Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Jenny McCarthy: "I Am Not Anti-Vaccine'"

samzenpus posted about 6 months ago | from the won't-somebody-please-think-of-the-children? dept.

Medicine 588

Hugh Pickens DOT Com (2995471) writes "Jenny McCarthy is claiming she has been misunderstood and is not anti-vaccine. In an op-ed in the Chicago Sun-Times, McCarthy tries to ignore everything she's been saying about vaccines for years and wipe the record clean. 'People have the misconception that we want to eliminate vaccines,' McCarthy told Time magazine science editor Jeffrey Kluger in 2009. 'Please understand that we are not an anti-vaccine group. We are demanding safe vaccines. We want to reduce the schedule and reduce the toxins.' But Kluger points out that McCarthy left the last line out of that quotation: 'If you ask a parent of an autistic child if they want the measles or the autism, we will stand in line for the f--king measles.' That missing line rather changes the tone of her position considerably, writes Phil Plait and is a difficult stance to square with someone who is not anti-vaccine. As Kluger points out, her entire premise is false; since vaccines don't cause autism, no one has to make the choice between measles (and other preventable, dangerous diseases) and autism. Something else McCarthy omitted from her interview with Kluger: 'I do believe sadly it's going to take some diseases coming back to realize that we need to change and develop vaccines that are safe,' said McCarthy. 'If the vaccine companies are not listening to us, it's their f*cking fault that the diseases are coming back. They're making a product that's sh*t. If you give us a safe vaccine, we'll use it. It shouldn't be polio versus autism.' Kluger finishes with this: 'Jenny, as outbreaks of measles, mumps and whooping cough continue to appear in the U.S.—most the result of parents refusing to vaccinate their children because of the scare stories passed around by anti-vaxxers like you—it's just too late to play cute with the things you've said.' For many years McCarthy has gone on and on and on and on and on and on about vaccines and autism. 'She can claim all she wants that she's not anti-vax,' concludes Plait, 'but her own words show her to be wrong.'"

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Why do people listen to her? (5, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46745847)

Is it because of her advanced medical degree? Her first hand knowledge of the pharmaceutical industry?

Re:Why do people listen to her? (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46745903)

I agree. People who get their medical advice, especially for their kids, from celebrities are destined to have Darwin knock at their door sooner or later.

Re:Why do people listen to her? (3, Insightful)

arth1 (260657) | about 6 months ago | (#46745947)

I agree. People who get their medical advice, especially for their kids, from celebrities are destined to have Darwin knock at their door sooner or later.

What celebrity did this Jenny person get medical advice from?

Re:Why do people listen to her? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46746061)

I agree. People who get their medical advice, especially for their kids, from celebrities are destined to have Darwin knock at their door sooner or later.

What celebrity did this Jenny person get medical advice from?

Probably that douche who keeps showing up on Oprah in full OR-regalia since Phil bolted. You know, because otherwise we'd all be confused about his being a doctor.

Re:Why do people listen to her? (1)

dosius (230542) | about 6 months ago | (#46746221)

Most likely, that disgraced quack Andrew Wakefield.

Re:Why do people listen to her? (5, Informative)

TapeCutter (624760) | about 6 months ago | (#46746225)

The claims themselves come from a single medical paper published in the late 90's that was eventually proven beyond reasonable doubt to have been a deliberate fraud. The reason for the fraud was to promote a competing vaccine by sowing doubt in the saftey of the existing vaccine formula. Jenny IS the (minor, soft porn) celebrity whoring her intelectual honesty for attention and profit.

Re:Why do people listen to her? (-1)

duckintheface (710137) | about 6 months ago | (#46745929)

I think she is wrong to connect vaccines to autism. But attacking her personally is not necessary or relevant. Her general position that she is not against vaccines in general but only against un-safe vaccines is a valid position. Why bother nit-picking nuances or perceived contradictions in wording. It's all irrelevant. The only issue is: Are existing vaccines safe and could they be made safer? All else is nonsense.

Re:Why do people listen to her? (2)

Sique (173459) | about 6 months ago | (#46745987)

Actually, she is against vaccination in general, and the alleged vaccination-autism-connection was just playing in her hand. Now that the anti-vaccination stand shows to have detoriating effects like the outbreak of illnesses that once were thought to be in check, she backpedals on the anti-vaccination stand and uses the alleged connection to defend herself.

Re:Why do people listen to her? (1)

duckintheface (710137) | about 6 months ago | (#46746181)

All of the references cited in the OA are about other people characterizing McCarthy's position. I have not seen any direct quote from her that indicates an opposition to the principle of vaccines or the efficacy of all vaccines. She is misguided in insisting that vaccines cause autism, but that is not the same thing as being against vaccination in general.

Re:Why do people listen to her? (4, Insightful)

gtall (79522) | about 6 months ago | (#46746039)

And we have studies detailing the risk for vaccines and none of them implicate autism. The woman refuses to accept them. This is akin to the World Trade Center nutjobs who claim a conspiracy...which would only involve several hundred people who all managed to keep their mouths shut due to some mystical influence from...choose your hobgoblin: The Illuminati, the Jews, the Government, the Man, the Aliens, the Republicans, Ronald MacDonald, the Gecko on the insurance commercials, Gordon Gekko, former President Bush, Condoleeza Rice, Sasquatch, etc.

The woman is either a liar or too dim to understand the implications of what she's saying. In either case, she's a menace to the other dimbulbs who believe her and society which relies on vaccines.

Re:Why do people listen to her? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46746261)

The conspiracy around the World Trade Center cannot be proved because the people had their mouths shut due to the mystical influence from "accidents".

Re:Why do people listen to her? (1)

JoeMerchant (803320) | about 6 months ago | (#46746177)

McCarthy, and her PR team, have a well reasoned, defensible position, including the last line re: measles vs. autism - even if there is no scientific proof of a measles vaccine / autism link, it is still a valid statement.

The McCarthy PR campaign also projects a strong sense of the "whatever pleases, or resonates with, the most people right now" - taking that same message and emphasizing different perceptions of it at different times.

Personally, I think the McCarthy "message" is being promoted first and foremost to benefit the McCarthy team (her, her publicist, and the whole crew that make a phenomenon like that happen....) There might have been an inkling of a heartfelt idea at the core of it, but it's been blown up way beyond that.

Re:Why do people listen to her? (0, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46746273)

blah blah excuse blah, nope, she's simply a fucking idiot

Re:Why do people listen to her? (1)

GoCrazy (1608235) | about 6 months ago | (#46746259)

No, it seems the adjective "un-safe" was just an ad hoc addition to her anti-vaccination campaign after being proven wrong. She previously rallied against vaccinations in general because they were filled with "toxins".

Re:Why do people listen to her? (1)

jythie (914043) | about 6 months ago | (#46746279)

She only changed to the 'safe' argument when her original ones were discredited, so it is less about wanting actual changes and more about moving the goal posts to ensure she is always on the anti-side. No amount of safety will be enough for her or her supporters, as long as there is one person out there with one side effect she will claim they are dangerous since statistics matter less then a heart wrenching personal story.

That's bullshit. (5, Insightful)

khasim (1285) | about 6 months ago | (#46746323)

I think she is wrong to connect vaccines to autism.

That is her whole point. She claimed that vaccines cause autism. If you don't want to risk giving your children autism then do not vaccinate them.

But attacking her personally is not necessary or relevant.

Pointing out that she has NO medical training is NOT "attacking her personally".

She is making specific medical claims. She is doing so without any evidence.

Her general position that she is not against vaccines in general but only against un-safe vaccines is a valid position.

Bullshit!

If that is so then you should be able to show which vaccines she claims are "safe". AND what her MEDICAL evidence is for those being "safe" versus the "un-safe" vaccines.

The only issue is: Are existing vaccines safe and could they be made safer?

That is MORE bullshit.

The issue is whether "existing vaccines" cause autism or not.

So far, there is NO medical evidence to support her claims.

Re:Why do people listen to her? (4, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46745971)

Boobs.

Re:Why do people listen to her? (0, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46745975)

"McCarthy tries to ignore everything she's been saying about vaccines for years and wipe the record clean."

Wow, Just like Obama.
All those campaign promises about getting rid of the secret courts and the patriot act. Now he Ignores it all.

Re:Why do people listen to her? (1)

JoeMerchant (803320) | about 6 months ago | (#46746257)

The delusion here, with any public figure who reaches tens or hundreds of millions of people, is that you are dealing with "a person."

Think about "Joe the Plumber" - he was just a guy who got a microphone stuck in his face, spoke his mind, and had it spread out on a national stage. The professionals don't operate like that, they've got "hive mind" at work with people monitoring public opinion in the various "markets," script writers carefully choosing words that balance the varying perceptions of those words, and "message managers" that emphasize, and de-emphasize, the various messages to various groups. People who attempt to be public figures at a national level without that kind of support are eaten alive by the ones who do it competitively.

Bands that promote themselves through YouTube have "a chance" to gain some popularity, but I haven't seen any of these garage phenomena reach Nirvana proportions, and, in my opinion, that's a good thing. McCarthy is at Nirvana scale, and Obama makes her look like a sad side show.

Re:Why do people listen to her? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46746025)

Is it because of her advanced medical degree? Her first hand knowledge of the pharmaceutical industry?

People with medical degrees are agents of the global elitist plan of forced vaccination to kill of hoards of undesirables. The biggest cause of HIV and cancer is vaccinations.

Appeal to authority is not good enough (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46746133)

I have kids, who are both fully vaccinated. However, you can't simply appeal to authority. The medical community is often wrong. Consensus has often been wrong. Historically and recently. The pharmaceutical industry has sold some utter crap to people. It routinely does bad things in the name profit.

You should not trust or distrust the medical or pharmaceutical industry blindly or frivolously. Of all Ms. McCarthy's flaws inherent distrust of the medical industry is not one of them in my opinion.

Re:Appeal to authority is not good enough (1)

jythie (914043) | about 6 months ago | (#46746313)

Thing is her distrust goes well beyond a reasonable suspicion. Yeah, the industry makes mistakes and has issues, but she goes to the other extreme and distrusts everything to the point of irrationality.

Re:Appeal to authority is not good enough (0, Flamebait)

horza (87255) | about 6 months ago | (#46746349)

Indeed. Today we are given vaccine shots against typhoid. Before the general medical consensus was to ingest mercury as a cure. Interesting article here [art-bin.com] . Of course there was the medical backlash and studies to show no links between mercury and poisoning. All wrong. I had mercury fillings in my teeth when I was younger, which I was then told was poisonous and had to be drilled out and replaced. Very pleasant.

McCarthy has a good point. We can't keep pumping our kids full of these old vaccines without doing regular studies, and using some of the profits to ensure safer versions. Personally I will selectively vaccinate my kids up to a certain age, depending on risk factor, then they can choose themselves. I had both mumps and measles, it was hardly a big deal. If the kids are old enough it's probably even better they get it naturally and get over it than take the vaccine.

Phillip.

Re:Why do people listen to her? (1)

CrimsonAvenger (580665) | about 6 months ago | (#46746167)

The same reason they listen to the anti-nuke hysterics?

Re:Why do people listen to her? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46746329)

Yep, same bunch of mystical spirit woo woo ga ga enviromentalist green shit eco loons, too much time on their hands celebrities who get convinced they have a super duper secret of the world sold to them by quacks and scammers.

About fucking time they listened a bit more to engineers and scientists who can do the fucking maths correctly.

Re:Why do people listen to her? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46746217)

Is it because of her advanced medical degree? Her first hand knowledge of the pharmaceutical industry?

She's hot.

Duh.

Re:Why do people listen to her? (1)

Cordus Mortain (3004429) | about 6 months ago | (#46746271)

Because Americans love a conspiracy?

McCarthy the Playmate? (3, Insightful)

ExecutorElassus (1202245) | about 6 months ago | (#46745853)

Don't get me wrong, I have no issues with people celebrating human sexuality or whatever, but isn't it a bit ... overindulgent to be treating a former Playboy Playmate as an authority on much of anything, or really caring at all what she says? I get that debunking anti-vaxxers is a good cause and all, but why are we bothering with this anti-vaxxer?

Re:McCarthy the Playmate? (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46745875)

Because she's loud and obnoxious, and ignoring her doesn't make her go away.

Re:McCarthy the Playmate? (4, Insightful)

Jason Levine (196982) | about 6 months ago | (#46746143)

And, sadly, because too many people seem to listen to her. Call me crazy, but I get my medical advice from medical doctors, not someone whose claim to fame was removing her clothes. I just wish more people were "crazy" like that.

Re:McCarthy the Playmate? (-1, Redundant)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46745923)

Posing nude doesn't disqualify her as an authority. On the other hand, posing nude (or being entertainer in general) doesn't -qualify- her as an authority either.

Re:McCarthy the Playmate? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46746205)

It pretty much disqualifies her, just like a tattoo or a lower lip piercing pretty much bans you from jobs where people expect someone who has no obvious history of questionable life choices. In all likelihood, a momentary appearance of intelligence is only a temporary deviation from the base line character. Prejudices exist because they work.

Re:McCarthy the Playmate? (3, Insightful)

flintmecha (1134937) | about 6 months ago | (#46745933)

It doesn't matter if she used to be a Playboy model, or if she used to build skyscrapers, or if she used to be a circus performer: the only thing that's relevant is that she's not and never has been a medical professional. She's just as wrong as any other anti-vaxxer, the fact that she posed naked for a magazine doesn't make her more wrong and doesn't specifically have any bearing on what she knows or doesn't know.

Re:McCarthy the Playmate? (1, Funny)

arth1 (260657) | about 6 months ago | (#46745993)

It doesn't matter if she used to be a Playboy model, or if she used to build skyscrapers, or if she used to be a circus performer: the only thing that's relevant is that she's not and never has been a medical professional. She's just as wrong as any other anti-vaxxer

And that all "anti-vaxxers" are wrong is your professional medical experience talking, or are you holding her to standards you don't hold yourself too?

Re:McCarthy the Playmate? (1)

Dcnjoe60 (682885) | about 6 months ago | (#46746125)

It doesn't matter if she used to be a Playboy model, or if she used to build skyscrapers, or if she used to be a circus performer: the only thing that's relevant is that she's not and never has been a medical professional. She's just as wrong as any other anti-vaxxer

And that all "anti-vaxxers" are wrong is your professional medical experience talking, or are you holding her to standards you don't hold yourself too?

You don't have to have professional medical experience to accept what medical professionals say about the safety of vaccines any more than you have to have profession cosmology experience to accept what professional cosmologists say about the Big Bang.

Re:McCarthy the Playmate? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46746131)

It doesn't matter if she used to be a Playboy model, or if she used to build skyscrapers, or if she used to be a circus performer: the only thing that's relevant is that she's not and never has been a medical professional. She's just as wrong as any other anti-vaxxer

And that all "anti-vaxxers" are wrong is your professional medical experience talking, or are you holding her to standards you don't hold yourself too?

arth1 isn't making claims about medical procedures. Jenny McCarthy is.

It doesn't take an NBA player to know someone just chucked an airball from 6 feet.

Re:McCarthy the Playmate? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46746183)

The burden of proof is on the claimant.

Re:McCarthy the Playmate? (1)

fey000 (1374173) | about 6 months ago | (#46746219)

It doesn't matter if she used to be a Playboy model, or if she used to build skyscrapers, or if she used to be a circus performer: the only thing that's relevant is that she's not and never has been a medical professional. She's just as wrong as any other anti-vaxxer

And that all "anti-vaxxers" are wrong is your professional medical experience talking, or are you holding her to standards you don't hold yourself too?

If you can tell me how one anti-vaxxer can be wrong while another is not when they hold the same opinion, I would like to be your apprentice.

Re:McCarthy the Playmate? (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46746243)

OK this is my professional medical experience talking (I'm a paediatrician): all "anti-vaxxers" are wrong, misinformed, in error from false premise through to wrong conclusion. Satisfied?

Re:McCarthy the Playmate? (1)

JoeMerchant (803320) | about 6 months ago | (#46746297)

If we all bow down and worship the medical professionals for their opinions on all things medical, we are fools.

I have heard, from a recently minted M.D., the opinion that "it doesn't matter if breast cancer screening causes breast cancer, because once we detect it, we can treat it." I, lacking a medical degree, am obviously not smart enough to fathom this reasoning, how we should go around breaking people because we think we know how to fix them later?

Re:McCarthy the Playmate? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46745973)

Because she is unfortunately being listened to.

I agree with you, but if the world was logical it wouldn't be listening to her.

No to vaccines, YES to boob jobs, YES to disgraced / outed Drs. GO Team Jenny/Stagliano/Wakefield.

The vessel matters (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46746055)

The fact of the matter is Ms McCarthy has undue influence in society and she's using it to forward a particularly dangerous point of view which others are following.

The measles can kill. The flu can kill. Polio can be severely debilitating.

And no vaccine has ever conclusively been proven to be associated with autism.

Re:The vessel matters (0)

arth1 (260657) | about 6 months ago | (#46746171)

The measles can kill. The flu can kill. Polio can be severely debilitating.

Yes, but that does not lead to "... therefore, we should vaccinate".

If taking faith out of the equation, namely the belief that "all deaths are bad", the picture becomes less clear.

Is culling of the herd necessarily a bad thing for humanity in the long perspective?
Is there a plus for humanity to increasing lifespans, or will that slow down evolution?
Would humanity be better off if we put half of the money that goes to medical science and practice into other sciences?

Re:McCarthy the Playmate? (1)

BlackPignouf (1017012) | about 6 months ago | (#46746307)

Because if boobs were brains, she'd have three Nobel medecine prizes.

Brace yourselves. (1, Funny)

BVis (267028) | about 6 months ago | (#46745857)

Anti-vax zealots are coming.

Re:Brace yourselves. (0)

arth1 (260657) | about 6 months ago | (#46746065)

Anti-vax zealots are coming.

I think you mean anti-wax zealots.
HTH, HAND.

Re:Brace yourselves. (1)

JoeMerchant (803320) | about 6 months ago | (#46746309)

Looking around, there are plenty of zealots on all sides of this issue.

Bloody Idiot (4, Insightful)

Big Hairy Ian (1155547) | about 6 months ago | (#46745859)

Speaking as someone who contracted measles before I was inoculated and suffered mild brain damage from the same I can only say this woman is a fucking idiot. Personally I was lucky just to survive! When measles go bad they KILL!!!

Re:Bloody Idiot (5, Insightful)

Jason Levine (196982) | about 6 months ago | (#46745943)

And speaking as the parent of someone who is autistic (and who knows many other parents of kids with autism and also as someone who is likely autistic as well albeit undiagnosed): Even if they proved tomorrow that vaccines cause autism (and that's a very BIG if), I'd still line up for the measles shot. A child with measles might die or have permanent brain damage. A child with autism is still alive - they just have trouble dealing with the neurotypical world and might need more assistance than an NT kid does.

To paraphrase Penn and Teller: Even if vaccines caused autism - WHICH THEY DON'T - not vaccinating in order to avoid autism would still be stupid.

Re:Bloody Idiot (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46746005)

"Autism" is the new thing. If you want to be trendy you are connected to it in some way.
I guess it is like how being "lactose intolerant" or eating only "glutten free foods" was a year or so ago.

How long have we been vaccinating kids for? How long have we known about "autism"? Why are so many people being diagnosed with it now (many self-diagnosed).

You said yourself, you know many other parents of kids with autism but how about your own age range. Were you not vaccinated the same way your kids were?

Little Johnny or Sally doesn't behave well, Autism.
Doesn't do well in school, Autism.

They tried that crap on my own kid who didnt behave well in school. Instead, I tried more discipline and a stricter policy and now he's a "Straight A" student.

Re:Bloody Idiot (4, Insightful)

Jason Levine (196982) | about 6 months ago | (#46746247)

We tried the "more discipline" thing and here's the weird thing about autistic kids, you can't just "threaten/punish the autism out." More discipline didn't work and was, in fact, making the situation worse. So we got a child psychologist to evaluate our son. She spent three hours in his classroom (observing him but pretending to observe the entire class so he wouldn't act any differently). Then, another day, he went to her office and she talked with him for three hours. She produced a detailed report on our son that diagnosed him as having Asperger's Syndrome/High Functioning Autism. We put supports in place to help him and, surprise surprise, they worked. Whereas before he would have daily hour-long meltdowns in school, he is now having them much less frequently and with much less severity.

My own (admittedly) self-diagnosis came later as we were reading up on Autism to try to better understand our son. I realized that all of these books were describing my own life. I could get a diagnosis, but that would spend money we don't have and wouldn't help either me or my son. So I'm content to remain "undiagnosed" for now.

As far as why are so many being diagnosed now? It's because of better detection, plain and simple. In the past, many with autism were written off as being "shy" or "weird" or (worse) "retarded." (NOTE: Don't use that last word around a parent of a child with autism. I'm only including it as a reference of what was used in the past.) Furthermore, theories of what causes autism have changed. In the past, mothers were blamed. The so-called "refrigerator mom" theory said that moms who weren't loving enough made their kids autistic. This likely kept many from getting a diagnosis as it would be "proof" that they weren't motherly enough. Furthermore, many autistic individuals were simply hidden away and not talked about or referred to as "Crazy Uncle Joe."

Nowadays, better diagnosis, more understanding, and available therapies can help people with autism to function in a neurotypical world. Sadly, we still need to deal with people who, in their ignorance of the true nature of autism, think we should just "be given more discipline" or that we'll "grow out of it" or that we're just "excusing bad behavior."

Re:Bloody Idiot (1)

wisnoskij (1206448) | about 6 months ago | (#46746165)

But most don't... Walking across the street can cause death or brain injury, but like measles that is a very small risk.

I think the medical community would agree, if the measles vaccine caused a high rate of autism, it would be far worse than .001% of people who contacted measles suffering permanent damage. They simply would not allow you to make that damaging decision and would label it child abuse.

Hell, at least some studies into autism would have us believe that actually more people would die in scenario one (from autism related deaths [which have been measured as ten times the national average]) than in scenario two.

Re:Bloody Idiot (1)

GoCrazy (1608235) | about 6 months ago | (#46746333)

Interesting comment. However, I think it's detrimental to entertain "if" situations about her inane accusations, because it creates a hypothetical where she's right.

Let's just keep it at: There is no correlation or medical proof vaccines cause autism, and if you're willing to sacrifice your children because Jenny McCarthy told you so then good riddance to your blood line.

Re:Bloody Idiot (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46745995)

Speaking as someone who contracted measles before I was inoculated and suffered mild brain damage from the same I can only say this woman is a fucking idiot. Personally I was lucky just to survive! When measles go bad they KILL!!!

You are the idiot vaccines are unsafe and kill hundreds of thousands of people every year.

Re:Bloody Idiot-YOU!! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46746031)

no, YOU are the idiot! YOU are responsible for old diseases coming back to haunt us! NOW SHUT UP!

Re:Bloody Idiot-YOU!! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46746211)

no, YOU are the idiot! YOU are responsible for old diseases coming back to haunt us! NOW SHUT UP!

STFU! Sheep like you who are pro-vaccine are for spreading cancer and aids, get a clue you statist fascist fuck!

Re:Bloody Idiot (2)

Bigbutt (65939) | about 6 months ago | (#46746099)

We need an 'Anonymous Idiot' user for some folks apparently.

Post the links to proof or STFU.

Google search showed 81 people killed by vaccines in a year but hundreds of thousands are killed by Malaria in a year. Polio killed thousands of people a year. The Spanish Flu killed about 30,000,000 people.

Herd Immunity: When the English and Spanish came to 'The New World', the native populations were wiped out by Small Pox laden blankets.

Honestly, just STFU.

[John]

Yeah, maybe not now (-1, Flamebait)

hsmith (818216) | about 6 months ago | (#46745863)

But she wouldn't shut her cock holster for awhile about it. Now she is trying to rewrite history about how stupid she was so she doesn't appear to be a total fuckwit.

I assume her limited acting engagements got even smaller when film studios realized how badly most people didn't like her because of her anti-vaccine views, putting everyone at risk because she is a moron. So, now that money isn't coming in, time to reframe your argument.

Its about appearance (1)

sjbe (173966) | about 6 months ago | (#46745911)

I assume her limited acting engagements got even smaller when film studios realized how badly most people didn't like her because of her anti-vaccine views, putting everyone at risk because she is a moron

Frankly most people aren't even aware of her views on vaccines and frankly the studios could not care less about such things for the most part. She gets hired for acting gigs largely on the strength of her physical appearance. Nobody is going to mistake her acting ability with that of Meryl Streep. As brutal as it is to say, an aging playmate/model has a short shelf life in Hollywood. It's hard for even very talented actresses to get work in their 40s. It's much harder when their ability to get acting gigs was based on their looks in the first place.

Re:Yeah, maybe not now (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46745949)

She gets booked for her tits, not her views.

Re:Yeah, maybe not now (4, Interesting)

Jason Levine (196982) | about 6 months ago | (#46745977)

Rewriting history is nothing new for people in the anti-vax movement. At first, it was just the MMR which caused autism. (Wakefield's original study - since discredited and proven wrong many, many times.) Then, it was the mercury in vaccines. Then, it was the sheer number of vaccines. Then, it was "toxins" in the vaccines. As each claim was proven wrong, the anti-vax folks moved on to a new claim and declared that scientists had to now prove this new one wrong or they would be "proven" correct. (Never mind that science doesn't work this way. You don't get to make a claim with no evidence and then declare that you are right until people prove you wrong.)

Moving the goalposts is business as usual for the anti-vax crowd so why shouldn't McCarthy try to rewrite history?

Re:Yeah, maybe not now (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46746223)

She's not trying to rewrite history. If you read it, she's saying pretty much exactly what we've always know her to say. There's nothing wrong with vaccines in theory. She just want's ones that are safe, instead of the current ones (which are, you know, safe). It's just like how the Republicans want to repeal Obamacare, but when asked what they'll replace it with, they can't name one key thing they'd do differently than Obamacare. They don't want Obamacare...they just want some alternate option that does exactly what Obamacare does.

Autism (-1, Troll)

mfh (56) | about 6 months ago | (#46745871)

Autism is a giant leap forward evolutionary. These low-functioning autistic kids simply haven't had the necessary stimulus, training and radical therapy to become higher functioning. Autism is not a disorder, it is the application of pure order in a world of chaos and ill-intention.

Re:Autism (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46745895)

Just keep telling yourself that, sperglord.

Re:Autism (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46745915)

Even if they were the majority, their inability to lie and to detect someone else is lying would put them at a huge evolutionary disadvantage.

Re:Autism (1)

mfh (56) | about 6 months ago | (#46745935)

So you're suggesting that evolution relies upon dishonesty? You're not wrong... but at some point we hit a wall where continued dishonesty creates a threat that puts our species at risk (which is where we are today). To survive as a species we have to uphold honesty as a defacto requirement or we'll simply be culled from history like the dinosaurs.

Re:Autism (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46746129)

No, evolution relies on surviving until reproductive age and giving birth to viable offspring. Some amount of lying certainly helps in this two tasks.
Using deceit for the former is not uncommon everywhere in the animail world, and with our complex mating rituals it helps with the latter too.

"You're beautiful!" gives you higher chances to reproduce than "Your dress sense is lacking and your ass is too fat".

Re:Autism (1)

mfh (56) | about 6 months ago | (#46746303)

You're falling prey to the foolish notion that someone couldn't devise a strategy around this deficiency. One exists to effectively remove dishonesty from the equation.

We're in the age of dating profiles. A successful nerdy high functioning autistic can mate and bear children easily enough. The fact the autistic doesn't have to contend with hundreds of women eagerly waiting for his sexual attention merely offers up more time to do whatever great things the universe has in store.

We have this incredible habit. (5, Insightful)

rmdingler (1955220) | about 6 months ago | (#46745893)

Habitually, we elevate the opinion of someone unqualified because they are a household name for, well, being famous.

Mademoiselle McCarthy has as much right as the next parent to be wrong about something, but her point of view should have no more weight attached to it.

This occurs in politics too, as both sides of the US Congressional aisle have been guilty of courting Hollywood. Seemingly, the entertainment class is more likely to be unbalanced than well informed, and yet, here we are.

Re:We have this incredible habit. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46746105)

We are habitual, however no one is questioning the parents with autistic children. Can they be wrong stating the obviouse?
Also, are all playmates stupid? It's not surprising what a habit it is to judge another.
The one doctor must be right. Tards...

Re:We have this incredible habit. (1)

rvw (755107) | about 6 months ago | (#46746137)

Habitually, we elevate the opinion of someone unqualified because they are a household name for, well, being famous.

Mademoiselle McCarthy has as much right as the next parent to be wrong about something, but her point of view should have no more weight attached to it.

This occurs in politics too, as both sides of the US Congressional aisle have been guilty of courting Hollywood. Seemingly, the entertainment class is more likely to be unbalanced than well informed, and yet, here we are.

It's not about logic and facts. It's about identity. We all want to be Jenny McCarthy or her to be our girlfriend.

The medium is the message!

Re:We have this incredible habit. (4, Funny)

bradgoodman (964302) | about 6 months ago | (#46746207)

Where do I sign the "opt-out" form for being a part of the "we" in your statement?

Personally, I follow Dr. McCarthy's advise due to her expertise and credentials, alone.

This is an ancient one... (5, Insightful)

fuzzyfuzzyfungus (1223518) | about 6 months ago | (#46745917)

I don't remember exactly when the move started; but 'mainstream' anti-vaxers switched to the "green our vaccines"/"reduce the toxins"/"too many too soon" line some years ago to help distinguish themselves from the fringe 'Vaccines sully the bodily purity and weaken the vital essences with Aborted Fetus cells and zionist NWO population control schemes!!!' anti-vaxers.

Shockingly, this move has not led them to embrace any of the vaccines that have been reformulated by popular demand to reduce or eliminate whatever originally had them worried, nor has it led to any apparent interest in working with the toxicology people to determine what level of 'greenness'/'reduced toxins' is acceptable. Nor has there been a rush of interest to vaccinate according to some sort of reduced-pace schedule(though some individual doctors have various ones that they prefer).

Obviously, it would be hugely unethical and pointlessly cruel to advocate the use of vaccines whose risks outweigh their benefits (and, since vaccination for a selection of potentially-serious childhood diseases, as well as less common but more serious diseases, if we have the vaccine available and you are in a suitable risk group, is so enormously common, this is an area of medicine where studying safety both before and after approval is money well spent); but, despite their rhetorical shift, there appears to be no evidence that the 'We don't hate vaccines, we just want safe ones!' groups are actually at all interested in even setting goalposts that vaccines would have to meet to be accepted, much less reviewing evidence as to whether or not existing vaccines do meet those standards.

Honestly, I liked them better before their shift. There is a certain intellectual honesty to embracing a position that others see as lunacy and then fighting like a rabid weasel against all evidence. Not a...healthy...kind of intellectual honesty; but a kind of intellectual honesty. Mealy-mouthed disingenuous bullshit, though, lacks that virtue, and aggressively so. Even more cynically, it uses the cause of actual epidemiology, toxicology, and medical monitoring, safety standards, approval protocols, and other (vital) elements of keeping medicine honest and more useful than it is harmful as camouflage for a load of anti-scientific nonsense.

If they were willing to actually come out with some some sort of target (even if it seems pointlessly low according to current data), they'd just be the cautious wing of an actually scientific exercise in epidemiology and toxicology. As it is, no goals are defined, no data accepted, no improvement is ever good enough. It's pure smokescreen.

Re:This is an ancient one... (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46746013)

> Obviously, it would be hugely unethical and pointlessly cruel to advocate the use of vaccines whose risks outweigh their benefits

It also fosters distrust in vaccines when they are deliberately replaced with birth control by national governments.

                            http://www.salon.com/2013/01/2... [salon.com]

There are compelling reasons that the attempt to wipe out the last reservoirs of polio among human populations failed. The people scheduled due to be vaccinated were concerned that the vaccine would sterilize them, and it turns out they had _reason_ to be concerned when it turned out the Israelis had done this to Ethiopian Jewish immigrants without their consent or even knowledge. And by the time the people's concerns about vaccine purity and safety could be assuaged, it had expired and was useless.

So thank you very much, Israel, for screwing up the attempt to eradicate polio from the planet. Jenny McCarthy would be proud of you! from protecting those poor children from autism, too!

Was never about evidence or logic (2)

sjbe (173966) | about 6 months ago | (#46746097)

Shockingly, this move has not led them to embrace any of the vaccines that have been reformulated by popular demand to reduce or eliminate whatever originally had them worried, nor has it led to any apparent interest in working with the toxicology people to determine what level of 'greenness'/'reduced toxins' is acceptable

That's because their objections to vaccines were never based in logic or evidence. Mostly its a combination of conspiracy theory and scientific illiteracy with a bit of confirmation bias and save-the-children thrown in the mix. The same people that would think vaccines cause autism despite there being huge amounts of evidence showing no link whatsoever are the same sort of people who are gullible enough to think homeopathy and other so-called "alternative medicine" is something other than quackery.

Re:This is an ancient one... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46746139)

"Honestly, I liked them better before their shift. There is a certain intellectual honesty to embracing a position that others see as lunacy and then fighting like a rabid weasel against all evidence. Not a...healthy...kind of intellectual honesty; but a kind of intellectual honesty."

I hear you, this is the same reason I hate the UK's rising far right in parties like UKIP. They pretend they're all good, and not bigoted then of course spout bigoted views. I'd have far more respect for them if they had confidence in their own views to just come out and say "Yep, we're far right, we absolutely hate people just because they're different to us", at least that would mean they're not liars, at least that would mean they have the courage to stand by what they believe in. As it stands they just lie and don't have the guts to stand up for their beliefs in public, they know they hold a minority viewpoint so they try and weasel their way into power via the back door so that they can enforce it on people that way.

It's the subversiveness of it, the hatred of democracy by them that bothers me, they just want to get their own way not by voicing and arguing for what they believe in, but by lying and pretending they support something more popular to get power so that they can then do what they really believe that was unpopular in the first place.

Re:This is an ancient one... (1)

Jahta (1141213) | about 6 months ago | (#46746153)

Obviously, it would be hugely unethical and pointlessly cruel to advocate the use of vaccines whose risks outweigh their benefits (and, since vaccination for a selection of potentially-serious childhood diseases, as well as less common but more serious diseases, if we have the vaccine available and you are in a suitable risk group, is so enormously common, this is an area of medicine where studying safety both before and after approval is money well spent); but, despite their rhetorical shift, there appears to be no evidence that the 'We don't hate vaccines, we just want safe ones!' groups are actually at all interested in even setting goalposts that vaccines would have to meet to be accepted, much less reviewing evidence as to whether or not existing vaccines do meet those standards.

The sad reality is that the "we just want safe vaccines" claim is a complete red herring. There is no credible evidence that the vaccines are unsafe. There is abundant evidence that not being vaccinated is highly unsafe; not just to you but also to others you might infect. Serious diseases that had been eradicated in the western world have come back, with disastrous consequences (including death) for people who have become infected.

I'm no fan of big-pharma but to claim that this is their fault is ridiculous. The responsibility lies with the anti-vaccine zealots, who persist in ignoring all the evidence in front of them.

Re:This is an ancient one... (2)

the gnat (153162) | about 6 months ago | (#46746351)

There is no credible evidence that the vaccines are unsafe.

Minor pedantic quibble: some vaccines are unsafe for a very small subset of the population, mainly people with compromised immune systems or severe allergies to components of the vaccines. I'm pretty sure doctors check for this before sticking the needle in. These people are one of the reasons why herd immunity is so important, because the only thing protecting them from certain diseases is the fact that the rest of the population can't act as carriers. Most of us won't be harmed if one of Jenny McCarthy's kids coughs on us, because we've had the shots - but the unlucky few who really can't get vaccinated are screwed.

Re:This is an ancient one... (2)

Jason Levine (196982) | about 6 months ago | (#46746287)

I saw the "toxins" shift as more of a response to the rest of their claims being debunked left and right. Every time they claimed something specific (e.g. "mercury in vaccines causes autism!!!"), they would be proven wrong quickly and repeatedly. With the "toxins" claim, they are vague enough that they can't be disproved and yet "toxins" is scary enough of a word to convince some people not to vaccinate. After all, who wants to expose their kids to [scary voice] TOXINS!!! [/scary voice]

Best outcome possible... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46745957)

Yes, she is trying to rewrite history but the idiots who follow her will still believe that she is right and was right all along. If she attempted to admit being wrong about vaccines then most of her followers would ether stop believing her or decide that the pro-vaccine people threaten her.

They do have a point (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46745961)

For years they told us that it was safe to use mercury in vaccines. No problem, we were told. Then relatively recently they removed mercury in vaccines. Personally I think reducing toxins in things we ingest is a good idea, but I am 100% in favor of vaccinations.

Her (new?) position seems to be make vaccines more safe. I'm not sure that is possible to do, or even if current vaccines contain toxins, but it is a laudable goal.

Re:They do have a point (5, Informative)

91degrees (207121) | about 6 months ago | (#46746197)

They stopped using Thimerosol because of public pressure; not because of any scientific reason. The mercury level in a dose of a vaccine is less than the amount you might get from eating a tuna steak.

Re:They do have a point (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46746267)

The scary kind of mercury that was in vaccines was there in the exact same sense that the scary kind of chlorine is in table salt.
My understanding for *why* ethylmercury is no longer used as a preservative is that it's ten parts 'new, more effective preservatives were found' and one part 'surrender to the scaremongers'.
The argument 'make vaccines more safe' is nonsensical. I mean, is anybody actually arguing the opposite? Is there a group of people pushing to add iocane powder to vaccines? If they have concerns about specific components in vaccines, then the antivaxxers might actually have a valid point. Instead, it's always vague generalities about toxins that we need to beware, which really boils down to "Vaccines are scary!"

Dear Jenny, (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46745963)

Shut your entitled pie-hole and do some research.

Fear of autism not that high on survey. (2, Interesting)

will_die (586523) | about 6 months ago | (#46746029)

There was a recent survey among people who do not vacinate their kids and fear of autism was not high.
Top reasons given were:
Would prefer more organic items in the vaccine; or prefer a more natural method of having the kid catch the disease and natural immunization.
That they were in a good area so the kids would not catch anything.
Feat of what "big pharma" is doing, how they are misleading people, and cannot be trusted.

Re:Fear of autism not that high on survey. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46746127)

So, the survey showed that the people who don't vaccinate their kids are just stupid?

Re:Fear of autism not that high on survey. (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46746215)

Yeah, those are still stupid reasons.

Many people would prefer a vaccine against HIV, no matter what's inside it, but preferences don't make homeopathy a viable source of medicine.

And they really shouldn't be thinking about these diseases as if they were chicken pox. Many vaccinations are against life-long diseases. Having a kid naturally catch polio means that kid will always have polio. You don't recover from it a week later and become magically immune.

Autism risk is not a myth (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46746071)

Autism warning is right on the fuckin label for Tripedia.

Mercury is a known neurotoxin and is proven to kill brain neurons. Keep that shit away from me and my kids. I can't believe we are still debating this today.

FDA Approved Vaccine with Autism and SIDS Listed as Adverse Events, Vaccine Safety Website Removes Information
http://vactruth.com/2012/09/18/fda-vaccine-autism-sids/

Autism risk is very much a myth (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46746263)

Here is another part of the label for Tripedia (specifically after the listing of autism): "Because these events are reported voluntarily from a population of uncertain size, it is not always possible to reliably estimate their frequencies or to establish a causal relationship to components of Tripedia vaccine."
If Mercury in vaccines is a large concern of yours, have a look at this list of common vaccines with and without mercury from our friends at the FDA: http://www.fda.gov/biologicsbl... [fda.gov]

Common Trope (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46746079)

This is a common trope of the anti-vaxxers -- continuously claim they want safe vaccines, without ever defining in a quantitative way what "safe" is; just the implication that none of the current vaccines are it.

Vaccinces cause and carry Cancer!!! (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46746081)

Filthy Truth #1 – Vaccines are NOT Tested for Cancer-Causing Capabilities

Parents want peace of mind. They want to know their children are safe, and they want to trust their doctors. But, more parents are doing the opposite. Why?

I suspect that many parents are getting savvy to the potential inherent problems in vaccines. They’re educating themselves more on vaccine adverse reactions. Most parents know a child or have a friend with a child on the autistic spectrum. Here’s a relevant example.

We’ve all gone grocery shopping.

You know if you look at the product label, you get a general idea of what is contained in the product. That is how you find most of the nasty ingredients in processed foods. Vaccines are not quite the same, plus there’s a deceptive catch.

By law, doctors only have to give parents the vaccine information sheets. Parents, you want to request, read, and keep the vaccine product inserts!

Do a search for the term “carcinogenesis,” literally ‘cancer creation’, on the product insert for any vaccine. You’ll see the following common phrase regarding most vaccines, “This vaccine has not been evaluated for its carcinogenic or mutagenic potentials or impairment of fertility.” (Emphasis mine)

Personally, this should be the legal loophole at law for parents exempting their children from vaccinations. If a product manufacturer cannot guarantee that a product won’t make a person infertile, cause cancer or malformations, then parents have every right to protect themselves and their children from such life-long risks.

Can you imagine the horrified look on parents’ faces when they discover vaccines haven’t been tested for cancer causing capabilities? Maybe parents would ask more demanding questions and require better explanations from their pediatricians.

Filthy Truth #2 – Cancer Virus Contaminates Vaccine

Vaccines were never as safe as moms and dads were—or are—led to believe!

Here’s why.

In order to make the vaccine in the 1950s, the poliovirus was cultured on monkey kidney cells. Researchers discovered the cells were contaminated with a virus called SV40.

Contamination of vaccines became so well known in scientific circles, ‘radical vaccine enthusiast’ and vaccine patent holder Dr. Paul Offit reluctantly admits,

        “The polio vaccine used in the late 1950s and early 1960s was contaminated with a monkey virus called simian virus 40 (SV40) present in monkey kidney cells used to grow the vaccine. Recently, investigators found SV40 DNA in biopsy specimens obtained from patients with cancers such as mesothelioma (lung), osteosarcoma (bone) and non-Hodgkins lymphoma (lymph nodes) Taken together, these findings do not support the hypothesis that SV40 virus contained in polio vaccines administered before 1963 cause cancers. In addition, available evidence suggests that SV40 virus is likely be transmitted to people by a mechanism other than vaccines.”

Dr. Offit also forgot to mention SV40 infections also are found in the brain of autistic children.

There is very good reason for people like Dr. Paul Offit to downplay the contamination of vaccines.

Bernice Eddy, who at the time was a scientist at the Division of Biologics Standards (DBS), discovered a major problem. Page 500 of the Executive Reorganization and Government Research of the Committee on Government Operations United States Senate, Ninety-Second Congress, Second Session. April 20, 21; and May 3, 4, 1972, states,

        “The next and only serious vaccine crisis that has occurred since the polio episode was the realization in mid-1961 that a monkey virus later shown to cause tumors in hamsters was contaminating both polio and adenovirus vaccines. The virus, known as SV40, was entering the vaccines and, just as in the polio case was surviving the formalin [form of formaldehyde] treatment.

        There were several states by which the full extent of the SV40 problem became known. First was the discovery in 1959-1960 by a DBS [Division of Biologics Standards] scientist, once again Bernice Eddy, that an unknown agent in the monkey kidney cells used to produce polio and adenovirus vaccines would cause tumors when the cells were injected into hamsters.” (Emphasis mine)

How does the above information play with your—or anyone’s—sense of integrity? What about trusting federal health agencies, their research, and data? What will be revealed next is shocking.

Filthy Truth #3 – Contamination is Hidden from Parents

In my opinion what happened next is borderline criminal: The information was suppressed.

Rather than admitting to the problem and taking measures to correct it, those in high places of science and trust allowed contaminated vaccines to be injected into millions of unwitting and helpless women and children.

Page 502 of the same congressional document states,

        “In 1954 Eddy, as a polio control officer, found live virus in supposedly killed polio vaccine; in 1955 she was relieved of her duties as polio control officerAfter her discoveries concerning the SV40 virus, her staff and animal space were reduced and she was demoted from head of a section to head of a unit.”

Page 505,

        “even when the contaminating virus was found to be oncogenic [cancer causing] in hamsters, the DBS [Division of Biologics Standards] and its expert advisory committee decided to leave existing stocks on the market rather than risk eroding public confidence by a recall.” (Emphasis mine)

And

        “There has been a tendency on the part of certain higher government circles to play down any open discussion of problems associated with vaccines”

Government officials knew parents definitely would reconsider injecting biological agents, especially vaccines, into their children so they perpetrated a BIG lie that became buried in the annals of vaccine history, which they probably thought they could hide forever. Unfortunately, the SV40 cover-up may not be the only ‘sleeping dog’ story in vaccinology. There just may be some interesting factual stories regarding how some influenza strains either came into being or became so potent.

I think parents want one thing: Assurance of scientific information to have peace of mind. They want to know their children are safe—and they want to trust their doctors, especially pediatricians. But, more parents are doing the opposite. Why? I suspect many parents not only are getting savvy to the potential problems with vaccines, but also know of serious health problems from children of neighbors and friends who suffer adverse vaccine reactions, which scares them.

Parents definitely ought to look at vaccines with a skeptical eye. They must read and keep the vaccine product inserts. If you’re not comfortable getting your child vaccinated, exempt your child. You have every legal right to do that.

Given the unethical happenings surrounding some of the above information, I suspect that it just may be the tip of the iceberg when it comes to all vaccines and carcinogenicity.

NIMBY: Roosting Chickens (1)

cmholm (69081) | about 6 months ago | (#46746103)

Vaccines are not documented to cause autism. The viruses Jenny doesn't care to vaccinate for are documented to seriously fuck your shit up. We're not talking riding out Chickenpox and the yearly flu. It appears either she or a PR flack have done the math and elected to shoot for some damage control.

She is correct (2)

paiute (550198) | about 6 months ago | (#46746113)

She is not against vaccines. She just wants safe vaccines. The fact that no vaccine will ever meet her definition of 'safe' is your problem, not hers.

Re:She is correct (1)

will_die (586523) | about 6 months ago | (#46746251)

Actually she has mentioned some vaccine method that were safe.
Poeple against her have come out and said those vaccine distribution methods were safer however they cost most and would make distribution harder.

Demanding "safe" vaccines (4, Insightful)

Jason Levine (196982) | about 6 months ago | (#46746119)

McCarthy is being highly deceitful when she says the only wants "safe" vaccines. What she means by safe is: 100% effective with no side effects and no unexpected reactions in anyone. No medicine ever attains that level of "safe." Not even the aspirin you take for a headache. No, vaccines aren't 100% safe, but they are about 99.999% safe. They are certainly much safer than getting the diseases they prevent. If she wants to wait until something is 100% safe before using it, she would have to avoid all modern medicine. That includes the botox that McCarthy loves getting injected with. (Vaccine toxins are bad but botulinum toxin fights wrinkles so it's good!)

What American advocates rarely/never mention... (-1)

MikeRT (947531) | about 6 months ago | (#46746235)

The US has a vaccine schedule that is much more aggressive than the global consensus on when and how to vaccinate. So even if the individual vaccines are safe, it doesn't follow that the American approach to vaccination is safe. One of the biggest problems with our approach which is basically ramming a cocktail into a very young child all at once is that if God forbid there is an adverse reaction, HTF does the pediatrician know which one caused it? My wife can't take flu vaccines because she's allergic to some of the chemicals. I nearly died from the Protussin vaccine as a child. Vaccines may be generally safe, but the people who just blithely declare them to be safe as tylenol need to be treated as a lesser form of Jenny McCarthy in their own right.

I find it interesting... (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46746241)

that all the "on" and "on" and "on"s .. are blog posts with supposed quotes.

It seems to me from *THIS* article that people have been painting her as something she's not.

This article and everyone who has vilify a woman for years is a perfect example of what is dark and ill in people. You can't have a discussion without modding up "But she wouldn't shut her cock holster"

You people make me sick. It's a shame there's no vaccine to protect society against you.

And she's right about one thing. When corporations are the ones who create our medications and they are barely regulated, our medicine isn't safe. And we're giving this stuff to our children on the corporation's say so. The corps love the McCarthy story because it focuses everyone on one person and one false claim that was recanted and it keeps people from looking at the bigger picture. Instead of activism to make sure our vaccines are safe to use, you're all baaaaa-ing after a woman like the little sheep you are.

Governments (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46746317)

Will all the crap the World governments have done so far, nobody should trust them about things like vaccines. For all we know they want to control the world population by killing off 90% of the people. Hell, maybe AIDS is exactly that, who knows.

The humane thing to do would be to make 90% of us sterile, including a voluntary option.

False dichotomy (1, Troll)

jdavidb (449077) | about 6 months ago | (#46746347)

To sum up, this is an attempt to remove all the nuance from someone's position and put them on either one side or the other of a false dichotomy.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?