Inoculated
| Movie | |
|---|---|
| Original title | Inoculated |
| Country of production | Germany |
| original language | German , English |
| Publishing year | 2017 |
| length | 95 minutes |
| Age rating | FSK 0 |
| Rod | |
| Director | David Sieveking |
| script | David Sieveking |
| production |
Martin Heisler , Carl-Ludwig Rettinger |
| music | Jessica de Rooij |
| camera |
Adrian Stähli , Kaspar Köpke |
| cut |
Catrin Vogt , Mirja Gerle |
| occupation | |
| |
Inoculated is a German documentary by David Sieveking from 2017 in which the filmmaker shows the lengthy decision-making process about vaccinating his newborn daughter. The film had its world premiere on November 1, 2017 at the 60th Leipzig International Festival for Documentary and Animated Film . The German theatrical release was on September 13, 2018.
The film was produced by Flare Film GmbH (formerly Lichtblick Media) and Lichtblick Film in coproduction with Bayerischer Rundfunk and Rundfunk Berlin-Brandenburg in cooperation with Arte . He was funded by the Medienboard Berlin-Brandenburg , the Film- und Medienstiftung NRW , the Hessische Filmförderung and the German Filmförderfonds / FFA .
The film largely fell through with critics and was criticized for dealing with scientific facts.
content
After the birth of their daughter Zaria, David and Jessica are confronted with the extensive vaccination calendar for newborns recommended by the Standing Vaccination Commission at the Robert Koch Institute (STIKO) . According to this, Zaria should be vaccinated against six diseases at the age of two months.
The parents do not agree on the vaccination issue. For David, vaccination is simply part of it, Jessica rejects vaccinations out of a gut feeling. Some doctors also advise against vaccinating too early. The decision is difficult for both of them.
David decides to do some research and examine the pros and cons of getting his children vaccinated against many diseases at an early age. He speaks to doctors, scientists, other parents. Jessica becomes pregnant again. When measles broke out in the neighborhood , the couple had to make a final decision.
At a congress David meets the Danish anthropologist Peter Aaby , who invites him to West Africa. Aaby founded the Bandim Health Project in Guinea-Bissau in 1978 , a health and demographic monitoring system that focuses on gathering information about vaccinations and illnesses in children. In evaluating these data, Aaby found unspecific effects of vaccines ( heterologous effects ), i. H. Effects that go beyond the specific protective effects against the target diseases of the vaccines that occur with live and inactivated vaccines. These heterologous effects can be positive, such as B. the reduced overall mortality with Bacillus Calmette-Guérin (BCG) vaccinations against tuberculosis or measles vaccinations . On the other hand, it is claimed that the dead vaccine against diphtheria , tetanus and whooping cough is said to weaken the immune system, although immunologically plausible explanations for this are largely lacking. This is doubted by the WHO and vaccination experts due to methodological weaknesses (too few randomized, controlled studies; data based on regional studies only in sub-Saharan Africa ).
After the impressions from West Africa, David and Jessica manage to make their very own private decision: They have their children vaccinated.
Awards
At the International Leipzig Festival for Documentary and Animated Film 2017, the film was nominated for the following awards: ver.di award for solidarity, humanity and fairness; Documentary Film Prize of the Goethe Institute ; Thought elucidation; DEFA sponsorship award.
Inoculated into the preselection for the German Film Award in the category "Documentary".
In addition, the film was given the rating of particularly valuable by the German Film and Media Assessment (FBW) .
reception
Criticism with a positive tenor
The magazine Filmdienst is of the opinion that the film provides "scientifically entertaining clarification on a complicated issue" and is a "humorous radiography of Sieveking's relationship":
“Sieverking is a highly entertaining and captivating chronicler of personal and social sensitivities. He is right in the middle of his films, suffers, laughs and is one hundred percent present. His greatest strengths are puns and comedy situations, but also a camera that is always close to the protagonists. [...] "Inoculated" is also a very humorous sociological and psychological inventory of young academic middle-class families in the German capital. "
epd Film writes that the film "[fight] your way pleasantly impartial and staying close to your own example through the pro-and-contra debate about vaccination protection":
“As a seasoned documentary filmmaker, Sieveking knows what to do: research. He does that too. And so he goes to die-hard vaccination opponents and vaccination friends and doctors on both sides, speaks with representatives of the official vaccination commissions and their renegades. […] Or are [their] claims just another conspiracy theory? The question is so exciting that at least the author would have wished for further research in this film. Instead, there is only the next big chunk of the increasingly annoying home story from Sieveking's family life, which becomes more and more annoying in the long run. "
The Neue Zürcher Zeitung writes about the Swiss cinema release on September 20 :
"Even if the film is not a fiery plea for vaccination, the parental act allows only one interpretation: the benefits of approved vaccinations clearly outweigh the risks. Because individuals cannot know whether they or their children are victims of a rare one As a side effect, vaccinating is the more sensible option than not vaccinating. Is that too vaccine-critical? No, this is what modern education looks like for a mature audience. "
Criticism with a negative tenor
Natalie Grams published a criticism of the film in the journal Spektrum der Wissenschaft , in which she fears that the film could “trigger a new wave of vaccination refusal”.
“The film seems seriously searching, struggling for balance and trying hard to find the right answers. But that's exactly what he's not doing. It remains vague at the most important points, consciously or unconsciously sows doubts and leaves a strong feeling of "You don't know, and it's all somehow unnatural and risky". "
For the magazine “Skeptiker” she wrote a review of the book published for the film, in which she came to the conclusion:
"Ultimately, the book remains a testimony to a Western feeling of superiority, of a" we're-too-fine-too-well "-wealth maggot demeanor that must be put to shame when we look at less fortunate parts of the world like Africa or India."
In an interview with Deutschlandfunk Kultur , Grams criticized Sieveking for opposing the best knowledge available about vaccination as developed by the STIKO, "and the reasoning with which he does this is not good enough."
Zeit Online has criticized the film for sowing "unnecessary doubts" instead of helping. In a review of the book accompanying the film, Zeit-Online author David Sieveking criticized:
“He finds studies that may be interesting. But he classifies them incorrectly because he lacks an overview. He is looking for experts who are not really experts. He overestimates the effects of individual studies and therefore draws wrong conclusions. His findings relate to those of the Stiko in the same way as a dime novel to the Schiller Complete Edition. "
The Tagesspiegel criticized that the film would attempt a "supposedly 'balanced' pro and contra scheme":
"But the reality is about as unbalanced as an article about climate change, in which those who think it doesn't exist get as much space as researchers who can clearly demonstrate it with data."
The Süddeutsche Zeitung states that the film provides "no education" but "poorly packaged food for anti-vaccination users":
“Sieveking missed the chance with his research to ask about the meaning of vaccinations and to give parents real insight. Instead, he just asks about risks. For his “critical” consideration, he chooses examples that have long been scientifically examined and commented on. In his film, however, they appear new and, what is worse, as illuminating glimpses into a strange world marked by greed and mystery. [The film] also sows doubts about the foundation of enlightened societies: namely the facts. "
After the start of the film, the Süddeutsche Zeitung criticized the filmmaker's handling of the criticism expressed:
“But as much as many have tried to shed light on Sieveking's factual errors before the film starts, the damage has been done and very likely irreparable. Sieveking is also completely unapologetic about the criticism. For every child who remains unvaccinated and harmed because of this film, the filmmaker and his supporters have to be held responsible. This also includes two public broadcasters. Bayerischer Rundfunk and Rundfunk Berlin-Brandenburg co-produced "Einimpft". "
Der Spiegel criticizes that the film stirs up "irrational fears about vaccination":
“He could be funny if he wasn't so dangerous. The film "Inoculated" tells an absurdly comical story about how strangely mature urbanites behave when they have children. It's just annoying that the Berlin director David Sieveking, who cannibalizes his own family conflicts about vaccination, spreads half-truths and stirs up fears under the comedy-like surface. "
The Frankfurter Allgemeine Sonntagszeitung is of the opinion that "Inoculated" is a "film with side effects":
“Thanks to public money, the [audience] is now learning all kinds of conspiracy theories and arguments that are repeatedly used against officially recommended vaccinations, without the film correcting false statements and clichés or focusing on justified objections. [...] Against this background, the author makes it too easy for himself when he invokes balance and claims, “I let the people speak”. Sieveking's previous projects may have benefited from this approach. Since it is now about vaccinations, this pseudo-objectivity could have fatal consequences. Especially when opinions triumph over facts. "
SWR2 judges that "the film feeds conspiracy theories":
“My recommendation: Save yourself time and money and rather watch a good comedy. If you are looking for reliable information on vaccination, ask your doctor or the Federal Center for Health Education. Trust the authorities and their experts who, after carefully weighing the risks and benefits, only make a vaccination recommendation if it is best for you, your children and society. "
The Deutsches Ärzteblatt criticizes a "lack of classification of facts":
"From the point of view of paediatricians, the documentation misses" the great opportunity to explain the importance of vaccination to the public through balanced, scientifically proven information ", as the President of the Professional Association of Pediatricians, Thomas Fischbach, emphasized. Above all, he criticized the fact that the film only uses scientific knowledge in an anecdotal manner. "He juxtaposes contradicting scenes and opinions - sometimes including misinformation and scientifically refuted hypotheses - without classifying them," says Fischbach. In the end, the audience was left at a loss. "
In the magazine Zapp of NDR television it is judged that the film is unsettling with half-truths:
“At the end of the day, the message is: Vaccination is a personal decision of every parent. Science is (actually) much further along. "
The science program Nano of the television station 3sat says that the film "tries to help other parents make decisions and in doing so harbors a great danger":
“The film suggests that it helps. But he won't do that. Because what it does is: it stirs up doubts and fears because it systematically undermines trust in science and trust in health organizations. And also with conspiracy theories. "
The Badische Zeitung considers "Einimpft" to be the "wrong film at the wrong time":
“Sieveking tries to be balanced, which means that he gives as much space to people with feeling as he is to people with facts. In times of fake news and the general loss of trust in institutions, "Einimpft" sows doubts about the foundations of an enlightened society. [...] Sieveking himself writes as a reply to the criticism that the film "should not be a set of rules that everyone should follow, but only wants to draw attention to how important it is to deal with the topic." To downplay the film in such a way is tantamount to admitting that the classification of the research has its weaknesses. "
The Stuttgarter Zeitung subjected six controversial theses of the film to a fact check and discussed this with the pediatrician and infectious disease specialist Markus Rose ( Klinikum Stuttgart ). Various key scenes were examined, for example whether a child could not naturally develop a healthy immune system on its own or whether aluminum salts could damage the human nervous system. The vaccination expert refuted these claims and stated that parents overestimated the so-called nest protection of the children or that there was no evidence of the harmful effects of aluminum salts.
The film was criticized by the Society for the Scientific Investigation of Parasciences and the German Consumer Association as "a missed opportunity for fair vaccination education". The two organizations posted a website posting their criticism on August 20, 2018, ahead of the film's launch.
Individual evidence
- ↑ Release certificate for inoculated . Voluntary self-regulation of the film industry (PDF).
- ↑ a b RKI - Vaccinations A – Z - What is meant by unspecific effects of vaccinations? Retrieved September 10, 2018 .
- ↑ DOK film archive: Inoculated ; accessed on February 27, 2018.
- ↑ German Film Prize: Preselection 2018 ( Memento of the original from February 6, 2018 in the Internet Archive ) Info: The archive link has been inserted automatically and has not yet been checked. Please check the original and archive link according to the instructions and then remove this notice. ; accessed on February 27, 2018.
- ↑ German film and media evaluation : Einimpft. Film info and jury statement
- ↑ Filmdienst : Registered vaccination - Family with side effects , accessed on September 10, 2018
- ↑ epd Film , August 24, 2018: [1] , accessed on September 10, 2018
- ↑ Alan Niederer: "Inoculated": A film rolls up the vaccination discussion again | NZZ . In: Neue Zürcher Zeitung . September 21, 2018, ISSN 0376-6829 ( nzz.ch [accessed on September 21, 2018]).
- ↑ Natalie Grams : In the sign of egocentricity In: Spektrum.de . August 21, 2018. Retrieved August 22, 2018.
- ↑ Natalie Grams: A book for well-to-do western vaccine opponents . Retrieved August 20, 2018.
- ↑ Natalie Grams on Deutschlandfunk Kultur , September 10, 2018: Doctor criticizes laypersons' view of vaccination , accessed on September 10, 2018
- ↑ Zeit Online : That's not how I answer questions, that's how conspiracy theorists work . Retrieved August 20, 2018.
- ↑ Zeit Online : Science knows better! . Retrieved August 22, 2018
- ↑ Der Tagesspiegel : vaccination - harmful or not? . Retrieved August 21, 2018
- ↑ Süddeutsche Zeitung , August 30, 2018. Online: Don't be afraid of vaccinating . Retrieved August 30, 2018.
- ↑ Süddeutsche Zeitung , September 14, 2018. Alternative facts are the lifeblood of populism . Retrieved September 14, 2018
- ↑ Der Spiegel , September 7, 2018. Staying metal-free online . Retrieved September 9, 2018
- ^ Frankfurter Allgemeine Sonntagszeitung , September 9, 2018. Film with side effects
- ↑ SWR2 , September 12, 2018. Do you vaccinate depending on your gut feeling? New film "Inoculated" received criticism . Retrieved September 13, 2018
- ↑ Deutsches Ärzteblatt , September 12, 2018. Inoculated: Doctors and scientists criticize the lack of classification of facts . Retrieved September 13, 2018
- ↑ Zapp (magazine) , September 12, 2018. Vaccination: a film confused with half-truths . Retrieved September 13, 2018
- ^ Nano (TV broadcast) , September 12, 2018. Valid results . Retrieved September 14, 2018
- ↑ Badische Zeitung , September 11, 2018. "Inoculated - family with side effects" sows many doubts . Retrieved September 14, 2018
- ↑ Stuttgarter Zeitung, Stuttgart, Germany: The film "Inoculated - Family with Side Effects": Fact check on the new vaccination dispute . In: stuttgarter-zeitung.de . ( stuttgarter-zeitung.de [accessed on September 29, 2018]).
- ↑ "Inoculated": GWUP and Konsumentenbund start info page on a… . August 20, 2018. Archived from the original on August 20, 2018.
- ↑ Website: Eineimpft.de . Retrieved August 20, 2018.
literature
- David Sieveking: Inoculated. Family with side effects. Herder Verlag, Freiburg im Breisgau 2018, ISBN 978-3-451-32974-6 .
Web links
- Official website for the film
- Website of the information network Impfen , GWUP
- How questionable experts raise the mood against vaccinations. In: MedWatch . September 10, 2018, accessed on January 10, 2020 (German).