Review of Vaxxed: From Cover-Up to Catastrophe (2016) by Melanie A — 05 Sep 2016

This is not an anti-vaccine documentary. It is *pro* safe vaccines.

In it you will hear Dr. William Thompson, one of the lead CDC scientists on the MMR vaccine studies, telling how the CDC has lied about the safety of this vaccine. He has the documents to prove it.. Thompson had a major role in collecting, analyzing and presenting the data.

You will see Dr, Luc Montagnier, a virologist who won the Nobel Prize for his contribution to the discovery of the AIDS virus. Dr. Montagnier expresses his dismay about the information the CDC has hidden regarding the vaccine-autism interaction.

You will see doctors presented with the documents which verify this fraud and you will see how it affects them.

It is significant that the CDC scientists who were responsible for this study have, as they say, "lawyered up." The CDC is guilty of destruction of documents, deviation from their analysis plan, misleading congress, omission of critical data, obstruction of justice.

The scientist who was Head of the CDC at the time, and apparently complicit, has now left the CDC and is the head of Merck's Vaccine Division. Merck must have appreciated the work she did at the CDC. Merck produces the MMR vaccine.

A new government survey of parents suggests that 1 in 45 children, ages 3 through 17, have been diagnosed with autism spectrum disorder (ASD). The trend is upward with the prediction that, if nothing changes, by 2032, 50% of all children (80% of all boys) will be diagnosed with austism.

Doctors try to do the right thing but how can they when they are being lied to by the very scientific body that provides them information?

Did you believe our government when it told you Iraq had "weapons of mass destruction?" You know better now, don't you? The government is lying to you again. Take the time to inform yourself. I guarantee you that you will be amazed. By the way, notice the inexplicable difference in the audience scores and the critics' scores. Who do you think pays for the advertising for the publications/companies who pay the critics? Think there is a deliberate bias there? Of course you do.