A storm erupted online at 10:33pm on the 25th of January (UK time) over Curzon Cinemas hiring out their cinema for a private screening of the controversial movie Vaxxed, which included a discussion afterwards with the disgraced Andrew Wakefield.
Andy Lewis didn’t waste time writing on his Quackometer blog about the dangers of Cursor’s decision to show Vaxxed. He referred to the private screening as a “secret” one. It’s odd that he confuses those two words, as he of all people should well know the difference between them:
Andy Lewis’ opinion of Vaxxed as a “junk conspiracy film of the worst kind. Its message is pure quack propaganda. Its message is one that will harm children”, has in this case been used to justify crossing an important line: beyond merely objecting to a public screening, or debate about that public screening, into actually preventing a private gathering to screen material he objects to.
Like Trump’s rabid hoard, it didn’t take long for Andy Lewis’ many followers to take to twitter and attack Curzon Cinemas:
Others, like the highly influential Simon Singh and many others, threatened to boycott the cinema if it allowed their venue to be used to show the film:
Some even went further:
Additional comments to Curzon CEO Philip Knatchbul by others followed and it appears as if he locked his twitter account as a result. These skeptics also used their influence with the media in an attempt to get journalists interested:
No doubt they privately (or is that secretly?) emailed the “big-hitters” as well.
We would’ve suggested Curzon Cinemas did a little digging and see if those who threatened not to visit them any longer have actually ever set foot on their premises, or even lived locally, but after fourteen hours of online attacks, they bowed to pressure and withdrew the hire of their cinema by 12:39pm on the 26th of January in spite of claiming that “all private hires are unaffiliated with the Curzon brand of any of our venues”.
According to these evidence-based skeptics, Vaxxed is so dangerous, no one must be allowed to see it. Andrew Wakefield must be silenced and no one must interact with him on threat of boycott, or worse.
It may be a victory for them, but don’t the skeptics know anything about human psychology? If you truly aren’t aware of this, just Google the American prohibition for example, to see that when you ban something, you only make it more appealing. If you have kids, you’ll also know this only too well.
By forcing Curzon Cinemas to bow to their pressure on the movie Vaxxed they are feeding the very beast they claim to fight against. Nothing positive has ever been achieved through stifling freedom of expression. “The answer to bad speech is more speech”, remember that?
Or it is that for these people, it’s only free speech if it’s in line with their own beliefs? There’s a word for people like that, and it’s definitely not “skeptic”.
The only way to combat ignorance or “alternative facts” is through education, and there’s actually a huge missed opportunity here to educate, since Andrew Wakefield would’ve been there for a discussion; rather than forcing a cinema to cancel a private hire to show Vaxxed, they could’ve bought a ticket or two, and debated with the man himself.
Got evidence to support your claims? Even better. They could’ve brought that along, and discuss the matter sensibly, politely, and intelligently. Show the audience all the facts, and let them make informed decisions about whatever would have been discussed. And to top it all, they could’ve filmed the debate and shared it online to reach even more people.
But it certainly looks like they preferred to act like an online mob of thugs instead, and that skeptics aren’t capable of debating publicly.
Of course, if Andrew Wakefield had refused to talk if skeptics were present, or if Curzon Cinemas had called the police to deny them entry, then they’d have had good cause to complain and take to social media.
Does this sound a bit too far fetched and unrealistic though? Hardly. Of course its impossible to know if Andrew Wakefield or Curzon Cinemas would’ve acted in such an unethical way, but that’s exactly how Andy “storm master” Lewis behaves when he refuses to engage in ordinary democratic debate, even at meetings billed as public and “open”:
“I do not want them allowed admittance and will not speak if they are there.”
“Richie [Thompson of the BHA] is right on the money and will notify the police before the meeting.”
Our evidence of this group of skeptics is that they are very loud online but aren’t capable of engaging in polite public debate without resorting to threats and smears, as Andy Lewis did himself a few years ago:
We at ANM would love nothing more than to be proved wrong (with actual facts and evidence, not hearsay and smears). Skeptics are certainly right about one thing: there’s no controversy, because that would imply freedom of expression and commenters of all opinions are ruefully showing awareness of the significance of the line that’s been crossed here.
Sadly, yet again, an organisation bowed to the pressure of mob rule, and the spirit of open debate was damaged, yet again, in the name of skepticism, transparency, and evidence.
Andrew Wakefield, Andy Lewis, BBC, BHA, Curzon Cinemas, Dr Adam Rutherford, evidence, featured, Free speech, Freedom of Speech, mob rule, Simon Singh, skeptics, vaxxed
I think it is time we stopped calling Lewis a Skeptic because he isn’t one, he is a septic!
Singh is much the same, not a lot of science there either, just a lot of PR rhetoric. I remember when they tried to ban Life of Brian and the clergy tried to stop it being shown, it’s funny how the septics seem to come across much the same.
Great article! Thank you – this is proper journalism!
Finally a proper *report* with proper REPORTING (facts, what happened, etc) on a story to do with vaccines & Vaxxed. Keep on keepin’ on.
Thank you for the vote of confidence and for noticing that the article isn’t actually itself about vaccines but about the disturbing trend towards mob rule.
What these idiots don’t seem to understand is by saying the film will “harm our children” suggests those watching it are too dumb to see through the bs. Assuming it is bs right? Isn’t allowing it to be shown and letting them discredit it after much easier than mob ruling to stop it being shown? Plus I’ve seen it by streaming it. I didn’t get a chance to pay for such an informative film because of this strange ban these cretins manage to keep in to stop people seeing it by calling Dr Wakefield “disgraced” for simply telling his findings which was his job to do as a doctor. This film simply shows more examples of how results are doctored. Why wouldn’t people want to know about this? Why not let people make up their own minds and stop trying to control what people think!? An informed choice is only possibly if all FACTS are given.
It’s not just a suggestion of gullability – it’s often stated openly.
Skeptic manipulation is ever present and how come the cinema’s position was so theatrically innocent as the cinema first said it was a hire situation with no affiliation but then backed away from the contract by putting the hundred or so tweets before the fact that the gig itself was largely sold out.
Then they used the public pressure they just created by ignoring those bums on seats to terminate that completely and statedly non affiliated relationship to content.
But no censorship.
I don’t think Andy Lewis is confusing the two words. The screening was intended to be secret in that it wasn’t publicised or even mentioned in the public arena because Wakefield knew there would be protests and rightly so because the film contains dangerous misinformation that could cost children’s lives. You OK with that? If you think people should pay money and thereby support this iniquitous cause just so they can ‘debate’ with Wakefield in person, think again. Wakefield has already lost the debate. That’s why the WHO, the Department of Health and the NHS are going to stay with the evidence on vaccines.
The Curzon was not forced to cancel the film. They merely took on board the complaints and protests and changed their decision accordingly. How ironic and disturbing that you should attempt to defend the showing of this irresponsible movie on the grounds of free speech but describe people simply exercising their right to free speech as individuals on social media “as a mob of online thugs”. Do you say the same about people protesting Trump or is it only those you disagree with who deserve that epithet?
No it was publicly advertised as a private screening and that’s where he got the information from, duh. It’s a nonsense to say that it was secret.
The cinema was effectively forced to renege on their contract by the pressure, insults and threats piled upon them.
As for the rest of your comment, no sorry that’s not what the piece is about. It’s not about whether Curzon should have gone ahead with the showing or not, but how they were attacked for hours for renting their cinema out by people with the characteristic of shutting down free speech.
You don’t appear to have read our comment policy regarding being on topic because your comment completely ignores the violence perpetrated by Andy Lewis in clear public view, as shown in the video.
The piece is not about vaccines nor autism, but about the drive to shut down others’ free-speech which is demonstrably not confined to vaccination. In this case, the video shows an advertised open public meeting about Steiner education which Andy Lewis was quite happy to destroy to avoid awkward questions. What else is a mini despot to do when he simply cannot meet someone on an open platform without his lies being exposed? This is not the moral high ground, but a much grubbier ditch.
What we are showing in this article is that skeptics very often prefer to threaten and shut down debate rather than actually engage in a discussion. This aggressive closed-mindedness is definitely not what they are advertising.
This evidence should make any open minded reasonable person sharply question his, and by association, other colluding skeptics’, commitment to free speech.
Once you’ve seen someone blatantly refuse to acknowledge others’ humanity in such a venal manner by deliberate smearing, any rational argument they try to put forward in other areas for why speech should be curtailed has no value, except on a creep scale.
Quite simply – nobody who behaves in such a disgusting manner has got any business whatsoever telling any parent what to do about anything, period.
Confirmation biased acolytes/gang members will either like the fascism or overlook it to preserve their gullibility, and I notice you’ve added a second passive aggressive comment-afterthought assuming there must be justification for Lewis’ disgusting behaviour, which shows you’re in one of those categories but not which one. You ignore what’s in front of your nose, the shutting down of free-speech, to assume we had done something “else” to warrant Lewis’ smearing, apart from to request open discussion, in a polite, appropriate, and really very patient manner.
Eventually it will be clearly seen that Andy Lewis and his ilk are just not genuine proponents of free-speech. They are fakes, and all the other people out there that are being shut down in a violent manner by them need to know that they are not alone.
As millions of us are finding out on the larger world stage, it’s very hard indeed to resist regressive reaction when it’s backed up with corrupt power, because it’s so extreme, disgusting and violent. But that’s exactly why it must be resisted.
Have you any idea how frightened people are of that sort of thing, and I’m not just talking about Trump? It makes no difference how many charities you start, or how many covert networks of harassment and abuse you run, when you are fake, you will be exposed.
When parents see skeptics shutting down free expression in situations totally unconnected with vaccination, they will know that when they get the feeling that the true intention behind skeptics’ unbelievably haughty paternalism is to shut them down, it’s because it is true.
If all that is a problem for the message you’re trying to make them believe about your concern for children, then it’s up to you to get better leaders and don’t be so stupid to follow people who are that dishonest and plain nasty, because eventually they will wreck the message and undo all the good.
You all go on about how anti-vaxxers are so stupid, stubborn, gullible, and won’t see facts in front of their noses, but your response to Andy Lewis and his gang’s aggressive and damaging stance is to deny it right to the faces of the targets of that abuse so you can preserve your (real or fake) gullibility.
You are very much the denier here.
The word “force” suggests the Curzon had no choice, as if it was going to have to close down if it dared to go ahead with the screening. If the screening had gone ahead, most cinema goers wouldn’t even know about it and it would be business as usual. Of course it had a choice. It made the right choice after considering the complaints.
“they were attacked for hours for renting their cinema out by people with the characteristic of shutting down free speech”
Lets break this down:
“they were attacked for hours”
Yes, unfortunately that’s how social media works. People use twitter to complain and protest directly to the perpetrator of whatever they perceive to be the misdeed. I note you frequently use twitter for this very purpose yourself so it’s odd that you should deride others for doing so.
“by people with the characteristic of shutting down free speech”
In what sense does asking a cinema not to show a film containing misinformation that could endanger people’s lives ‘shut down free speech’? Do you think film makers should be free to promote any falsehoods they like regardless of the potential effect on public health? Should there be no limit at all on what can be presented as ‘fact’?
It’s curious that you think my comment wasn’t on topic when I argued against two assertions you made in the above article.
“The word “force” suggests the Curzon had no choice, as if it was going to have to close down if it dared to go ahead with the screening.”
They were already threatening a boycott with losses for not complying. A small independent cinema (they all always struggle as you well know) may probably not have survived if the boycott had happened and the protest lasted longer than it had. It may have been the “right choice” for you, but it isn’t the right choice for freedom of expression.
They were attacked for hours, by many people, we counted 100 + tweets.
“Yes, unfortunately that’s how social media works. People use twitter to complain and protest directly to the perpetrator of whatever they perceive to be the misdeed.”
Ding dong, there you go missing the point because if we’d been able to do that, we’d never have had to go to the pub in the first place. When skeptics block you, then smear you in the background, you can’t go onto social media to try and reason with them. You’re really not getting the whole, blocking and suppressing information in order to smear, are you?
Others reading this might want to look at Lewis’ actions also in light of tabloid journalism and Section 40, to which they are also directly relevant. As his high falutin’ public statements to the same effect also give further context to the grubby reality of his blocking/smearing manoeuvres on the question.
Your attempts to obfuscate Andy Lewis’ very obvious smearing have failed and you will not be allowed to make another comment attempting to obfuscate the shutting down of democratic exchange in order to smear. If only skeptics didn’t practise blocking in order to smear in the background, which is logically only possible by stalking the people you’re pretending to be disinterested in, then your statement about how social media works per se would have been true, but they do, and it isn’t.
Your comment about not being able to see the violence in Lewis’ actions merely confirms that your gullibility about it is not the unknowing sort at all, but deliberate, and that you embrace the same anti-values of shutting others down, for example using contradictory concepts of “attack” and “debate” interchangeably to fudge the important distinction between them.
“I note you frequently use twitter for this very purpose yourself so it’s odd that you should deride others for doing so.”
Lol, no to that manipulation as well. Check the above. it’s very obviously the slimy lying, anti-democratic bullshit and smearing that is derided, not open debate and free exchange on twitter. The “intervention” with Curzon was, in contrast, a deliberate and co-ordinated attack launched to achieve the result that was obtained. “Well that looked as if it worked” quacked Andy.
That’s completely different to sending a handful of tweets as an individual. The effect is also extremely noticeable.
“In what sense does asking a cinema not to show a film containing misinformation that could endanger people’s lives ‘shut down free speech’?”
It is such an obvious characteristic of skeptics to shut down free speech, there is simply no need for you to continue your trolling here by attempting to argue about that, and in fact none of you really bother anymore but only about the minutiae of when and where it makes common sense to shut free speech down. It does no service to the many skeptics that participate in that behaviour to pretend otherwise here.
“It’s curious that you think my comment wasn’t on topic when I argued against two assertions you made in the above article.”
We clearly noted that you were off topic in the rest of your comment having already dealt with the two points you made that referred to it directly. You are again trolling.
Notwithstanding the well-deserved focus of the article – the shutdown / rejection of freedom of speech and information – a victory of sorts for the skeptics was achieved simply in the lack of any, even a one-line description of the film itself, i.e.: a chronicle of alleged corruption at the USCDC. That said, many of us immune system intactivists out here will indeed defend anyone’s right to speak that with which we disagree, and the article is greatly appreciated.