15 thoughts on “The Truth Barrier: A Short, Devastating Film”

    1. Bryce Crousore
      Name calling?
      Have you any idea or understanding what being a writer or research journalist means?

      It would seem not.

      1. You are a special kind of stupid. A butcher with so much hate and rage, he leaves a .25″ cut in the C3 vertebrae, not to mention over a dozen slashes to Ron, including taunting and tormenting him with many pokes to the face, then hires a scumbag piece of shit right out of Amos ‘n’ Andy who equates this to Hitler, and a little star-struck fame ho pathetic excuse of a contributor to the ESPN doc says she’s romanced in his presence? Ya…writer, alright.

        Good luck to you and your ignorance.

      2. By the way, Daryl: I wonder what this little fame ho groupie’s Jewish relatives feel about her being romanced in the presence of a butcher who hires a clown who equates all of this gore to Hitler?

  1. It’s not hard to understand why someone might believe that this man had been convicted and gone to prison. After all, he was labeled as a fraud by the BMJ. And he has utterly failed to follow through on his claims that he was being defamed.

    Does “Truth Barrier” mean that this site intends to actively block any information that is actually true?

    1. Dear Arbiter of Truth,

      Let’s not miss this golden opportunity to get to the bottom of this.

      I posted a video clip in which Andrew Wakefield corrects a media outlet for publishing a person stating erroneously that he is a “criminal” and has been in prison.

      You come back with: “It’s not hard to believe why someone might believe that this man had been convicted and gone to prison. After all, he was labeled as a fraud by the BMJ. And he has utterly failed to follow through on claims that he was being defamed.”

      Then you wonder if we block information that is actually true, here.

      1. When you say it is “not hard to believe” something that is categorically untrue and a grave libel, (Andrew Wakefield is a criminal, has been in prison) you are saying that you don’t find it “hard” to believe things that are not true–not part of the documented record. So far: You have established that you have sympathy for people who say things that are slanderous and untrue. Why? Because it’s “not hard.”

      2. To your point, that Andrew Wakefield was “labeled a fraud,” by the BMJ, before I address it, I want to ask you: William Thompson, PhD, CDC, has “labeled” the entire CDC epidemiological division corrupt and fraudulent, in his recorded statements to Brian Hooker, PhD, documented in Vaxxed: From Coverup to Catastrophe.

      Have you seen the film?

      1. Heres the thing: When the BMJ labeled Wakefield as a fraud, it was based on numerous verifiable facts about what he had done. I believe that there were around 36 separate charges proven by the General Medical Council when they stripped away his license.
        On the other hand, we have no ‘proof’, i.e. direct statements from William Thompson about what he believes about the CDC. By the way, isn’t he is still employed there? No, all we have in the film is surreptitiously made audio recordings spliced together to tell whatever story the filmmakers want. Nor do we have any actual evidence from Thompson to back up a belief that the CDC epidemiological division is “corrupt and fraudulent”.
        For charlatans, the nice thing about filmmaking is that there is no peer review process. You can create whatever you want to put up on the screen to tell whatever story you want. Contrary to the way science works.
        And at the end of the day, the film is just a story. It will never be “truth”.

        1. By the way, you changed my words when you quoted me in your answer above. I guess that was so you could frame things differently in your reply.
          Is that how “truth” works?

            1. Really, Celia. It is as plain as day.

              What I said above was “It’s not hard to *understand* why someone might believe . . .”, making the point that if someone (like the woman interviewed by the TV station) knew part of the story (about Wakefield’s previous fraudulent activities) that it would be easy for THEM to believe he had also gone to prison. I said nothing to indicate that I myself believes this.

              Instead, you quote me as having said “It’s not hard to *believe* why someone might believe . . .”, and then go on to comment on my readiness to believe things that aren’t true. Completely missing the point that I made, and sidestepping the issue that despite never having gone to jail, the man does have an unsavory past.

              Changing words or selectively editing a quote from someone in order to twist the meaning of what they said strikes me as being patently dishonest.

              Are you dishonest in your writings, Celia?

            2. And by the way, that technique of selectively quoting was also put to use in the film. Sure, they played William Thompson’s voice saying things, but the phone calls were recorded without his knowledge and the snippets that were used are highly lacking in context (meaning without the words that preceded or followed) and in some places there is an appearance that statements were spliced together.

              The answer to this, of course, would be to release all of the recordings that Hooker made, so the public can judge what Thompson actually said and meant by his words. Using them the way they were in this film is just dishonest.

            3. Arbiter o’Truth, you excused a media outlet for unscrupulous conduct on the basis that “it’s not hard to believe” a lie, then you dismissed material in a documentary you haven’t seen for the absence of a “peer review process”. As such your responses to Ms Farber show a desperate twisting to fit your demonstrable ignorance of the Wakefield case.

            4. Oh, my, what a stinging rebuke. (Not!)
              You claim I “excused a media outlet” when I made no comment at all about the station’s conduct. You label their actions as “unscrupulous” when they removed the interview segment immediately after investigation of Andy’s request. That strikes me as being scrupulous, not the opposite.
              You claim I haven’t seen a particular film – without any knowledge whether I have or haven’t. (By the way, it is not a documentary)
              You claim I dismissed it for lack of a peer review process. What I pointed out was that no peer review process gives the film-makers latitude to distribute their work without any check on what they make claims about. I then pointed out how deception was used in this particular film. Have you any answer for that?
              Finally, you claim I have “demonstrable ignorance of the Wakefield case”. I think what you really mean is that I know too much about him, and are not willing to simply swallow his own self-serving claims and ignore all other evidence that is inconvenient.
              Really looks like you are the one desparately twisting the truth.

  2. Celia,
    I can’t view Youtube videos and can’t figure out what the problem is. Has anyone else reported this problem?

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.