's strategy wasn't the only one that worked to promote vaccines in spite of failure.
Pasteur made sure all the Pasteur Institutes adopted the rule that if someone died within a two week period of receiving repeated torture (ummm... "vaccination") for "rabies" with a concoction of ground up rabbit spine, it was left out of the record.
No vaccine failure there.
Note: please forgive me if the details are a little off. Don't want to go looking them up right now.
Refer to:
Pasteur: Plagarist, Imposter
and
Bechamp or Pasteur: A Forgotten Chapter in the History of Biology
Absolutely. It's unfortunate that they are lesser-known than the Bill Gates-types. I think they're just as influential, and maybe more so because they are more discreet with their dealings.
Interesting and thorough review.
I do have a question though. You accurately highlighted how the film's producer and several of his "vax-enthusiastic" subjects tended to lean on the use of such undefined and often demonstrably inaccurate smear terms such as "anti-vaxxer".
That said, it feels like you gave Del Bigtree a similar treatment, describing him as a " polarizing figure", " a grifter...a bombastic, ego-fuelled, loud TV personality who has had no experience of his own regarding vaccines".
It's not a crime to have a TV show, especially in the context of this topic, one dedicated to applying journalism to the vaccine products / infectious disease arena. If that endeavor is what you're referring to, it doesn't seem justification for using a word like "grifter" which implies someone trying to con people out of money, a serious charge. Especially without offering any evidence of any "grifting" or even a definition of what you mean by that term.
It sounds like you don't enjoy his personality, but using a term like "ego-fueled" while making no attempt to catalogue any of his significant achievements in dealing with censorship and a highly embargoed topic, and trying to make it possible for the public to hear from vaccine skeptics of many different stripes, seems without journalistic merit, and rather beside the point.
He's been viciously attacked by the pharma-public health juggernaut from the moment he made Vaxxed. I'm sure that has presented difficulties, but it can't be denied: He's walked the walk, done the fundraising, and, made a lot of valuable information and interviews available to the public free of charge. I'm not sure what the point was of dragging him, rather than dragging the producers of "Shot in the Arm" whomever you think would have been a better choice.
Again, I'm glad you took the time to try to lay bare how that particular film was put together seemingly to smother another perspective, rather than to steel man it. Thank you.
Jen, thank you for your thoughtful reply!
I think you make a fair point here. A couple things I'll note is that I'm trying to see things from the bigger picture, and if I disagree with how someone might operate, I'll critique them. So sometimes that means critiquing 'both sides.' But if we critique, we should be able to provide an explanation, which I didn't re: Del Bigtree, so I agree with you there.
Maybe I should have explained why I described him as a grifter, etc. but I also feel like it might have taken away from my main point that the producers deliberately selected the most controversial public figures on the 'anti-vaxx' side as a way to discredit the skeptic position.
To expand on my point: I've found that Del can be hypocritical on 'big ticket' issues (e.g., refusing to accept corporate sponsors, then later accepting millions for his org), but more importantly, I'm skeptical of his desire to educate vs. make money (i.e., he charges an exorbitant amount for speaking fees-my opinion). As far as I'm aware, he's never not done anything without significant financial backing (and without his face in front of it)--which makes me wonder how sincere he is and how much of his endeavours are fuelled by a desire to educate vs. desire to fuel his ego (and line his pockets). I think if I were to dedicate an entire post to writing about him, I could elaborate on this more - maybe one of these days.
Thanks again for the comment and for challenging my thinking here. I've noted this.
I agree 💯 and could not have said it better!
Thanks for the detailed review. It makes me sad that I can't use the word fascist any more, for what is blatant fascist propaganda. I don't think I could sit through the film without losing my cool either. What a horrible bunch of good little boys and girls eh? Such spinelessness, such unforgivable whoring.
Neil da grifter Tyson is not an expert on astrophysics either. He is a terrible person and attacked a very kind old man named Clyde Tombaugh because Neil hated the idea of a good man discovering a planet by hard work.
Interesting, I'll have to look into this re: Clyde Tombaugh.
This is a very well written article.
I'll just note that the idea of a vaccine preventing people from having severe disease or dying (as opposed to preventing the disease altogether) was not invented in the Covid-era (even if it is a dramatic departure from modern vaccine orthodoxy).
In fact, in the early 1800s, Edward Jenner started making such a claim when his cowpox pus (or horse grease) "treated" victims subsequently contracted smallpox. "Oh, but how much worse would it have been if they hadn't been vaccinated!" And when they did get a very severe case of it, "If they hadn't been vaccinated, they'd have surely died!!!"
Except that there were plenty of vaccinated that did die. But at least... well, at least they'd go to heaven for being good boys and girls!
Jenner's strategy wasn't the only one that worked to promote vaccines in spite of failure.
Pasteur made sure all the Pasteur Institutes adopted the rule that if someone died within a two week period of receiving repeated torture (ummm... "vaccination") for "rabies" with a concoction of ground up rabbit spine, it was left out of the record.
No vaccine failure there.
Note: please forgive me if the details are a little off. Don't want to go looking them up right now.
Refer to:
Pasteur: Plagarist, Imposter
and
Bechamp or Pasteur: A Forgotten Chapter in the History of Biology
or to my Germ Theory timeline
The Pritzkers are exceptionally evil and responsible for a vast amount of death. A reckoning comes.
Absolutely. It's unfortunate that they are lesser-known than the Bill Gates-types. I think they're just as influential, and maybe more so because they are more discreet with their dealings.
Well, much that was hidden has come out, as Jesus says. That which is whispered in the ear in an inner room is being shouted from the rooftops.