In an op-ed in the Chicago Sun-Times, Jenny McCarthy claims she is not anti-vaccine. "I believe in the importance of a vaccine program and I believe parents have the right to choose one poke per visit. I've never told anyone to not vaccinate. Should a child with the flu receive six vaccines in one doctor visit? Should a child with a compromised immune system be treated the same way as a robust, healthy child? Shouldn't a child with a family history of vaccine reactions have a different plan? Or at least the right to ask questions?"
However Jeffrey Kluger, who interviewed McCarthy in 2009, responds in Time Magazine that McCarthy believes vaccines cause autism, that they are related to OCD, ADHD and other physical and behavioral ills, that they are overprescribed, teeming with toxins, poorly regulated and that the only reason we keep forcing them into the sweet, pristine immune systems of children is because doctors, big pharma and who-knows what-all sinister forces want it that way. "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. You are either floridly, loudly, uninformedly antivaccine or you are the most grievously misunderstood celebrity of the modern era. Science almost always prefers the simple answer, because that's the one that's usually correct. Your quote trail is far too long-and you have been far too wrong-for the truth not to be obvious."
(Score: 5, Insightful) by lubricus on Tuesday April 15 2014, @08:56AM
If this was really in about trying to ameliorate the damage she has caused, and in recognition of the thousands of illnesses and hundreds of deaths [jennymccar...ycount.com] at least partially attributable to her stance, the od-ed would not have stared with:
"I am not “anti-vaccine.â€
but rather:
"Vaccines are safe and important to you child's health and the health of others."
Instead, this is just self serving revisionism.
This also means that she is not a misinformed, willfully ignorant celebrity, which is still damaging and wrong but at least earnest. She is a self-serving liar whose actions have had a real human cost. I don't know how she lives with herself.
*whew* .... steps down ... breathes...
... sorry about the typos
(Score: 2) by Jerry Smith on Tuesday April 15 2014, @12:52PM
In the end I think it's the parents' responsibility, yes Jenny has verbally exhaled a lot of crap but it was the parents' fault to believe it. She's a fricking actress, not a doctor!
(yes I tried to do a star trek pun and failed miserably, I'll go back to the class now)
All those moments will be lost in time, like tears in rain. Time to die.
(Score: 1) by GeminiDomino on Wednesday April 16 2014, @04:32AM
You just forgot the "Damn it, Jim!"
"We've been attacked by the intelligent, educated segment of our culture"
(Score: 2, Interesting) by Heathen on Tuesday April 15 2014, @12:58PM
Now that you've had a breath...
Putting aside the issue of self service, willfully ignorant stuff for a moment. How can you fit these two quotes into the same op-ed?
The CDC appear to agree with your statement that vaccines are safe, but then have this
If my family has a history of vaccine reactions I would personally be questioning the schedule and even possibly the need for a given vaccine.
(Based only on the two articles linked in the summary) I have full support for Jenny right to speak about these important issues. Jeffrey Kluger on the other hand should concentrate on debunking based on facts instead of personal attacks and trying to twist quotes. In my opinion his article/attitude is more harmful than Jenny McCarthy.
(Score: 1) by monster on Tuesday April 15 2014, @04:33PM
Just a question: Since the vaccine is in reality an inactive part of the infection, aren't those with vaccine reactions better off reacting to a mild agent than to a full scale virus?
(Score: 2) by SleazyRidr on Tuesday April 15 2014, @07:11PM
If she had ever taken a reasonable stance I would agree with you. Her stance up to this point has been more along the lines of "VACCINES ARE A PLOT BY THE LIZARD MEN TO GIVE YOUR BABIES AUTISM!"
Sadly, that's not as much of an exaggeration than I'm comfortable with. If your doctor feels that you are at a higher risk of an adverse reaction to the vaccine she will recommend an appropriate course of action. Note that I said "doctor" and not "playmate." You'll be protected by herd immunity if you can't take the vaccine, but only if the herd isn't following the anti-vax crap and is actually taking their vaccinations.
(Score: 1) by The Archon V2.0 on Wednesday April 16 2014, @01:33AM
It's something of a social contract: We all agree to do this thing not just to protect ourselves but to protect those who can't do it. A few unable and a few unwilling hurts nothing. But when too many (not even a majority, just more than a tiny percentage) defect, it all breaks down. And because the benefits are so distant and vague (like with exercise), it's hard to keep people cooperative. All it takes is a friend who sounds convincing enough and has an evocative enough story to make people change their mind. And yes, McCarthy counts as a "friend": The MTV generation invited her into their homes for half an hour every week - they know her face better than the guy working two offices down.
The mind is a malleable thing. It doesn't take much, really. Some adults can, with tools no more complex than Photoshop and slick writing, be made to "remember" something that never happened ( https://webfiles.uci.edu/eloftus/BraunPsychMarket0 2.pdf [uci.edu] ).
(Score: 2) by Reziac on Wednesday April 16 2014, @02:14AM
As I recall, for herd immunity to function, around 92% must be vaccinated.
As to our current pockets of stupidity, one is tempted to make snide remarks about natural selection...
And there is no Alkibiades to come back and save us from ourselves.
(Score: 2) by Reziac on Wednesday April 16 2014, @02:07AM
Well, here's a question for you: if you can't handle a virus in a disabled state and with closely-regulated exposure (which is all a vaccine really is), how on earth do you expect to handle the real thing, fully virulent and often with a much higher level of exposure??
See, we have this same problem with certain bloodlines of dogs, that handle vaccines poorly. Dogs from these lines are also the most likely to die if unvaccinated and they do contract one of these otherwise-preventable diseases.
And there is no Alkibiades to come back and save us from ourselves.
(Score: 2) by Reziac on Wednesday April 16 2014, @02:02AM
Or more likely, stated as a defense against a pending lawsuit.
And there is no Alkibiades to come back and save us from ourselves.