Terry-24
Ti diamo il benvenuto nel nuovo profilo
I nostri aggiornamenti sono ancora in fase di sviluppo. Sebbene la versione precedente del profilo non sia più accessibile, stiamo lavorando attivamente ai miglioramenti e alcune delle funzionalità mancanti torneranno presto! Non perderti il loro ritorno. Nel frattempo, l’analisi delle valutazioni è ancora disponibile sulle nostre app iOS e Android, che si trovano nella pagina del profilo. Per visualizzare la tua distribuzione delle valutazioni per anno e genere, fai riferimento alla nostra nuova Guida di aiuto.
Distintivi2
Per sapere come ottenere i badge, vai a pagina di aiuto per i badge.
Recensioni2
Valutazione di Terry-24
From the 1970s to today, parents have been reporting damage to their children after vaccinations. Given the sheer numbers, the videotaped evidence, the corroboration of pediatricians, the Vaccine Injury Court payouts, it's not even a question any more that kids have been harmed, and will continue to be harmed.
The point that the film makes --
What we need to know NOW is how often, and how many kids are harmed, and in what manner. Vaccines work, to some extent, and vaccines harm, to some extent. So it's time for a double blind study between the vaccinated and unvaccinated, that includes the entire range of vaccines. Incredibly, this has never been done.
What parents need to know are the rate and severity of all side effects, vs the rate and severity of possible diseases. Then an informed decision can be made.
Having no answer to that question is not acceptable.
Naysayers to this film have an almost religious faith in vaccines, and ignore the data points of harmed kids, and even the key data point of the documentary: a top scientist says they not only forged data, the data shows a connection between the vaccine and autism. The more scientific approach would be to include these key data points in building an overall perspective on the issue.
Don't rely on religion. Rely on science and logic.
Naysayers also seem to get caught up in what they've read or been told or read regarding Dr. Wakefield. For example, they will say he authored a study that claimed a link between MMR and Autism. They can't even get that right (but it's understandable, if you get your information solely from wikipedia.) The actual study -- yes you can read it -- states the opposite, that no link was proved. (Surprise!) (One should also note that the study was designed by 14 scientist, not one scientist with an agenda, and also that the data was not faked or forged, only the process was criticized.)
It's bizarre that mis-reported criticisms from a case series from twenty years ago should have any relevance to a current documentary on a CDC whistleblower, but that's what people do.
The documentary is eye-opening, hard to watch at times, shocking, and makes no scientific claims that haven't been vetted as true.
The beauty of the documentary is that it represents a turning point -- there will be many more to come, as concerned parents demand answers, real studies, and ultimately (in the very long run) individualized vaccines that can be given with confidence, rather than the current system of roulette, some percentage of children will be irrevocably harmed, but that's all right, because there will be too few to matter.
It's not too few to matter if it's your child.
The point that the film makes --
What we need to know NOW is how often, and how many kids are harmed, and in what manner. Vaccines work, to some extent, and vaccines harm, to some extent. So it's time for a double blind study between the vaccinated and unvaccinated, that includes the entire range of vaccines. Incredibly, this has never been done.
What parents need to know are the rate and severity of all side effects, vs the rate and severity of possible diseases. Then an informed decision can be made.
Having no answer to that question is not acceptable.
Naysayers to this film have an almost religious faith in vaccines, and ignore the data points of harmed kids, and even the key data point of the documentary: a top scientist says they not only forged data, the data shows a connection between the vaccine and autism. The more scientific approach would be to include these key data points in building an overall perspective on the issue.
Don't rely on religion. Rely on science and logic.
Naysayers also seem to get caught up in what they've read or been told or read regarding Dr. Wakefield. For example, they will say he authored a study that claimed a link between MMR and Autism. They can't even get that right (but it's understandable, if you get your information solely from wikipedia.) The actual study -- yes you can read it -- states the opposite, that no link was proved. (Surprise!) (One should also note that the study was designed by 14 scientist, not one scientist with an agenda, and also that the data was not faked or forged, only the process was criticized.)
It's bizarre that mis-reported criticisms from a case series from twenty years ago should have any relevance to a current documentary on a CDC whistleblower, but that's what people do.
The documentary is eye-opening, hard to watch at times, shocking, and makes no scientific claims that haven't been vetted as true.
The beauty of the documentary is that it represents a turning point -- there will be many more to come, as concerned parents demand answers, real studies, and ultimately (in the very long run) individualized vaccines that can be given with confidence, rather than the current system of roulette, some percentage of children will be irrevocably harmed, but that's all right, because there will be too few to matter.
It's not too few to matter if it's your child.
Interesting story, and also a fascinating case study in micro-budget film-making. Bleak desert setting pushes the focus onto the psychological issues of the characters. Raw and artfully crafted. Great acting. Framing and pacing helps achieve a high budget feel. Tech credits are solid.
Stands out from the genre. I'm not surprised this film continues to live on via the internet and new distribution channels. With the new Fox commitment to small budget films, Twice as Dead can be looked at as ahead of its time. Look at this film and ask, what's to stop any group of filmmakers from going out and green lighting their own projects? Interesting to follow other work by the actors and production team. Recommended.
Stands out from the genre. I'm not surprised this film continues to live on via the internet and new distribution channels. With the new Fox commitment to small budget films, Twice as Dead can be looked at as ahead of its time. Look at this film and ask, what's to stop any group of filmmakers from going out and green lighting their own projects? Interesting to follow other work by the actors and production team. Recommended.