despicable message, what we're supposed to understand - Contagion (2011) Discussion

[–] Dejay 12 years ago

Blogging is just graffiti with punctuation =)

Interesting point. I don't think that was the intent of the movie, but alternative media do mean a loss of power / control for establishment. And Jude Law was awesome as the evil blogger from hell abusing this power.

In reality, alternative media might confuse / mislead a few people, but it would even out in the "blogosphere" (Also wonderful that they used that doushy word).

I'm trying to think of a scenario where blogs etc could be bad, or worse than the systematic propaganda of huge news agencies that are only profit oriented and are depending on selling advertisement space. But I can't think of any. (Even Jude Laws character's blog is a positive example of evolution at work lol)

So while I liked the movie, it does propagate the idea (neme) of alternative media being irrational and harmful, which is ironically irrational and harmful itself.

reply

[–] Defenseman13 12 years ago

Wow. Really?

You may not trust everything that the media says, or the "distrust" in the CDC etc... but they are DOCTORS AND SCIENTISTS.

ANy slack jawed yokel can blog or put up a website and spread erroneous information.

Sorry that you're so offended, but that's how things work. GO LOOK UP JENNY MCCARTHY BODY COUNT... HER LIES AND HYPE ABOUT VACCINATIONS ARE VERY SIMILAR TO WHAT JUDE LAW DID. Sorry, caps lock went on and I'm not erasing.

Seriously though, the point of this movie wasn't about knocking alternative media sources. It was a fairly accurate depiction of what would happen. Also, the "media" in the movie was mostly just local affiliates, which are fairly credible (if not ratings driven). I've worked in news for ten years, I know. Now had they portrayed Fox News (and there were politics involved), that would be different.

But again, this is just a movie.

http://us.imdb.com/name/nm2339870/

reply

[–] aeternus_proeliator 12 years ago

"... but they are DOCTORS AND SCIENTISTS."

Ahem. DOCTORS and SCIENTISTS that were deliberately lying to the population, causing countless deaths.

Hell, they CHOSE to not give the vaccine samples (something they are more than capable of affording) to China or, presumably, other "lesser" nations.

They chose to deliberately cause hundreds of millions of deaths across the world.

And this isn't including the deliberate *beep* they spewed in trying to keep possible effective vaccines secret or claim funding or get awards for their progress. Millions were dying and they cared about their personal political standing.

These aren't hype. People were dying off in the MILLIONS, just in the United States. It's an actual situation.

reply

[–] move_over_fatso 11 years ago

In what instances did the CDCs "lies" or omissions actually caused a death?

The companies making the vaccine were not "withholding" vaccine from China or "lesser" nations. It was just that there wasn't enough manufacturing capacity to make it available to everyone at once. Also, the impression I got was that the technical details of the cure were open. The knowledge doesn't do any good if you don't have a huge, modern vaccine factory.

reply

[–] mvksmall 11 years ago

The placebo vaccines given to the small village were given by the CHINESE government from Chinese manufacturers, who wanted to discourage copycat kidnappings. Watch the film again and get it straight.

reply

[–] camel-wides 11 years ago

they were not withholding... you can not withhold something you do not have.
the chinese man said there were rumors this was going to happen, but it never said it happend.

when the chinese government gave the village the placebo vaccine, it was because they were not looking forward to more kidnappings of that nature. the spelled that out rather clearly.

reply

[–] ccr1633 (1426) 6 years ago

"when the chinese government gave the village the placebo vaccine, it was because they were not looking forward to more kidnappings of that nature. the spelled that out rather clearly."

The film didn't indicate whether the kidnappers were told they were given a placebo, or whether this was announced by the Chinese government to media sources. How then could this strategy have possibly been an effective deterrent? Even if they did make such an announcement, subsequent kidnappers would've upped the ante and demanded some sort of verification that they were given legitimate vaccine. Nothing about this made any sense.

reply

[–] NotThereYetBuddy 11 years ago

?????

They DONT have to do ANYTHING AT ALL.

You're implying they effortlessly allowed millions to die while, in actuality, saving billions. How do you tarnish their humanity while purposely undermining their conspicuous triumph???

Not causing the EASILY ACCESSIBLE, DELICATE human emotion of PANIC is so aweful?? They informed the public about the seriousness of the disease and how to protect themself. That's quite a bit of information-- not too little to warrant being labeled a murderer.

I think they gave enough information in the movie. They should've elevated the seriousness of the virus as soon as they figured it out, yes.

Have you heard of something called MOB MENTALITY???

I'D TRUST DOCTORS AND SCIENTISTS OVER A RANDOM MOUTH ON THE INTERNET, EVERY DAY. He wasnt even infected in the first place!! LOL

PEOPLE WORSHIP THESE CONSPIRACY THEORISTS AS IF THE DONT HAVE AGENDAS OF THEY OWN!!!!

reply

[–] mark-hansen11 10 years ago

Their vaccine supply wasn't unlimited from day one. They're not holding anything back, they're getting as much as they can out there as fast as they can.

They didn't choose to cause millions of deaths, in fact, they prevented it. They found the god damned cure. What movie were you even watching? Certainly can't have been this one.

Keeping possible effective vaccines secret. That part is true. Key word: POSSIBLE. You can't just throw out random potions into society and say "This may heal you, do nothing or kill you. But feel free to try it." That's almost paramount to biological warfare.

Hell, even the DOCTORS AND SCIENTISTS that you say were horrible people in this movie? It's because a scientist broke the rules they even found a cure that fast. Human trials can take a long time to be approved, so instead of waiting the ~90 days (I think was said in the movie), she put her own life on the *beep* line to get it done ASAP. Yeah, she talked with her father about another scientist doing it who ended up getting a Nobel prize, but that wasn't her motivation for doing it.

So finally, I only have one question for you. Are you inbred or just plain dumb?

reply

[–] lythandrel 12 years ago

The problem is that the CDC is often forced to withhold information, often under orders from the US government, much to the employees dismay. Just because they're doctors and scientists doesn't make them immune from governmental control. When the government finally tells them they can release the information, things end up reaching a pandemic situation instead of just a local epidemic.

When they do release information, it causes a panic. Look at what happened with AIDS, and H1N1. SARS was another one that people panicked over.

reply

[–] P-K-One 11 years ago

You may not trust everything that the media says, or the "distrust" in the CDC etc... but they are DOCTORS AND SCIENTISTS.

Look, all respect to the doctors and scientists but...

I am thinking about the swine flu pandemic. Do you remember all the panic that caused along with the 14000 (fatality rate: 0.03%) or so deaths worldwide?

Every run of the mill flu season kills a 4 digit number of people. Usually old people and small children but every year if you care to look you'll find that the flu kills several thousand people world wide every year.

So what was so dangerous about swine flu that it had to trigger a pandemic warning by the WHO? I can't be the only one to suspect that this was political. You know, trigger a little panic to remind people that you are still there just so the funding doesn't dry up...

reply

[–] patrick-413 11 years ago

Wait... So you're saying that when the CDC is successful, that's a bad thing? They overreacted to the swine flu and that helped keep it in check. Maybe it wasn't as virulent as they fears, but I'd rather have ten overreactions than one under-reaction. A potential pandemic is WORTH overreacting to. Look up the 1918 Spanish Flu pandemic and tell me the flu isn't dangerous. At least 30 million dead.

reply

[–] fillshertease 11 years ago

Let me guess; you're one of those people who thinks Y2K was a scam too??? In the end Y2K didn't cause any major problems because hundreds of thousands of people spent enormous amounts of time, effort and money to make sure that it didn't cause any major problems. Since then though people have continually claimed that all the warnings were an overreaction. The point being that if it hadn't been for all the warnings, and the fact that the warnings were taken very seriously and acted upon, then Y2K WOULD have been a complete disaster...

It's the same thing here and your logic is backwards. You're taking the fact that the swine flu didn't turn into a pandemic and concluding that the warnings were therefore wrong, rather than taking the fact that there were warnings and concluding that there wasn't a pandemic as a result of people responding to them.

:-)

reply

[–] Archeoterrex 12 years ago

I liked how the blogger was the villain this time. How many times do we have to listen to conspiracy theory nutcases? How often are they actually right? How often are they actually honest? Only in movies are conspiracy theorists right. This movie is pretty spot on when it comes to reality.

reply

[–] nell-nell 12 years ago

Alternative media do not propagate conspiracy theories. To label all bloggers as conspiracy theorists is shamefully out of date. Many internet users act as reporters and analysts. You can certainly compare them to professional journalists in a number of ways.

Firstly, Protagonists of alternative media do not have any hierarchy, answer to no one, and thus do not let anybody meddle with the type of material they “broadcast.”

Secondly, they’re more focused on what they do because usually they report about things that happen where they’re based. They do not have to travel, find a hotel, prospect, try to know the place.

Thirdly, the fact that they’re on nobody’s payroll proves two things. One, that they’re not controlled by anybody. Two, they play the journalist because they love to do that. Now, one can argue that you can be passionate about your job, that you can love your job. But at the end of the day it is a job, and a job is uncomparable to a passion.

Fourthly, with alternative media, there is a real sense of interactivity. Again, one can say that big news channels permit some form of dialogue with their viewers. Viewers are invited to suggest things, comment on programmes and interacts in some ways. However, it remains all too superficial and not taken very seriously. With alternative media, it is very clear that interactivity is very much more tangible.

I wrote before that with alternative media internet users become pretty much like reporters and analysts. I think that the reporting part is much more interesting than the analysing part. It’s closer to honesty and further from the patronising role big media corporations are known for.

reply

[–] Archeoterrex 12 years ago

That's all nice, but at the end of the day the one thing that matters the most is evidence. Most of these bloggers are just columnists giving their opinions on issues and cherry picking evidence to support their preconceived conclusions.

I'm not saying mainstream media is perfect, far from it, and they can be biased too especially when it comes to matters that may conflict with the interests of America, but they have more resources at their disposal.

reply

[–] caromeo 12 years ago

You're making the assumption that they're entirely truthful about everything all of the time. The truth is, when money is backing anything, an agenda is possible and quite probable. It has nothing to do with conspiracies, and if you really believe it does, you don't live in the real world.

The beauty of the internet is you'll find a lot of information (including studies) which you yourself can peruse as much as you want and then you, not the media, pharmaceutical companies, or your family doctor, can decide what to believe. Studies aren't written in Latin. Any layperson can read and understand them.

The majority of intelligent people I know on the internet don't read blogs. They do their own research and make up their own minds. There's nothing like the power of knowledge.

reply

[–] Mihos 12 years ago

Studies aren't written in Latin. Any layperson can read and understand them.

I took a college course in psychological research methods and one in statistical methods. I have enough of an understanding to separate clear-cut evidence from bs. I do not have enough understanding to tease real information from more ambiguous studies. And I certainly do not have the expertise to properly interpret an epidemiological study. If you don't have a degree in a related discipline, neither do you.

reply

[–] mathmaniac 11 years ago

Reading a blog is different from using the internet for researching from primary sources.

I recently read a blog writer who wrote that you shouldn't have flu shots. Pretty amazing... he's actually a doctor. Wonder if he's seen this movie.

reply

[–] walkenschvitzen 10 years ago

Archeoterrex writes:

I'm not saying mainstream media is perfect, far from it, and they can be biased too especially when it comes to matters that may conflict with the interests of America, but they have more resources at their disposal.

And then you say:

You're making the assumption that they're entirely truthful about everything all of the time.

Wut.

reply

[–] aeternus_proeliator 12 years ago

MOST bloggers have a *beep* of evidence. A small portion they might personally provide but the vast majority of it is from other sources, collected and analysed.

They might slant their opinions on the subject at hand after that but they tend to provide remarkable evidence gathering and compiling.

It's most "bloggers" (ie internet based sites, not just blogs) that reveal the atrocities by Israel and provide the evidence when Israel releases official statements that contradict the publicly available reports, photographs and documents they chose to leave out of their articles.

reply

[–] balducci2 12 years ago

"Alternative media do not propagate conspiracy theories. To label all bloggers as conspiracy theorists is shamefully out of date. Many internet users act as reporters and analysts. You can certainly compare them to professional journalists in a number of ways."

Many of the alternative media absolutely DO propagate conspiracy theories. If you disagree, then I must conclude that you have been very fortunate to have avoided those sites. Believe me, they do exist.

And the proportion of alternative media sites that propagate conspiracy theories is FAR higher than one would ever find at traditional, professional news sites.

reply

[–] pater-tenebrarum 8 years ago

You're not wrong, but you mustn't forget that on controversial topics, the State and the establishment media also propagate "conspiracy theories" - just different ones. And often we later learn that the government actually lied (usually at a time when most of those responsible are long retired or dead).
By the way, it is quite interesting where the term "conspiracy theory" originated. It was actually invented by the CIA, for the express purpose of denigrating its critics when it came under fire for its methods some 40 years or so ago.

reply

[–] jwjordan100 11 years ago

Where exactly do you think most bloggers get their information? Most don't do any actual reporting themselves. They recycle the work of reporters who have the resources to actually chase a story and get the facts -- but they recycle it after putting it through their own spin cycle. You talk about bloggers not being beholden to anyone and that's true so long as they aren't actually trying to earn any money at it. But how large of a percentage of the blogosphere does that represent? If they want to monetize their blog, they need to SELL what they write and with all the crap that's floating around out there, it's the most outrageous stuff that gets snapped up because it breaks through the clutter. And because the bloggers are "independent contractors" the outlets that republish their work can always claim immunity from criticism when it turns out to be a load of crap because "they didn't write it." Look, you're free to hold whatever opinion you want about the dasterdly "mainstream media" but once you and your friends manage to run them out of business, good luck finding any decent news anywhere. Without the resources of professional news gathering organizations, we'll be subjected to nothing but the petty, parochial rantings of a bunch of people locked in their rooms with highspeed internet access.

reply

[–] fuzzykids 10 years ago

In the case of the movie, the blogger made over 4 mil dollars. I would say he had a bigger financial gain than most people working in a media job.

In reality you have alternate media that is trying to be truthful and you have that are just plain full of it. You also have everything in-between. As the reader it is up to you to figure out if it's based on reality. the alternate medias may also have a financial gain, even tho they do not have an employer. They may ask for donations, have ads or be selling a product. Not having an employer does not make someone only doing it from the goodness of their heart.

All media has an agenda. Some may try to be non-partial and truthful as they can, but they will still have an agenda and be swayed one way or the other themselves.

reply

[–] d_henderson1810 10 years ago

Alternative media can have agendas like anyone. How do you know that EVERY alternative blogger does not have an agenda.

I bet if a blogger wrote something that you did NOT agree with, you would accuse them of being influenced. Only when a blogger writes what YOU agree with, are they not influnced by anyone.

The fact is, bloggers or internet journos are driven by what most are driven by, a God complex. Being able to get people to listen to what you have to say, right or wrong.

The difference is, bloggers are unaccountable, and can suffer no consequences if their information is wrong. If the blogger in the movie told people not to take vaccine, and people died as a result, who would he answer to? Would he feel guilt for getting it wrong, or blame everyone else, like narcissists like the Jude Law character were.

If the OP is so gullible, maybe you also believe in overseas lottery wins you never entered, inheritance from relatives from Africa you never met, or Nigerian e-mails asking for money. It's people like you who are gullible, not everyone else.

reply

[–] jmtrc 12 years ago

Some conspiracy theories are right - it's just a question of which. If there were no conspiracies happening now then it would be an aberration, because conspiracies have been taking place all throughout history.

http://tinyurl.com/7n2og4u

reply

[–] odshooter22 12 years ago

A few short decades ago, if someone said the government would have drones flying over our country, and that we'd all have to stand in line, take off our shoes and belts, and walk through x-ray machines or be patted down to get on a flight, he would have been called a crazy conspiracy theorist.

reply

[–] sugar92 12 years ago

That's not conspiracy theory! That's called Forecasting & envisioning the future! That's a ridiculous comparison and makes no sense to elevate bloggers to that level of capability!

reply

[–] bobsci_bel 12 years ago

well said. Another well informed aware person.

reply

[–] Nova_UB313 12 years ago

I liked how the blogger was the villain this time. How many times do we have to listen to conspiracy theory nutcases? How often are they actually right? How often are they actually honest? Only in movies are conspiracy theorists right. This movie is pretty spot on when it comes to reality.

Strong agreement.

More science, less fiction.

I'm guilty of 'Z.' http://tinyurl.com/38ljacy

reply

[–] Vincen7 11 years ago

How often is the government right ? How often are they actually honest ?.. I can ask you the same question, so don't be ridiculous, kid.. you live in a fantasy world if you believe everything that is fed to you by the government, the media etc.. people with a bit of sense and knowledge who can think for themselves, they know that most of the time you can't trust the official sources, no matter how uncomfortable or bleak that may be

reply

[–] FryHigh 11 years ago

What kind of a garbage reality do you live in? Big media won't report on things not in the corporate interest. The world-wide march against Monsanto pretty much proved it. If you've been watching the regular news channels, you probably never heard of it. Even though people were watching probably a few blocks away from your house.

The only reality it portray is how the government views anyone who doesn't tow the party line.

reply

[–] Tippy_Cup 12 years ago

Jude Law's character proposed that the vaccines may cause Autism, something we know is absolutely false. Anti vaxxers are some of the most dangerous people alive in the first world today, their willful ignorance is undoing our herd immunity science has worked so hard to achieve for many diseases that centuries ago killed by the hundreds of thousands.

------------------------
Vote History
http://www.imdb.com/mymovies/list?l=37466876

reply

[–] caromeo 12 years ago

Herd immunity, as the term was first coined, pertained to natural immunity which vaccines do not create. Antibodies do not equal immunity. Furthermore, the vast majority of adults are not vaccinated and even doctors will admit that antibodies created by vaccines won't last forever. In fact, they don't even last a decade. Last I checked the census, minors accounted for less than 10% of the population. So even if all minors were vaccinated, the idea that a vaccine form of 'herd immunity' even exists at such a small percentage is laughable at best. A little common sense and math is all it takes to realize it's nothing but a fear tactic.

I grew up in a third world country when only one vaccine was available until I was nine. One more was added at that time. My cousins got several childhood diseases as did many other children. My mother was dumb enough to be afraid of the diseases, so I was unlucky to be kept away from anyone who was sick. I never heard of anyone dying from the diseases. Nothing like that ever made the news, so I doubt anyone anywhere did. I had an old family member who had polio as a child. I don't know if anyone else in his large immediate family got it because none were symptomatic--polio is only symptomatic in 5% of cases--but he obviously survived it and lived into his early 80s when he died of cancer. He wore a platform shoe to make up for the difference between his legs and was otherwise fine. I never knew of anyone else who had polio. My mother didn't know of anyone else either, and she's almost 60.

So you can continue to be fearful and call people like me who think vaccines are a joke dangerous, but you might consider doing some serious research instead of believing every anti-vaccine article you come across without using some brain matter to decipher what is or isn't nonsense.

reply

[–] Rabid_Si 12 years ago

You ARE an idiot. Your ideas ARE dangerous.

Herd immunity pertains to a SIGNIFICANT reduction in the ability of an infection to spread when a threshold for population wide vaccination is reached.

The movie touched on the subject of an infection's ability to spread being dependent on factors like incubation and latency periods. What a sufficient vaccination percentage achieves is that these can be greatly reduced and managed, slowing the spread and outright breaking the chain of an infection to a point that confers a further, also significant reduction in infection likelihood for the much smaller subset of a population that either have not or cannot benefit from direct immunity through vaccines.

It's clear that you don't have a clue what you are talking about.

Of course, feel free to explain why the introduction of vaccines for endemic contagious diseases in the early 20th century and their practical eradication go hand in hand. It would be... enlightening... Just to know what kind of crap you can cook up for us.

As for your wonderfully anecdotal example of the effects of Polio, read:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polio#Prognosis
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polio#Epidemiology

Then kindly shut the f- up.

People, like you, who insist on spreading this misinformation and conspiracy bull are a fecking plague.

reply

[–] InglouriousSister 12 years ago

I don't know where you live, cause you said you spent your childhood in a third world country, but have moved since?

Anyways, in my country, we still get vaccinated into adulthood for those diseases that need reinforcement shots. I'm in my early to mid-20s and just got another tetanus shot three years ago. Granted, sometimes our governments over-react (about 90% of my generation got swine flu shots that may or may not have helped at all, and caused a s*it load of narcolepsy in children) but stuff like small pox and polio HAVE disappeared from the "Western world" because of vaccines. Not to even mention leprosy. These diseases will come back if people buy into the tin foil hat theories about the evil corporations and their world wide agenda to make money out of people's illnesses.

I just watched this movie and I think it portrayed the shades of grey quite well. The conspiracy theories are definitely NOT always correct. Pharmaceutical companies do exist to make money, but condemning all modern medicine is quite frankly BS. Look at all the progress medicine has made in 50 years. Some decades ago breast cancer killed everyone who got it. Nowadays in my country 95% live through it. I've known dozens of people who've gotten it and only one died, and she was my great-grandmother who was 96 at the time and thus wasn't fit to go through the treatments. Everyone in my immediate family who has died has died of alcohol- or smoking-induced cancers, so they're to blame themselves. They would probably still be alive with reasonable living habits.

#3seasonsandathankyou

reply

[–] Mihos 12 years ago

I'm not sure what point you're trying to make with what you say about polio. Combining the fact that only 5-10% of cases are symptomatic with the fact that the 1952 outbreak was the worst epidemic in US history shows that it's highly contagious and spreads very efficiently. The fact that polio is virtually wiped out in the US shows that the vaccine campaign was extremely successful. If you were trying to prove vaccines don't work, you picked just about the worst example you could've.

As for it not being a serious disease, I have a relative who contracted it in the late 1940s. She spent her childhood in a wheelchair. She had 6 operations to finally get her legs to work, but will probably end up back in a wheelchair because she's getting worse. Try reading about Post-Polio Syndrome.

reply

[–] bhaney-610-77755 11 years ago

Worst example for why vaccines dont work but not the worst example for how vaccinations can go bad. Dont get me wrong, the third world guy, a few posts up, is an idiot. But there is some evidence that oral polio vaccines in Africa caused the first outbreaks of HIV and AIDS. Like they mention in Contagion, live polio virus, infected monkey, some organ from the infected monkey, its liver usually, (I think) is processed into the vaccine. If they monkey is infected with some sort of other virus, in this case HIV / AIDS, it could be passed on. I'm sure one of the above posters knows more about this than I do. On a lighter note, anyone hear Larry David's bit about Jonas Salk's Jewish mother, from the original "Curb" HBO Special? Classic. "Oh your Evan is a lawyer? My Jonas CURED POLIO!"

reply

[–] bhaney-610-77755 11 years ago

Or infected Chimpanzee more specifically.

reply

[–] cthulhulurks 11 years ago

AFAIU a vaccine is an engineered non-fatal form of the original virus that allows the recipient to learn to produce anti-bodies that would hopefully fight off the original virus if he happens to be infected.

If there's anyone here who can add technical details to my explanation, pls do so.

my vote history:
http://www.imdb.com/user/ur13767631/ratings

reply

[–] DerrrrDerp 10 years ago

You're spot on. All of the conspiracy theorists need to talk to polio victims, at least. There's also medications for their delusions heh.

My grandma contracted polio and spent 50 years in a wheel chair, if this disease comes back Jenny McCarthy needs to be criminally charged. As do the bloggers perpetuating this crap.

reply

[–] escalatorqueen 12 years ago

How fortunate for your family member to have survived polio with so few problems. My grandmother also had polio as a child... she is currently living in agony as her spine crumbles away due to degenerative disc disease, which is one of the late effects of polio. So, I think I'll stick with my vaccines, thanks.

reply

[–] ManFromSanFernando 11 years ago

"My grandmother also had polio as a child... she is currently living in agony as her spine crumbles away due to degenerative disc disease, which is one of the late effects of polio. So, I think I'll stick with my vaccines, thanks."

How do you know Alzheimer's isn't the late effects of one the widespread vaccinations done against polio?
Why wasn't Alzheimer's apparent before vaccinations became a common solution for disease by Western medicine. There is more old people today, true, but why is Alzheimer's only apparent in 1st world countries where people were given far more vaccinations than 3rd world?

The human body is best treated with low stress, holistic medicine. Vaccination is by definition high stress because it makes your body sick in order to create health. The most holidtic solution woud be if more people got better exercise and had better diets and therefore had healthy immune systems.

reply

[–] 11 years ago

[deleted]

[–] cthulhulurks 11 years ago

Holistic medicine is totally unreliable. It's best to stick with scientific medicine.

my vote history:
http://www.imdb.com/user/ur13767631/ratings

reply

[–] cermwolf 12 years ago

Hey Tippy Cup..
It has now been proven That Autism is 100% caused by vaccines.
Do your research before you lie to the public.

The amish are the ONLY people who have 0% autism and they TAKE NO vaccines

The military has the Highest percentage 1 in 40 kids! wow they take AL their shots like good slaves do.

I have 3 friend with autistic children and all 3 know it was the shots that caused it.
They lied for years there was NO mercury in the shot, then after years of denile the govt said well its in the vaccine but its harmless!
lies

infowars.com

reply

[–] Dejay 12 years ago

Well, your post is kind of ironic :D
A thread discussing the wrongful depiction of alternative media as dangerous and you are posting something obviously wrong about vaccines that save MILLION of lives. I'm sorry about your 3 friends, but they do not know it was caused by vaccines. Your claim would require that doctors in general are idiots or negligent - and they are not.

http://lmgtfy.com/?q=Autism+caused+by+vaccines

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MMR_vaccine_controversy

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2012/04/02/trump-warns-fox-news-viewers-aut ism-caused-by-vaccines/

Nearly 20 studies in recent years — including one from the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) — have found no link between autism and vaccines. In fact, the CDC found that children who developed autism spectrum disorder had less exposure to vaccines that contained mercury.
Source: Raw Story (http://s.tt/1d7H1)

reply

[–] stentor7 12 years ago

Uh, cermwolf, you're full of $hit You make a claim, but post no link to any sort of proof of what you're saying. Meanwhile, there is no data to support a vaccine-autism link, none whatsoever. Want proof? Here's a link, from a respected autism science foundation:

http://www.autismsciencefoundation.org/autismandvaccines.html

Meanwhile, the plural of anecdote is not data. They may know where they live, or where their kids go to school, or what they had for lunch the previous day, but there is no way that they can 'know' that the shots caused it. That is confusing correlation with causation, a common logical fallacy. Want more proof? Here's a link to another article:

http://www.webmd.com/brain/autism/news/20100913/cdc-study-shows-no-vaccine-autism-link

"Exposure to thimerosal-containing vaccines in infancy or in the womb is not associated with an increased risk for developing autism, according to a new study from the CDC.
Children in the study who developed autism spectrum disorder (ASD) actually had less exposure to vaccines with the mercury-containing preservative than children who developed normally.
The study is the latest of almost 20 studies to find no link between childhood vaccinations and autism.
It comes seven months after the first study that linked vaccines and autism -- conducted 12 years ago -- was retracted by the journal The Lancet. The U.K. doctor who published the study was banned from practicing medicine."

But then again, this is old news, but you're still parroting the anti-vax party line, which means you're nothing more than an anti-science crackpot, one of many who troll the infowars website. The whole lot of you doesn't add up to the IQ of one of the scientists who study infectious diseases, you're all a bunch of morons, & I'll state what others have already said, your ideas are dangerous.

reply

[–] circe-13 12 years ago

HA! moron. Yes, there are autistic people among the amish. You need to do your research. http://www.opposingviews.com/i/myth-amish-don-t-have-autism#

reply

[–] mickmaxy 8 years ago

It has now been proven That Autism is 100% caused by vaccines.

OMG I know and I have proof how they do it! EVERYONE check this out its 100% true!

Type this into your search engine and the truth with be revealed!

howdovaccinescauseautism.com

reply

[–] myopic_shift 12 years ago

In this day and age, when alternative media are gaining ground and proving the hypocrisy of institutionalised media, the movie demonises alternative media.

But this presumes the movie has a responsibility in it's portrayal of a particular media - it doesn't. The biggest problem with this movie is that the subject was too big, it would have been better done as a mini-series.

we're clearly in need of a "no outrage day"

reply

[–] nell-nell 12 years ago

The movie negatively and wrongfully depicts ONE example of internet journalism. This looks pretty synecdochic to me!

reply

[–] Dejay 12 years ago

But this presumes the movie has a responsibility in it's portrayal of a particular media - it doesn't

I disagree, media do have a responsibility, movies much less so than blogs and newspapers, but nonetheless they do (e.g. promoting racism would be irresponsible).

Your argument is also linked to the OP's argument. If movies don't have any responsibilities in what they are promoting, then why should the blog of Jude Law character have any responsibility? It wouldn't follow your argument necessarily, but with the lines of fiction and fact blurring more and more on news, where to draw the line? I know this is not a logical argument. But after watching the movie, most people would say the blog guy was totally irresponsible.

The "irresponsible" depiction of one blog (or "demonizing") is also that it is an extreme situation. If you would want to find an example on how blogs or independent media could be harmful, you would be hard pressed to find a better one. It's like saying: "In case of emergency, blogs can cost millions of life. Turn on Fox News now to save your life!" ;P

On the other side, in case of emergency, you really better start using your brain and trust science and reliable sources of information, and not in conspiracy nut jobs on the internet. I guess the theme is a rather old one: A "false prophet" leading people to their doom.

reply

[–] certificateoflivedickens 12 years ago

The problem with blogs and the contributors to them is that they have absolutely no oversight and can say whatever they want. They hide behind the "Oh, I'm not an actual journalist" excuse if they get something wrong. And of course, 99% of them push a biased, slanted agenda. Look at Andrew Breitbart's sites or Media Matters. Both pretend to be watchdogs, but all they do is attack "the other side" while ignoring the errors and slights of their own side. Also, I think one of the movie's subtle statements about bloggers was presented in Jude Law's character, who pretended to be "the truth" but all he cared about was unique hits to his site - just like how network news only cares about viewers.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ItMJtA8vfpw

reply

[–] blade_runner82 12 years ago

SOPA/PIPA payroll in action...
typical propaganda hollywood.

reply

[–] Jack_rabbit 12 years ago

Except when you look at people such as Alex Jones, who portrays such a blinkered cherrypicked view of the world, yet makes millions in sales of his books and DVD's (all the while proclaiming himself as the guy next door socking it to the man.)
The vast majority of bloggers, youtubers, twitterists and facebookers are idiotic morons screaming "I'm significant" at an universe that neither knows nor cares about them, and moves on regardless.

reply

[–] tyrany 12 years ago

I think you're taking this to a bizarre extreme.

It is quite obvious in the movie that alternative treatments were being taken seriously, including the one Jude Law was paid to tout. This means that information on alternative media sources was being taken seriously.

What the movie pointed out is that there are no restrictions on the Internet, therefore making it easy for bloggers and so on to post misleading information for profit.

Plus, the big networks still have the audience share thereby making it the best method for organisations such as the CDC to relay information to the public.

reply

[–] nell-nell 12 years ago

It’s true that there are some ‘internet journalists’ who are biased, who have already existing ideologies and who use ‘news’ to consolidate their already existing ideologies. However, I think that the prevalence of this type of base use of alternative media is dwindling. It’s becoming very easy to unmask biased reports. I believe many people who look down on alternative media do not know how to deal with the phenomenon. Nowadays, thanks to technology, thanks to acquired freedoms and thanks to many things, viewers or readers should not expect anybody to spoon-feed them the exact truth. There are lots of sources of information. You study them all. You use your mind and you’ll easily differentiate between truth and falsehood.

Alternative media are a natural result led to by many factors: the prevalence of mobile telephones that can record photos and videos, the easy access to internet, the materialisation of full-scale globalisation. As I said before, it is less partial, less misleading to report the news rather than to analyse it. A very effective example of alternative media could be summarised through this scheme: THIS happened HERE and here are pictures/ videos of it. Sometimes you get the THIS IS HAPPENING HERE and here’s the live streaming, which is even a better formula. The reporter gets lots of credibility when he doesn’t try to analyse or comment on what he reports, when he leaves comments and analysis to people who interact with the news he reported.

If you argue that a facebooker, a youtuber broadcasted something so biased, so untrue; you can easily create another facebook, youtube account and prove him wrong. You’ll defend your ‘truth’ using the same tools. The alternative media realm creates a caldron where ideas debate each other using the same tools: the same internet space, pictures and videos. Now if a big news channel chooses to broadcast lies, you would have to create your own news channel to counter it. This makes me wonder which is more prone to get away with lies and biases.

Alternative media have given a voice to virtually everybody. If you look at how many big news channels dealt with the revolutions in some Arab countries, you’ll see that alternative media played a huge part in the success of the revolutions. At the beginning, many big news corporations espoused the ridiculous versions of state televisions about was happening in those countries. Alternative media and few news channels that gave space and broadcasted material from alternative media together with the inescapable success of the revolutions made those big news corporations change their attitude/ coverage so dramatically that it became ridiculous again. Another argument in favour of alternative media is the fact that many famous journalists themselves have recourse to alternative media. One of the news channels that did not espouse state televisions’ versions about the revolutions in Arab countries from the very beginning the very successful news channel Al Jazeera English won the UK award for ‘news channel of the year’ and more importantly the British prize of ‘Innovative News Programme’ for its social media oriented programme ‘the Steam’ which is basically a programme that gives space to internet journalism and interacts with it.

reply

[–] johndeckbose 12 years ago

This is a rant that really has nothing to do with the movie. In the film, Jude Law is a plot tangent meant to include the obvious element of online information in the pandemic discussion the film poses. It might have been the other way around, the internet was heroic and the MSM was lax, but it's not the point. I doubt Soderbergh cared one way or the other. There is information and disinformation, and in a critical moment, they compete for attention. That's all the film was aiming at.

nell-nell appears to have a personal issue to grind, but it misses the entire point of the film.

reply

[–] caromeo 12 years ago

Alternative treatments were actually not taken seriously. The blogger did not get tested to prove he was really infected by the same disease. Therefore, he proved nothing by taking the homeopathic treatment. Then he was apparently tested for antibodies, yet there was no physical proof of the test for us to see--guess how many viewers just believed it was done regardless--and he was told he had no antibodies. There are cases where someone gets through an illness and his/her body doesn't retain any antibodies. Heck, vaccines are meant to stimulate the creation of antibodies, but the reason they vaccinate sometimes twelve or more times for polio in India is because it doesn't always work the first, second, third, fourth (etc.) time. That was not even mentioned in the movie. His not having antibodies was waved around as though it was proof that he was a fraud. Guess how many viewers believed that too. By then, I didn't believe either side.

There were too many holes in the plot for me. I was honestly with it until the blogger claimed being alive the next day was proof that the treatment worked. I'm not saying homeopathy doesn't work, but it could have been a more believable effort on his part. For all I know, he had any old flu, and for all I know, they lied to him to scare him into doing what they wanted him to do.

reply

[–] Goodbye_from_Fox_In_A_Box 12 years ago

by - caromeo on Sat Apr 21 2012 19:32:46
Alternative treatments were actually not taken seriously. The blogger did not get tested to prove he was really infected by the same disease. Therefore, he proved nothing by taking the homeopathic treatment. Then he was apparently tested for antibodies, yet there was no physical proof of the test for us to see--guess how many viewers just believed it was done regardless--and he was told he had no antibodies. There are cases where someone gets through an illness and his/her body doesn't retain any antibodies. Heck, vaccines are meant to stimulate the creation of antibodies, but the reason they vaccinate sometimes twelve or more times for polio in India is because it doesn't always work the first, second, third, fourth (etc.) time. That was not even mentioned in the movie. His not having antibodies was waved around as though it was proof that he was a fraud. Guess how many viewers believed that too. By then, I didn't believe either side.

There were too many holes in the plot for me. I was honestly with it until the blogger claimed being alive the next day was proof that the treatment worked. I'm not saying homeopathy doesn't work, but it could have been a more believable effort on his part. For all I know, he had any old flu, and for all I know, they lied to him to scare him into doing what they wanted him to do.
--------------

OMFG, really? You have doubt that his character DIDN'T have the virus and that the government was either making up that they performed the test, faked the results, or after having the virus he had no trace of it in his system (no antibodies)? Really? Take one look at his smug face when he's told he never had the virus and it was all a ruse. He's not denying it! He knows he has each and every reader in his pocket at that point, and he'll make bail, which he did. OMFG. Really?

Regarding this movie depicting the blogger as the "bad guy", I say it's about *beep* time! Every movie or show that I've seen has made the blogger the hero, the truth sayer, the anti-"man", always right. As some have said, there are no checks and balances in place for these people. They can put whatever they want out there and not be held accountable. Finally a movie shows the danger of this; people listening and following what the blogger says, and it's wrong! Not only wrong, but intentionally wrong!
In any profession, you're going to have the honest and the not-so-honest. Blogging is not the exception.

Not to say that the government was all peachy, either. They fell apart when this virus hit. They eventually got the country mostly back on track, but they had no way of identifying immune people or those who got sick but recovered, had no systems in place to ensure fairness (when supplies ran out, those who received them were mobbed by those who didn't, the line at the pharmacy and ensuing mob takeover, etc.), favored some employees over other (Cheever was told he was able to tell his wife to leave Chicago, but the janitor was told nothing), and created overall chaos (stealing, robbing, murder).

"I hardly know, which way is up, or which way down" - "I Feel Possessed", Neil Finn

reply

[–] bryanmillsfist 12 years ago

ALL media is biased and flawed. Let us rid ourselves of the idea that either is any better because they are not. Each reporter and editor have their views. Each will, consciously or unconsciously, reveal these view in their writing and how they report an event.

That being said, alternate or independent media, can act as a check of corporate or mainstream media. They can and do act as fact checkers and they do challenge the “narrative” the MSM has chosen to tell to the public.

However, because these media members are not susceptible to the same controls as MSM members they are more likely to present bizarre conspiracy theories that have little basis in fact. Alex Jones is an excellent example of this. He makes a nice living disseminating a hyper-paranoid depiction of people and events.

reply