Anti-Vaccine Doc Fails to Condemn Lies
Courtesy of Nathaniel Baruch (Brigade Marketing)
The new documentary “Pathological Optimist” follows the doctor who linked vaccines with autism, Andrew Wakefield.
September 26, 2017
“The Pathological Optimist,” taken strictly on the merits of how it is made, is fine, if unspectacular. It covers its topic, a prominent anti-vaccine researcher, thoroughly without flare or surprise. It gives sufficient behind-the-scenes detail while providing just enough in terms of graphics. The film also differs events to keep it from being too boring. It is perfectly serviceable.
As a documentary on a tumultuous political figure, it is a much different story. “The Pathological Optimist” follows the five-year journey of Andrew Wakefield, a former doctor whose medical license was revoked when it was found that he distorted data when conducting work on linking vaccines to autism. It was also found that he might have had several conflicts of interest. The film follows him and his family, now living in Texas, as they try to file a defamation suit against the British Medical Journal and Brian Deer, a Sunday Times of London reporter who uncovered Wakefield’s financial conflicts of interest.
The film and its creative team boast objectivity, insisting in the film that they will let Wakefield’s behavior speak for itself. It sounds noble, but he has been censored and had his platform removed for a reason: giving him a platform to talk allows him to forward his ideas, and some people will buy into them. By neither challenging nor taking a stand against Wakefield, the filmmakers paint an excessively sympathetic picture of him.
The majority of the film focuses on Wakefield and his family as they — putting it generously — bend the truth in their favor. Wakefield’s wife mocks and insults the mannerisms of a judge in Texas. Wakefield himself is filmed working out in the woods to give him a soulful, wise feeling — just before he stalks a critic on social media. His lawyers twist Wakefield’s words, insisting that he did not actually say vaccines are linked to autism.
The problem is not necessarily that this man’s story is being told; the problem is how it is framed. The film frames him as a man wronged for trying to investigate a vital public health concern that no one else was studying. But the topic has already been studied, and we already have the answers. In reality, Wakefield is desperately feeding his ego after pushing falsehoods that resulted in people losing their lives and in the resurrection of several dead diseases. While plenty of viewers will see this, countless others will buy into the Wakefield family’s ploy for sympathy.
One wants to assume the filmmakers have the best intentions, but when the director features a phone conversation between her and her lawyer as the lawyer recommends not making the film, there is the sinking suspicion the filmmakers want to feed off the scandal.
I would recommend this film on two grounds. One, watch it if you want to feel infuriated for 90 minutes. Two, watch if you want to know exactly what you are up against when advocating for vaccines. This film makes one thing clear: if you support the kinds of important vaccines which have ensured generations of children will be safe from deadly diseases, you are fighting an uphill battle. But if you have distorted data and conflicts of interest that could sway your opinions against vaccines or continue to parrot lies, you will get a moody, sympathetic documentary.
“The Pathological Optimist” opens at the Angelika Film Center at 18 W. Houston St. on Friday, Sept. 29.
Email Carter Glace at [email protected].
Judith • Sep 29, 2017 at 8:36 am
The film-maker is correct – Wakefield’s 1998 Lancet study did not purport to link vaccines with autism, it was a case series study of a novel gastrointestinal condition.
Wakefield claimed that there was no evidence that the single measles vaccine caused a problem – it was only when the measles mumps, rubella were combined that the autism issue started to arise. He advocated for a single vaccine – i.e. take it one step at a time. However The UK GMC unlicensed single vaccines AFTER parents were already concerned about MMR safety and were made unavailable. There’s little doubt the live Urabe Mumps component of the MMR vaccine at that time caused widespread problems, in particular viral meningitis, which is known to cause encephalitis, which in turn can lead to brain damage causing ‘autism like symptoms’– it was NOT the UK Government which withdrew the vaccines. Instead, the manufacturers SmithKlineBeecham (now GSK) and Merieux UK, withdrew these vaccines, plainly concerned about the possibility of litigation for the injuries caused by them.
The UK Government machine immediately went into ‘cover up’ mode, including a 20 year suppression of all official papers pertaining to the Urabe MMR vaccine and its aftermath. These papers SHOULD have been released to the press and media in January 2010, in accordance with usual UK practice. Instead, the release was delayed until June 2010, coinciding with the GMC guilty verdicts on the three doctors. Even then, only a couple of reports surfaced in the Scottish Herald and Scottish Daily Mail.
The dead Urabe MMR was replaced but the vaccine we have now is much weaker and lasts for only 4 -5 years.
Heidi Dunson • Sep 28, 2017 at 6:50 pm
This review reads as though it was written by Paul Offit (not Richard Pan as I do not believe he knows how to write).
It has become clear that pro-vaccination enthusiasts have only money to cover their lies and asses with and not one shred of evidence… Even the woolly minded herds are reading between these 20 plus year old lines. I hope and pray that this sweet doctor will have come to pass whatever he dreams about and hopes for.
Janet • Sep 28, 2017 at 6:46 pm
We need to let the film speak for itself and give people enough credit to decide if Andrew Wakefield appears credible or not. It’s a well known fact that the media is being censored these days. People need to really dig hard to find the truth and not allow corrupt organizations and companies, that have a conflict of interest or an agenda, to cloud and influence their thinking.
WarriorMama • Sep 28, 2017 at 6:37 pm
‘…but he has been censored and had his platform removed for a reason: giving him a platform to talk allows him to forward his ideas, and some people will buy into them. By neither challenging nor taking a stand against Wakefield, the filmmakers paint an excessively sympathetic picture of him.’
So, in typical college student fashion, you favor NOT allowing him to tell his side because he’s been…’censored for a reason’. I’m wondering if you’re aware that doctors all over the world–many in this country are being ‘censored’ for daring to speak the truth. I’m wondering if you know about CDC scientist William Thompson, who destroyed data showing a 300% increase in autism after the MMR vaccine in black boys. He’s been given whistleblower status and congress has yet to question him. Maybe, like you, they don’t want to know the truth.
Good luck. These days your granny’s journalism just ain’t done anymore.
Maurine Meleck • Sep 28, 2017 at 6:24 pm
If you want to read a totally biased and non-intellectual review of this documentary, then You’ve come to the right place. There is absolutely nothing in this review that hasn’t been stated a million times in every media format in this country. Vaccines are safe, vaccines save lives. Wakefield is a fraud. The numbers being 1 in 28 boys in this country with autism all comes down to better diagnosing. Prior to the 1990’s all doctors were idiots. Then by some magic wand-they all became brilliant and able to diagnose children with autism. If you buy that then I’ve got a whole fake media to sell you.
Maurine Meleck, Ponte Vedra Beach, Fl.
Jake Crosby • Sep 28, 2017 at 5:46 pm
“The film frames him as a man wronged for trying to investigate a vital public health concern that no one else was studying.”
-I’ve not seen the documentary, but that’s exactly what happened to him.
Dorit Reiss • Sep 28, 2017 at 5:41 pm
Thank you, this is very helpful. I’m going to watch the movie because I’m a vaccine advocate and I want to understand this man, who did so much damage to public health and children. It helps to know what to expect.
Patricia pratt • Sep 28, 2017 at 4:29 pm
This reviewer is talking from a position of complete misinformation. He has bought into the Pharma manipulated picture of Wakefield, backed up by a non scientific non medical journalist, Brian Deer, who dictated to the Peer reviewers at the renowned British Medical Journal , his so called ‘exposure’ of a ‘medical fraud’ committed by Andrew Wakefield re. the MMR vaccine and its effect upon some children.. Fiona Godlee the editor of the BMJ, whose own slant on the story was driven by her conviction that there existed in the NHS hospitals and the Universities of the UK in the late 1990’s an ethos of massive fraud. Andrew Wakefield was targeted by Deer and backed up by Godlee as an example of such nefarious goings on in Hospitals at the time. It was pure invention, which was shown to be so by the deposition of Jane Smith under cross examination during the initial discovery process of Wakefield’s attempt to sue both the BMJ and Brian Deer in Texas for defamation.. The transcription of the deposition of Jane Smith at this discovery process exposes the BMJ’s fraudulent attempt to defame Wakefield, which Godlee later admitted. http://www.rescuepost.com/files/ex-c-bmj-smith-depo.pdf
Tarran • Sep 28, 2017 at 2:31 pm
You don’t even have the basic facts about this story.
““The Pathological Optimist” follows the five-year journey of Andrew Wakefield, a former doctor whose medical license was revoked when it was found that he distorted data when conducting work on linking vaccines to autism.” LIE…There were 12 other authors on the Lancet study, but Dr. Wakefield was targeted and vilified by the medical community and journalists because he had joined the litigation against and spoke out about the pharmaceutical manufactures.
The actual published summary of the Lancet study is as follows:
“We identified associated gastrointestinal disease and developmental regression in a group of previously normal children, which was generally associated in time with possible environmental triggers.”
Brian Deer, the freelance journalist, wrote for The Sunday Paper, the British paper published by James Murdoch, who was then on the board of GlaxoSmithKline (manufacturer of the MMR vaccine), no conflict of interest there! This review is nothing but re-hashed lies and misinformation, nice try though, (but not really).
Tracy • Sep 28, 2017 at 1:37 pm
Although I have no problem with someone not agreeing with another view points, I do wish that people who publically speak out on topics would actual get the facts straight before doing so. Clearly this review includes mainstream talking points while leaving out very important facts about Wakefield, as well as acknowledging that vaccine injury is a very real and tragic thing which needs to be known, not suppressed from the public. The courts have paid out almost 4 billion dollars is vaccine court for injury and death. The vaccine inserts themselves say the possible side affects, which ironically include chronic health issues that we see today, also, wakefields work has been replicated at least a hundred times by independent scientists. So, please research this topic further so you can further understand the reality of the situation to not only help to write knowledge reviews, but also so you can make informed decisions about your own healthcare.