Dear Jenny McCarthy - your 'proof' turns out to be a steaming pile of crap! So move on now!

Former Playboy Model & MTV host Jenny McCarthy has spent years now perpetuating the hoax that vacccinations are linked to autism. And she kept citing some British report that was her 'proof' that this is true.

Turns out that report is a hoax. So dear Jenny, please stop putting milliions of children at risk for deadly diseases and learn about how childhood vaccinations SAVE LIVES


________________________________________

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2011/01/autismvaccine-study-fraud-journal/

Study linking vaccines, autism branded an ‘elaborate fraud,’ but author sticks to his guns

A 1998 study that linked childhood autism to a vaccine was branded an "elaborate fraud" by the British Medical Journal (BMJ) Thursday, but its lead author said he was the victim of a smear campaign by drug manufacturers.

In an interview late Wednesday with CNN, Andrew Wakefield denied inventing data and blasted a reporter who apparently uncovered the falsifications as a "hit man" doing the bidding of a powerful pharmaceutical industry.

"It's a ruthless pragmatic attempt to crush any investigation into valid vaccine safety concerns," Wakefield said.

She uses her fame to promote this hoax.

who wants to find some rational reason for why he is the way he is, and having believed that she found one, is trying to act to prevent others from having to suffer.

So, please cut her some slack; she's misguided, not evil.

Her motivations were sincere and personal, however misguided.

Wakefied, however, IS evil. He did it for money.

(and saying that only a financial motive is evil is nonsense. People do the things they want because they want something - money, fame, sex, influence whatever. You can be poor and famous and yet the greed for the fame can be just as corrupting as money. Or power - do you think Pol Pot was greedy? Was he evil? People want to be seen as virtuous and have done evil in that way...anyway)

She wrote a bunch of books, had seminars and the like. She is just as guilty and probably made just as much money.

Also, she makes money from being a celebrity. Being a public person seen as virtuous (she fights autism!) raises one's profile and bids up the price of your services.

No passes for that asshole.

But she has the right to be wrong and to spout her absurdity. She has no legal obligation to be right, and she has the right to spout falsehoods, especially if they are falsehoods she sincerely believes. So, the idea that she should be charged with "murder" etc. are ridiculous. She happens to be wrong but plenty of people who the entire medical establishment thought were wrong, sometimes turn out to be right. You can't have true free speech, scientific inquiry etc. if people could be charged with a crime for stating their opinions on medical matters, even if those opinions are dangerous if people follow them.

down this line moves from misguided to evil because her mania is harming children.

in line with Landau-Kleffner syndrome, according to some experts.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/02/25/jenny-mccarthy-in-time-i_n_476881.html

In either case, Mccarthy says her son is now "healed," so I guess she used to be the mother of an autistic child, if in fact he had autism. :shrug:

so I have less of an issue with her

I guess dogma trumps truth. Feh!

There is "a diversity of considered scientific opinion on the subject."

Never mind the WEIGHT of scientific opinion.

Diversity is good!
:rofl: :popcorn:

there have been tons of cases in the past where the weight of the scientific opinion has been 100% wrong, and the tiny minority has been right.

Most of the examples I am aware of in which medical opinion has been woefully wrong or treatments erroneously cited as safe have been because the risk at issue was not studied or even recognized ahead of time.

One of the hallmarks of pseudoscience is the extent to which it focuses on the existence of rare exceptions and hypotheticals, instead of the weight of science in front of us.

For years, scientists claimed the so called 'grapefruit effect' was a myth. They now not only admit it isn't, but have placed warnings on numerous medications not to take with grapefruit juice. Subsequent studies have shown with some medications, serum levels can be increased 10X or more when taken with grapefruit.

for years, the scientists claimed that anabolic androgenic steroids had no measurable significant effect on strength or muscle gains, that it was essentially a placebo. A small # of sports scientists (Ziegler et al) begged to differ. Now, they are prescribed to burn victims, HIV patients, etc. and the anabolic (and androgenic ) effects are indisputable.

When Dr Udo Erasmus wrote "fats the heal, fats that kill", the scientific consensus was that fats in general were bad, and there was very little scientific agreement that proper fats could actually improve lipid profile, etc. The scientific consensus was - eat less fat. Now, the health benefits of Omega 3's 6's, are almost universally agreed to.

scientifically controlled studies showing that grapefruit had no effect magically became a body of scientific research showing that grapefruit HAD an effect?

What in the studies changed? Or were there no studies to begin with?

People claim all sorts of things. It seems to me that you are giving evidence to prove the value of the weight of research, rather than to disprove it.

This was my original claim
"there have been tons of cases in the past where the weight of the scientific opinion has been 100% wrong, and the tiny minority has been right"

I just supported that claim with 3 examples. There are many more. But in brief, one can design studies such that the prejudiced conclusion is practically guaranteed. They did that with the AAS studies by using low enough doses where the HPT axis was suppressed, but the anabolic effect was minimal. Then, they didn't allow for extra protein input (negating the beneficial nitrogen turnover effects of AAS), etc.

Although that wasn't my point, and I stand by my OP which you questioned, and I supported

Another example, is the "food pyramid" which was based upon accepted science (at the time). Those in the vanguard (mostly the sports nutrition scientific community) knew it was ridiculous, and incredibly suboptimal for performance. The food pyramid has since been largely discarded and for good reason.

Also, it was once the scientific consensus that taking any vitamin or mineral beyond RDA levels was only going to result in expensive pee and could have no beneficial effect. Lol.

One of the current paradigms that is shifting is the concept of calories all being equal in terms of energy potential in the body, etc. (and fat storage) and it's rapidly being discarded, although again... smart people have known for years that a bomb calorimeter is not a good representative of how the human body works, thus the basic calorie model is flawed.

Calories are a half-decent approximation, but hardly as robust as thought.

You are not following the argument.

1. There is a body of controlled scientific research behind this question, and it has been so powerful and consistent in its findings so far as to cause the vast majority of researchers to agree that the question is no longer worth their time.

2. You argue that scientific opinion has often changed in history, but you give examples of opinions based in BELIEF, not a body of controlled research using the scientific method, directed at the specific question at hand. Yet you act as though the two are the same.

3. When I point out your error, you accuse me of "moving the goalposts."

This is the quality of argument you get with creationism, not science...and for obvious reasons.

most specifically in the case of AAS. It was just poorly designed studies that essentially guaranteed the erroneous conclusion.

You are the one falling prey to creationism, not me. I have provided specific examples to support my claim and you have provided NO dispute that they are true.

Again, my op was correct. THere have been plenty of examples where the scientific consensus was wrong, and the small minority was right.

Yet another example, supported by STUDIES involve calories. By using a bomb calorimeter as the proxy for the human body, this fundamental erroneous assumption (that the body works like a bomb calorimeter and equally for different macronutrients) resulted in bad science. And that was science that was accepted by the scientific majority, such that it became consensus science.

The "a calorie is a calorie is a calorie" crowd

You've done nothing to prove your claim.

:hi:

her biggest cheerleader and provider of her biggest soapbox?

more serious publicity now. It's still kind of shocking though, to think how many people believed it and acted on information that actually had no scientific basis and now appears to be fraudulent. Sad, really.

because the last time I heard her speak, she said her child was pretty much next to normal now.

Who knows what the truth is anymore - next we'll find out that the Hoax was really the report being called an "elaborate fraud". Do we really trust the drug companies now?

naturally fluctuate in their behaviors as they age. If they are getting proper support from therapists some can learn to navigate the world quite well. My daughter's symptoms fluctuated from low to very high functioning but she has in no way been "cured".

And I have been screamed at here on DU for daring to say that she is the worst kind of quack for her beleifs. I have a daughter with Aspergers who I never considered "broken" or in need of a "cure" Shame on her and the damage to children (both physical and emotional) on the Autism spectrum that she is responsible for.

My nephew is Autistic and my sister is not looking for the cause. She can't look back when she has so much more to look forward to in Raymond's life. She went through all of this when he was a youngster, but it still can't change him now. Ray is very high-functioning, but he will always be with my sister.

Look we could have been calling kids retarded or slow for many years and they may have been Autistic all along. So this may have been a disease that has always been with us, but we just had different names for it.

My nephew is one of the greatest kids in the world and I wouldn't change him for anything. I love him just the way he is. It nice to look for a cure for this disease, but grasping at straws won't help your children.

My two cents - no-one has to agree with me, but I'm just a person going through this disease in person.

I asked my daughter if there were a cure for Autism, would she want it? And she did not hesitate when she said NO! In spite of the bullying she endures she loves her brilliant and unique and creative mind. I beleive people with Aspergers are simply more evolved. Would Jenny McCarthy have tried to "cure" Einstein?

--is the price we pay for having creative and scientific minds. Sort of like sickle cell anemia being the price for malaria resistance. Reduced ability to read social signals enables perceptions of reality that are very useful to humanity as a whole. And because that happens, the abilities of some are going to be reduced too much.

Depending on how severely autistic that person is, a lot can be done to modify behavior or help that person function in society. But they absolutely are wired differently, and nothing is going to change that.

Couldn't have said it better myself! And the people who are irresponsible enough not to immunize their children are just not living in the real world but they are putting everyone at risk.

Where is the NEW information about the Mitochondrial Dysfunction that most, if not all autistic children very likely have? Where is the PROOF that vaccinations did NOT play a role?!

This article is nothing but a bunch of doctors trying to protect themselves from a lawsuit or who are afraid of the pharma giants.
These people should be ashamed of themselves! If there is a god, may they all fry in hell for it! :grr:

Children With Autism Have Mitochondrial Dysfunction, Study Finds
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/11/101130161521.htm

Children with autism are far more likely to have deficits in their ability to produce cellular energy than are typically developing children, a new study by researchers at UC Davis has found. The study, published in the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA), found that cumulative damage and oxidative stress in mitochondria, the cell's energy producer, could influence both the onset and severity of autism, suggesting a strong link between autism and mitochondrial defects.

the process by which a vaccine would cause a mitochondrial defect?

Because the 'study' you cite doesn't claim that happened.

That would require further, more extensive studies. As it stands, this appears to simply be a symptom that can lead to earlier diagnosis of autism.

Wow.

Reality must be difficult for you.

I honestly agree with you that vaccines do not cause autism. I have been having these "discussions" with people who disagree with me for years now.

Still, it does no good to go jumping at every allegation you happen to agree with simply because you do agree with it.


The good news here is that this is now a more open discussion. The bad news is that some will take the tone you have.



Ms. McCarthy had the best interest of children at heart. If someone else falsified data to mislead people that isn't her fault. She was acting as a spokesperson not an expert.

is she uses terms like "broken" when she refers to kids with Autism. And by wasting time with things like fad diets, and referring to a child as "broken" and not accepting that Autism is a FACT in your child's life, you are delaying getting them the help they so desperately need.

These kids have fine motor problems and processing issues that with the right professional support beginning at the earliest stage can help them become high functioning people.

These kids have enough trouble living in this world that they don't exactly fit in to without having their parent's believe they are "broken" and have them looking for every whack job "cure" to try and take what amounts to be WHO THESE KIDS ARE away. Their brains are functionally different and most of all they need their families to love and accept them for who they are.

Jenny McCarthy is preaching non-acceptance and demeaning these kids as far as I am concerned, as well as encouraging parents to waste time in getting their kids the help they desperately need.

She was intellectually incapable of understanding any of the issues at hand. Not everyone's voice is of equal value in a scientific debate, and people primarily famous for being naked in Playboy do not need to open their fucking mouths about any question more complicated than "paper or plastic?"

Oh. Wait. They did listen to her.

Idiots.

I am so sick of her BS.

Nice to see you! :hug: Glad to see you chime in on this!!!!

:hug:

Everyone wants to cut her a break because "she was misled". Well fuck that! She used her notoriety and fame to promote an anti-science agenda and push dangerous and destructive quackery.

She needs shaming.