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

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.'"

Comments

Why do people listen to her?

[Anonymous Coward]

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

Re:Why do people listen to her?

[Anonymous Coward]

Boobs.

Re:Why do people listen to her?

[gtall]

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?

[TapeCutter]

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?

[FireFury03]

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.

The problem is: what constitutes "safe"? You're never going to have something that's completely safe, so it all comes down to probabilities. This is comparing the chance of your child being harmed through your actions (getting the vaccine) vs. the chance of them being harmed through your inactions (not getting the vaccine). Rationally, if getting the vaccine reduces the chances of the patient being harmed then obviously that is the right course of action, but does this make the vaccine "safe"? I suspect a lot of people take the irrational line that they don't want to take any action that might harm their child, but never properly think about the consequences of inaction, so go down the inaction line even if that is the worse choice.

Partly, there is a problem that diseases like measles aren't very common these days, to people perceive the risk to be very low. They ignore the fact that these deseases are uncommon *because* of vaccination.

Secondly, she seems to have a failure to understand basic statistics by her comment "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" - this argument is comparing a certainty (the child has autism) with an uncertainty (that the child will suffer lasting damage from the measels). Given the choice between a certainly autistic child and a child with a small chance of dieing (or other serious complication from measels), I might make the same decision and go with the measels, but that's not the choice the anti-vaccination crowd are making. If the argument had been comparing two certainties - "If you ask a parent of an autistic child if they want the child to die from measles or have autism" - then I imagine the response would be very different.

Whether or not you believe that vaccines cause autism (and there is absolutely no evidence that they do), the above rational arguments still apply - if the chances of serious injury or death from measels for unvaccinated people is higher than the chances of autism for vaccinated people then having the vaccine is a complete no-brainer.

Re:Why do people listen to her?

[Bill_the_Engineer]

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.

Actually here is a quote from her given during a Good Morning America interview in 2008:

McCarthy and Carrey said that while they do support immunization, they and their allies believe children receive "too many vaccines, too soon, many of which are toxic."

"We are not here to destroy the vaccine program. We're here to lend our voices for the millions of people calling for balance and moderation when it calls to substances that we give our children," Carey said. "They are not bottomless pits that you endlessly pour the substances into. You have to consider the cumulative effect. Not only that, the possible interaction. Every other drug has interaction with other drugs and yet they assume vaccines won't."

She is basically straddling the fence. Being enough anti-vaccine to encourage parents from having their children vaccinated yet not enough to where she doesn't have an exit strategy which will not threaten any product endorsements, possible TV/movie roles or make it impossible for her to simply say she was misunderstood when she is proven wrong.

Notice how she didn't say which vaccines shouldn't be given to children. She just basically said don't trust your pediatrician and just left it to the parents' fear to figure that out.

Re:Why do people listen to her?

[Joce640k]

She says she'd be OK with a "safe" vaccine.

Fair enough, let's go with that for a moment:

How will she decide when a vaccine is "safe"? What science will she use to make that decision...?

Re:Why do people listen to her?

[Anonymous Coward]

Here's something for a start, from the British Medical Journal:

http://www.bmj.com/content/342/bmj.c7452

Re:Why do people listen to her?

[squiggleslash]

...which is why we found out it was a fraud.

I don't think you're making the case you think you're making ;-)

Re:Why do people listen to her?

[ceoyoyo]

Peer review isn't meant to assure accuracy. It's a filter to stem the tide of obvious crap. Scientific journals started as letters that scientists wrote to each other. They're the same thing now, except the letters get published centrally. An article in a scientific journal is "hey, look, we did this, and this is what we found."

Wakefield's paper itself seems to be the honest report of a valid experiment. Since he found something that would have important consequences, it was subsequently examined in depth. Nobody could replicate his results. That can happen, because statistical false positives and honest mistakes happen all the time, but further investigation revealed that Wakefield experimented without ethics approval on his son's friends, cherry picked data, purposely misrepresented data, and had a serious undisclosed conflict of interest in owning a share in and consulting for an alternative vaccine company.

The Wakefield thing is how science is supposed to work. The public needs to learn that single articles published in scientific journals aren't necessarily correct. In fact, analysis suggests that most of them are not correct.

Re:Why do people listen to her?

[azav]

The problem is herd immunity.

If those people are within our "herd" and one of their kids gets infected with ebola-marburg-plague-mumps-pox, then they become a disease transmission vector to the rest of the herd.

And in that case, everyone who comes in contact with them becomes exposed to it and those who have not yet been immunized against ebola-marburg-plague-mumps-pox, run the risk of getting infected.

Now, if that was polio, you get crippled and paralyzed.
If that was mumps, there is no treatment, you suffer and hopefully don't get an additional disease (30% testicular atrophy).
If that was measles, you get a 4 day whole body rash and a fever up to 104F (40C)
If that was rubella, it's similar to measles, but slightly less severe.
If that was varicella, well that's chicken pox and we mostly know what fun that's like. Plus possible scarring for life if the pix is severe + shingles later on in life.

We all know what little disease transmission factories kinder gardens are.

The parent who doesn't vaccinate their kids exposes everyone's kids (and their parents) to infection.

Re:Why do people listen to her?

[Enigma2175]

The only thing she knew for sure was that it sucks to have a kid with autism. The rest was crap. She, and a few like her, caused most of the US anti-vax movement.

And she didn't even know that, because her kid does not have autism.

Re:Why do people listen to her?

[UnknowingFool]

McCarthy and Carrey said that while they do support immunization, they and their allies believe children receive "too many vaccines, too soon, many of which are toxic."

Basically when faced with overwhelming facts, McCarthy like many others either double down or move the goal posts. In the beginning of the anti-vax movement, it was "All we ask is someone to do the research on the vaccine." When the initial research came back that no link could be proven it was: "All we ask is someone to look at the thiomersal effects." When more studies came back that thiomersal could not be linked to Austism either it was: "You can't just do epidemiological studies." When Wakefield's paper was retracted due to fraud, it was "They are trying to silence him." They are true believers; anything that goes against their beliefs must be denied.

In their complete ignorance, McCarthy and others seem to ignore basic facts of medicine. All medication has the possibility of side effects. Vaccines like many other medications has gone under extensive testing before it was released. There still is the possibility of terrible side effects but statistically the vaccine is much safer than the disease and the incidence of side effects are very, very small. Saying that the vaccines need to be safe is like saying that we shouldn't drive cars because they are unsafe.

Re:Why do people listen to her?

[BonThomme]

Do you have a citation that Jenny has intellectual honesty available for whoring?

Re:Why do people listen to her?

[UnknowingFool]

Essentially I believe that it could be harmful for young babies/toddlers to have too many vaccines administered at the same time - 3 vaccines during the same office visit, for example. I can only imagine how many adults would opt for several shots at the same time.

I've traveled overseas extensively. Sometimes I need to get 3 or more vaccines for certain areas. I haven't died yet. They most serious side effect was I didn't feel 100% after getting multiple vaccines. I didn't get sick. The flaw in your argument is that you assume your child is the first human ever to get multiple vaccines at once and it hasn't been tested before. It has. The schedule has undergone years of testing before released.

My third son went from talking and acting normal to non-verbal for years around the time of his 2 years vaccines. Now, it's likely coincidence. I'm not blaming vaccines - since there is no established link based on current research. But we need to find the cause for autism.

The coincidence is that the vaccine schedule is close to the time when Autism can be first diagnosed in children. When Wakefield's paper first came out, many researchers looked at it because it was the first testable link. It turned out to be fraud though. How much time and research was wasted on chasing fraud? That research could have been spent on real research into the causes.

I'm surprised the amount of negativity the community has presented on this subject.

There have been many outbreaks of diseases that could have been prevented due to this nonsense. Some children have died. We should be negative.

Re:Why do people listen to her?

[compro01]

Furthermore, if it's rubella and a pregnant woman gets it, the child is likely to have some of an array of birth defects.

Re:Why do people listen to her?

[ultranova]

In order for this to be dishonest she'd have to say things without believing it

There's also dishonesty in talking with great conviction about a subject you have inadequate knowledge of.

Re:Why do people listen to her?

[Sique]

There are times when a child can receive up to 6 vaccines at the same time and that's a little bit shocking.

Yes, they get a preparation that is called Hexavac. It is one shot with six vaccines. It works. And you prefer your child to get six shots? Six times in a doctor's office, six times being pierced, being hurt and feeling dizzy afterwards? I prefer Hexavac everytime (and both my children got it).

Re:Why do people listen to her?

[Bill_the_Engineer]

I think the stories from parents come not from the vaccines doing actual harm but from the fact that coincidentally the age when symptoms of autism presents itself is the same as when the vaccines are scheduled to be administered.

Other factors that adds to parents concerns are the rate of autism being diagnosed appears to be rising exponentially based on the graph presented by AutismSpeaks: The rate for 1985 was 1 in 2500, the rate in 1995 was 1 in 500, and the rate for 2009 was 1 in 110. If you looked at the text rather than the very prevalent graph you would have read that the criteria for positive diagnosis of autism has changed and public awareness increased significantly during the time period graphed which can make the graph a little misleading.

AutismSpeaks also gave another possible reason for the increase over the years being attributed to the increase of the average parental age. Several research papers have demonstrated a link between autism and parental age and have concluded that the chances for a child being born with autism increases with parental age.

(Source: AutismSpeaks)

Re:Why do people listen to her?

[UnknowingFool]

Actually the flaw in your argument is that everybody reacts identically to all medicine. You read the part about this being my THIRD son right? The other two were vaccinated and had no problems.

No, that was your flaw. You presented an anecdotal example. I presented a counter example. That also belies what you said: "Essentially I believe that it could be harmful for young babies/toddlers to have too many vaccines administered at the same time - 3 vaccines during the same office visit, for example". You had no qualifiers like "For the most part . . . "

In fact you even ask for if an adult would opt for multiple vaccines. I presented myself as an example because I've done it. In your statement, you also imply that somehow multiple vaccines at once are unproven or experimental. They are not. The vaccine schedule has been extensively tested. As a parent you don't have to follow it, but questioning it because you think there is no science or testing behind it is another matter.

I have a pretty good idea of when autism can be seen, as I raised my son from birth. He LOST the ability to speak - I'd like to find out what happened. I feel that any money or time spent researching any possible like is money well spent, regardless of the outcome. Ten years of seeing what autism is has led me to this.

What I'm saying is that before a certain age, diagnosing Autism can be problematic (as with any neurological testing of children). The time when symptoms start showing is right as the vaccine schedule starts to increase in the number of vaccines. The science behind the causes of Autism is pointing to an abnormal development of certain areas of the brain. The cause is not purely genetic but may be epigenetic as noted by the twin studies. Unfortunately the last ten years of research was hampered by Wakefield and his fraud.

The amount of negativity is interesting to me. Many vaccines are *optional*, others are mandated for public school. We have this choice in this country. The argument of "some children have died" is weak. I could just as well say "some children have lived".

The problem is that some of the children died not because the parents had a choice but because someone else chose not vaccinate. Herd immunity exists for a reason. It protects those that cannot be or have not been vaccinated. What do you say to a parent whose child died because of your choices? The negativity for me is that the science has long been established. McCarthy and her denialism has caused so much pain and yet she refuses to take responsibility for what she had done.

Re:Why do people listen to her?

[SecurityGuy]

Essentially I believe that it could be harmful for young babies/toddlers to have too many vaccines administered at the same time - 3 vaccines during the same office visit, for example. I can only imagine how many adults would opt for several shots at the same time.

This is exactly the problem. You believe that based on what? This adult would opt for several shots at the same time. Saves me another trip to the doctor and possibly another copay.

I'm surprised the amount of negativity the community has presented on this subject.

Irrationality can be very annoying. We have this amazing thing called science that lets us tease truth out of nature, and a vocal subset of the population wants to go back to the dark ages of superstition and fear. This is frustrating when the consequences are entirely predictable, and include helpless kids getting sick or dying.

But we need to find the cause for autism.

On that, I couldn't agree more. The Wakefields and McCarthys of the world have done incalculable harm in dragging us down this blind alley.

Re:Why do people listen to her?

[BitterOak]

The problem is herd immunity.

I agree with you that the problem is "herd immunity", but not in the way you think.

The problem is in people's perception of the risk vs. benefit of vaccines, and the phrase "herd immunity" does a lot to distort that perception. It suggests that perhaps the risk to an individual getting a vaccine is greater than the benefit to that individual, and the primary reason for the pushing the vaccine on people is for the greater good of the population. First, that isn't true: for pretty much all the standard vaccines people get, the risk to the individual by not getting the vaccine is greater than the risk to the individual by getting it. "Herd immunity" is really a bonus, in that getting a vaccine reduces everyone else's risk of getting the disease as well. However, no reasonable parent is going to subject their child to a risk of harm if the sole benefit is to other people's children, and so placing too much emphasis on "herd immunity" really could be doing more harm than good as it could distort the public perception of the benefits of vaccines for the individuals getting them.

A second problem is the terminology itself. As anyone in advertising will tell you, word choice can have a profound psychological effect on people's perceptions. The word "herd" in all other usages of which I'm aware applies to livestock, such as cattle. When doctors talk to parents about "immunizing the herd", it suggests, even just subconsciously, that health care professionals see children as livestock, and not human beings. While this may not be true, if parents are already wary of vaccinating their kids, the phrase "herd immunity" certainly won't push them in the direction of wanting to.

Re:Why do people listen to her?

[OneAhead]

And for the lazy readers, here's the webcomic version. ;-)

Bloody Idiot

[Big Hairy Ian]

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

[Jason Levine]

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

[Jason Levine]

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

[cusco]

Actually the death rate from measles is 0.1% (US) to 10% (undernourished populations). The risk of complications is much higher than those figures.

Re:McCarthy the Playmate?

[Anonymous Coward]

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

We have this incredible habit.

[rmdingler]

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.

[bradgoodman]

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...

[fuzzyfuzzyfungus]

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:Yeah, maybe not now

[Jason Levine]

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?

Demanding "safe" vaccines

[Jason Levine]

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!)

Re:McCarthy the Playmate?

[Jason Levine]

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:They do have a point

[91degrees]

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.

That's bullshit.

[khasim]

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:They do have a point

[the gnat]

The mercury level in a dose of a vaccine is less than the amount you might get from eating a tuna steak.

It's also in a different form - fish contain methylmercury, which is extremely toxic, while thimerosol is metabolized to ethylmercury, which isn't something you want to have a lot of in your system, but isn't as awful.

You have a funny choice of medical concerns...

[denzacar]

You will willingly buy into unsubstantiated claims about dental fillings and ingesting mercury even suffer pain and monetary cost because of it (and possibly even harming your health) - but you will not vaccinate your children on an off chance that "something" might be wrong with the vaccines.

You do realize, your actions there are guided by pure ignorance and fear, right? Much like Jenny's.

You might want to have a chat with her. I had her number somewhere... Found it on the wall once.
It goes something like 86753... Dammit I'll have to look it up.

Re:Appeal to authority is not good enough

[mark_reh]

" 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."

Whoever told you that was misinformed or lying (maybe they wanted to profit by drilling them out and replacing them). Your fillings weren't "mercury". Your fillings were mercury/silver amalgam. An amalgam is an alloy that forms when mercury reacts chemically with silver. An alloy is a stable chemical compound. It does not spontaneously decompose into its constituents. If it did, your fillings would have dissolved and disappeared long ago.

Yes, when amalgam fillings are first placed you are exposed to some mercury vapor. That is why the ADA recommends that amalgam fillings should not be placed in small kids or pregnant women.

Amalgam is a very durable, long lasting restorative material that has been in use for over 100 years. Amalgam restorations normally last much longer than alternative materials such as tooth colored composites which require frequent maintenance/replacement. Did they tell you about that before they drilled out all your "mercury" fillings?

For the ADA position see latest info summarized here: http://www.ada.org/sections/pr...
The summary on page 2 says:
"In the six years since the LSRO report was published the identified research gaps have
not been completely addressed. However a number of studies have added to the
growing body of literature on the topic of amalgam safety. The findings of the studies
published between January 1, 2004 and June 15, 2010 showed no consistent evidence
of harm associated with dental amalgam fillings, including for infants and children. There
is some evidence that mercury excretion may be affected by gender. There was no
evidence demonstrating that some individuals are genetically susceptible to harmful
effects from exposure to the low doses of mercury associated with dental amalgam
fillings. Overall, studies continue to support the position that dental amalgam is a safe
restorative option for both children and adults. When responding to safety concerns it is
important to make the distinction between known and hypothetical risks. "

Re:Appeal to authority is not good enough

[ceoyoyo]

Yes. You should appeal to scientific evidence. Which is entirely on the side of vaccines. While the precise benefit of things like the flu vaccine in non-vulnerable populations isn't always entirely clear, the risks and benefits of standard childhood vaccines are well studied and well known.

No, you shouldn't trust random doctors, whether they're on Oprah or not. And you certainly shouldn't trust random Playboy bunnies, whether they're on Oprah or not.

McCarthy's most important flaws are that she feels the need to give medical advice to millions of people based on absolutely nothing but her own prejudices, which she clings to in the face of overwhelming evidence.

Re:Has this changed?

[the phantom]

The CDC recommended vaccination schedule is easy to find, and contains a "Common Core" of vaccinations (your list, plus a couple more---this is not much, much longer than your list). Of those on the list, the only one that is not obviously part of building herd immunity is the Tetanus vaccine, though given how nasty Tetanus can be to an individual and how effective the vaccine is, it seems like an obvious choice to me.

Medical authority vs you

[sjbe]

However, you can't simply appeal to authority. The medical community is often wrong.

Yes they are wrong with surprising frequency. That does not however mean that you cannot appeal to authority unless you have evidence that they authority is reasonably likely to be wrong. My wife is a doctor and has quite literally forgotten more about medicine than I will ever know. I would be an absolute fool to not take her opinions on any medical matter very seriously. Doesn't mean I have to turn my brain off or that she cannot be wrong but the vast majority of the time she understands the issues involved FAR better than I will. We trust doctors because by and large they have a very credible track record of actually getting it right more than anyone else. In the absence of other available data a trusted expert with a credible track record is a good source of information to listen to.

The pharmaceutical industry has sold some utter crap to people. It routinely does bad things in the name profit.

They also have produced miracle treatments that save lives and alleviate suffering. LOTS of them. Odds are very good that the big percentage of the people reading this are alive today because of the drugs produced by the pharmaceutical industry. They also are closely regulated to ensure that opportunities for quackery are minimized. Just because there have been some criminals in the industry doesn't make the entire industry guilty by association. Microsoft has sold a lot of crap software in the name of profit but we don't blame the entire software industry for their actions. Doing so for the pharma industry is an equally illogical application of guilt by association.

Of all Ms. McCarthy's flaws inherent distrust of the medical industry is not one of them in my opinion.

It is when there is a HUGE amount of evidence that vaccines are largely safe, effective, have few side effects and save lives. You don't have to trust the medical industry but if you don't trust the mountains of credible data available supporting the use of vaccines and other demonstrably effective drugs then you are an idiot. The data is available if you care to look into it. Miss McCarthy plainly has never bothered and her actions almost certainly have lead to preventable deaths and illnesses from confused parents who avoided vaccines for no good reason. What she has done is functionally equivalent to shouting fire in a crowded movie theater when there is no fire. I think her actions are borderline criminal.

I have no problem with a healthy skepticism of any claim no matter how well accepted. Test any and all hypothesis you can. That's how science is supposed to work. But (falsely) claiming authoritatively that there is a link between vaccines and autism when literally none of the evidence supports that claim is irresponsible in the extreme.

Opportunity cost

[sjbe]

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.

No she does NOT have a good point. There already have been copious studies of these drugs safety and efficacy. There also have been numerous (and ongoing) studies of the many theories of dangers presented by these vaccines, all of which have shown that her theories have no evidence backing them up whatsoever. Every time someone has to go and stomp out another anti-vax lunatic theory creates an opportunity cost. Those people could have spent their time and money and energy working on newer or safer vaccines instead of proving yet-another unsupported safety claim wrong.

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.

You are an idiot and a dangerous idiot at that. Mumps and measles can and do kill people and cause significant and lasting damage in many they do not kill. Furthermore you aren't just endangering your own children. You are allowing them to be potential carriers of the disease to other people who cannot be vaccinated against it whether due to age or medical conditions. Actions like what you propose demonstrably results in people dying when it could have been prevented. What you propose is incredibly irresponsible since every bit of scientific data we have says that the safest and most effective solution for both your children and society at large is to get vaccinated.

Re:Appeal to authority is not good enough

[mark_reh]

I don't understand what you and JM mean by "safer" versions of the vaccines. What data do you have to support the supposed lack of safety of the vaccines?

If you had measles and mumps and it was no big deal, you were lucky. There are many who are not so lucky. You are making the same mistake JM does- equating a single data point- your personal experience- to a generalized experience. Science/public health doesn't work that way.

I suggest you look up the potential problems caused by measles, mumps, and the other diseases we vaccinate against before you make statements about how it is better for people to get the diseases than to be vaccinated. These will get you started:
http://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/vp...
http://www.cdc.gov/mumps/about...
http://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/vp...

Ignorance is a choice. Smart people recognize their ignorance and attempt to rectify it. Stupid people choose to remain ignorant. Which are you?