Wordiezett So much average

Rosie Searle It's the kind of movie you'll want to see a second time with someone who hasn't seen it yet, to remember what it was like to watch it for the first time.

Janis One of the most extraordinary films you will see this year. Take that as you want.

Logan By the time the dramatic fireworks start popping off, each one feels earned.

claremarie-93830 I am very confused by a lot of the reviews of this movie; most of the people seem like they didn't actually take the time to watch it, and just wrote a review because of how triggered the subject matter makes them feel. Let me make this clear, this movie is NOT anti-vaccination; the message of this movie is entirely focused on one vaccine, called the MMR vaccine, and its very clear links to autism. The movie even takes the time to specify that the Measles vaccine, Mumps vaccine, or Rubella vaccine are SAFE on their own, but that the vaccine with all three of them combined (MMR) was the one deemed unsafe by many authorities and tests. The reason for the cover-up by the CDC is explained in the movie, so at this point I just highly, highly suggest you watch it. This movie plays a powerful role in educating its viewers on understanding what vaccinations really are, and why it's important to know what they are, without negating how important they are.

h_hesselbach I have seen the film and I found it to be dangerous and harmful to children and families. What this film is doing is nothing but spreading misinformation about vaccaines and autism. I feel the people are trying to make the Autism Community look like we are vaccaine damaged individual. Many people with Autism including myself, feel that these people are a bunch of hypocrites.

wiilingiataq If you are predisposed to believing in conspiracies and want your science from armchair scientists, this is the film for you!The "fraud" that is the whole basis for this film is a deviation from analysis plan and omission of information?! This film is fraud and omission of information! They made it sound like there was some nefarious reason to only use a subset of the kids for final analysis. This is how studies work: You want a big sample size because that increases your power to detect associations. However, you also need complete information on factors that may confound the association you're studying in your subjects. Some times your original planned amount of study subjects is decreased to a subset that has that complete set information (e.g. birth certificate data). Because you know that having that information is important to control for confounding in your analysis-- so you can observe the true nature of the relationship between exposure and outcome. End of story. No drama. No fraud. Just regular epidemiology. The real tragedy is all the misdirected energy that could go to actually finding answers to the etiology of autism instead of assuaging the ego of Andy Wakefield.

MC1-1 This is by far the best vaccination documentary so far.It's certainly not anti-vaccine. It highlights one problematic vaccine in particular but suggests how it could be taken safely. Where it identifies problems with vaccines... it also suggests solutions. An scientist who works at the CDC, wrote one of the key articles on the safety of vaccines, says he mislead the public. This seems like a credible witness? Furthermore he produces a lot of evidence (original documents and emails) to back up his version of the truth. He seems to have archived a lot of stuff. He seems to have worked within the system to provide information to an external scientist in a legal fashion.The CDC scientist concerned is yet to appear in front of a government committee... despite indicating that he is willing to do so.The CDC appears to be at the very least guilty of destroying relevant documentation: in breach of laws requiring such information be archived. It's a good example how data manipulation can take place. Anyone who works with data will realise that often numbers can be manipulated in such a way that you aren't lying but the results don't fairly represent the findings.The film concludes with very reasonable suggestions which include removing legal indemnity from prosecution from vaccine manufacturers. This indemnity allows the manufacturers to get away with bad behaviour while the public has to foot the bill. It also means that the consequences of poor vaccination practises aren't clearly documented... and contribute to the perception that no vaccination injuries exist (yes some people claim this).The documentary could be fairly described as a call for improved vaccination practises. It's also a documentary about very well qualified people who are calling out attention to problems in our vaccination practises.It's an enjoyable documentary in its own right.Do yourself a favour and watch it? :-)