"Frontline" The Vaccine War (TV Episode 2010) Poster

(TV Series)

(2010)

User Reviews

Review this title
4 Reviews
Sort by:
Filter by Rating:
8/10
A balanced overview of a polarized issue
take2docs10 January 2020
Warning: Spoilers
Do pharmaceutical companies, in league with power elites, create false pandemics (fake alarms), in order to sell vaccines, in the treatment of the easily panic-stricken members of society? What chemicals are actually in these shots that are given children of today? Might these be the cause -- as many anti-vaxxers suspect to be the case -- for why many kids end up with learning disabilities and other psychological or physical issues?

Whether or not these concerns of the anti-vaxxers are grounded, at least these ones ought to be commended for their taking a moment to step back and examine the real issue at stake here -- unlike some of these panic-stricken valetudinarians, who unthinkingly and unquestioningly allow themselves and their innocents to be injected with substances they know hardly nothing about. That strikes me as somewhat irresponsible behavior on their part.

Hypothetically speaking, under a totalitarian or tyrannical government, with these types of more-than-willing people around, a corrupt and sinister state would have no problem contaminating the bodies of its citizens with far more insidious things than perhaps mere innocuous vaccines.

That is, I think, what is at the very heart of the issue here, and what most pro-vaxxers seem to be missing the point of. This debate goes deeper than just a strictly medical one, and of regarding anti-vaxxers as eccentrics on the fringes, who don't know what it is they're talking about. As with the complex ethical dilemmas we sometimes read about involving freedom of religion cases, and who has the right to decide what's best for an individual, health-wise, so I think the vaccine issue is ultimately a complex and in the end spiritually related one. There are those who strongly feel that the state ought to stay not only out of one's bedroom, but even more so one's veins.

THE VACCINE WAR examines this debate in a rather objective manner and I personally wasn't left with the impression that it favored one side over the other.

It is of interest to note that the term "conscientious objector" has its origins in the anti-vaccination movement, which, in some respects, dates back to the mid-1800s. As with these opponents and resisters of yore, the legitimate concerns of the modern-day anti-vaxxers, I think, has little to do with their being supposedly misinformed on account of the internet age; this, an argument that a lot of (condescending) pro-vaxxers like to use. That is to say, the anti-vaccination movement requires no celebrity spokesperson to champion its cause. God and/or individual conscience will suffice.

Admittedly, as with the case of polio, in some extreme and isolated cases, vaccines are like godsends. Interestingly, however, it is written that at the turn of the 19th century, it was, of all things, advances in hygiene which led to the majority of people becoming stricken with the disease; people who, prior to this, had lived in cities with poor sanitation, but whose own bodies had developed a strong and natural immunity to their environment.

THE VACCINE WAR is, like I mentioned, commendably neutral in its coverage of its subject. On the one side, we get to hear, for example, from one interviewee tell of how herd immunity protects the unvaccinated members of a population, as well. It would seem from this that both sides could manage to live in close proximity with one another quite fine.

Both sides are heard from in this well-made documentary; from those who feel they are protecting their children from potential adverse side-effects and allergic reactions, to those parents who feel that unvaccinated schoolkids ought to be banned from attending their child's school.

THE VACCINE WAR also covers, in part, the Andrew Wakefield story, and includes welcomed appearances by J.B. Handley, Barbara Loe Fisher, and Jennifer Margulis, who for me were the voices of reason in this.
1 out of 1 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
7/10
Stuff you already know about
JurijFedorov20 December 2023
There is a debate here about vaccines. As other reviewers note this is a documentary that just tries to present both sides of the issue. Pro vaccine and anti-vaccine. For example, they show scientists talk about how vaccines nearly exterminated polio in USA alongside other sicknesses making people live 30 years longer on average. A giant positive development. But then we get the other side: if vaccines did destroy extremely deadly diseases then we should stop vaccinating as they have done their job. Both sides get a say and the documentary moves on to the next topic about how some famous people like Jim Carrey claim some vaccines cause autism.

I would say it was a bit rushed as a point was made without the scientists getting a chance to respond directly. But on the other hand the counter-point was already made by them way earlier where they talked about how a virus could return and kill again if people didn't continue getting the vaccine in groups. And they do talk about herd immunity later on too. The pro vaccine voice is less direct, but clearly they get a say on everything.

They also show the Redskins cheerleader who claimed she couldn't walk forwards as she couldn't control her body. She could only walk backwards or run and then claimed it was because of a vaccine. There were times where she couldn't stand or even talk - according to what we see on camera. She is very attractive and became a media darling for the anti-vaxxers until a media channel followed her around in secret recording how she drove a car, shopped, played with her dogs. She was then dropped just as fast and then later studied for a biochemistry degree and now wants to work with developing vaccines as she now claims the former anti-vaxx claims are misguided. But still claims she was actually sick. Hard to really figure out why she still claims this as the things she experienced make zero medical sense.

The documentary does reveal its age as it's prior to Covid-19 and prior to much of this being uncovered with many of the anti-vaxxers being interviewed now out of the movement or even against it. Jim Carrey is now not a lead figure in the anti-vaxx movement while Robert DeNiro, Novak Djokovic, Nicki Minaj, Evangeline Lilly, Woody Harrelson, and Aaron Rodgers are lead voices for this as they were all uncovered post Covid-19. At any rate I think an anti-vaxx documentary would make sense in any decade. The movement is 100 times bigger today, but it changes from year to year. I just feel like it doesn't really say anything new. It's factual, yeah. But I see no reason to watch this if you are already pro vaccines as it won't really tell you anything new. Anti-vaxxers meanwhile will adore it for including them.
0 out of 0 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
10/10
Anecdotal evidence and emotion versus empirical data.
planktonrules1 October 2011
As you may be able to tell from my summary, I am NOT without a very strong opinion in the debate about whether to vaccinate or not vaccinate our children--and I am sure this has a lot to do with my loving this episode of "Frontline".

In recent years, one sort of data has become very, very important to some people--anecdotal evidence. Anecdotal evidence means evidence based on personal experiences--and often very strong emotion. And, while anecdotal evidence has some value, some strong advocates of this sort of evidence see no use in other sorts of evidence--evidence derived from double-blinds, strict controls and large numbers of experimental subjects. How this sort of scientific evidence can be so easily dismissed has really baffled me. In this episode of "Frontline", others apparently are worried about this trend as well--how more and more and more kids are not being vaccinated by their parents because of various reports about negative aftereffects from the shots (often from celebrities or posters on the internet).

According to "Frontline", much of the reason many are choosing not to vaccinate is because common diseases from 40-60 years ago are mostly gone--and the need for the shots isn't readily apparent. Further, these folks also say that there is a lot of financial benefit to sell these vaccines--and that is why they still are being widely marketed. However, the scientific community responds that while there are risks associated with ANY vaccine, the risk of death or severe illness are still much greater without the vaccines.

Much of the thrust of the anti-vaccine movement are worries about Autism. They point to the ever-rising numbers of kids diagnosed with this disorder. According to them, vaccines are THE reason for this increase. However, I do know that much of the increase is due to two huge factors: a further broadening of the criteria by which an individual is diagnosed with Autism (it's MUCH easier to make the diagnosis today--mostly because milder cases are identified and wouldn't have been decades ago) as well as a much, much greater awareness of what Autism is and a strong drive to diagnose these individuals as early as possible. Further, the signs of Autism just coincidentally are seen at about age 18-36 months--around the same time most kids are receiving vaccines.

The bottom line is should we trust scientists or an ex-Playboy model (the current voice of the anti-vaccination movement). I know this sounds harsh and a bit smug, but this does cut to the heart of the matter. Also, "Frontline" doesn't equivocate on this either--saying that study after study show no link between vaccines and Autism. And, they point out, that the one original study which said there MAY be a link between Autism and vaccines turned out to be seriously flawed and the researcher admitted his results were 'a mistake'. Yet, oddly, this seemed to have almost no impact on those against vaccines.

My feeling is that if you think vaccinations are good, you'll appreciate my review and this episode of "Frontline"; and if you think vaccines are the devil, you'll think I am a total idiot and hate the review and the "Frontline" folks for having made this particular show. I loved how the folks at "Frontline" did not equivocate in the least--making an extremely strong and well-reasoned case for vaccinations.

"I know it's true...I read it on the Internet!".
6 out of 11 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
10/10
Here's the spoiler: vaccines are safe and effective
mjl353512 July 2014
Warning: Spoilers
Vaccines are extremely safe and effective. Many people have said that this documentary was one-sided (which it was not); however, how do you make a valid argument for a documentary about something for which there is literally no proof? To put unproven pseudoscience garbage from random google searches in a documentary without at least first stating that there is no evidence to support the wild accusations would be biased and bad reporting. Further, spreading garbage medical misinformation results in the harm and deaths of thousands of children every year and could potentially cause the extinction of our species if it isn't stopped soon.
1 out of 6 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

See also

Awards | FAQ | User Ratings | External Reviews | Metacritic Reviews


Recently Viewed