• Welcome to Autism Forums, a friendly forum to discuss Aspergers Syndrome, Autism, High Functioning Autism and related conditions.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Private Member only forums for more serious discussions that you may wish to not have guests or search engines access to.
    • Your very own blog. Write about anything you like on your own individual blog.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon! Please also check us out @ https://www.twitter.com/aspiescentral

Jenny McCarthy

Status
Not open for further replies.
S

Spinning Compass

Well-Known Member
V.I.P Member
I see now that Jenny McCarthy, high priestess of the "vaccines cause autism" religion, has now renounced her faith and has told Time magazine that not only do vaccines not cause autism, her son never was autistic in the first place. Nice going, Ms. McCarthy. Can anyone say Class Action Suit?

I think an appropriate "penance" or "restitution", to use the language of the Catholic Church in which I grew up, is for Ms. McCarthy to now spend the rest of her career trying to undo the damage that she has done. How many people, especially children, elderly and the immunocompromised have lost their health or their lives because of Ms. McCarthy's advice? Diseases that were almost extinct have made a dramatic comeback, and the blame can be led directly at the feet of two people, Ms. McCarthy and "Dr." Andrew Wakefield. And we all know what his peers think of "Dr." Wakefield's "research."

The good "doctor" has pretty much faded from the scene and I expect that Ms. McCarthy will soon follow, to lick her wounds quietly in private without not a word of sorrow or sympathy. The sad thing is, even if she were to start speaking up about the fact that she was wrong, not just wrong, but seriously, life-threateningly wrong, there are many who will not believe her now and say that she has sold out to Big Pharma or something like that.

It is times like these that I wish that there really was a Last Judgement, because there will be no justice here on earth.
 
Sadly, it seems she has not changed her position. Jenny McCarthy calls report of new stance on autism, vaccines 'irresponsible and inaccurate' | Entertainment & Showbiz from CTV News

Kudos to the above article for including these sentences Health experts in the U.S. and Canada have said her opinions may be influencing parents not to vaccinate their children, which could lead to troublesome consequences. Research that suggested a link between vaccines and autism has long since been discredited and retracted, and experts say other studies have failed to prove a connection
 
I'm shocked that anyone listens to her at all! She has no academic credentials whatsoever & is just another ridiculous, uninformed celebrity. What she is advocating is dangerous & irresponsible .
 
I agree with you Soup. It's particularly harmful because not having necessary vaccines is harmful for everyone.
 
One thing about celebrities and their personal liability...in insurance we refer to them as "target risks". Being an entertainer and a social advocate carries a lot of potential exposure to loss. Especially to a civil jury who is likely to assume they have very "deep pockets".
 
I do not like this thread. This is very related to the vaccine controversy, although it affirms the thought that 'vaccines do not cause autism'.

My parents told me before vaccines are given, there are different processes to make sure that vaccines are pure. They also mention there could be side-effects on the vaccines, but the side effects of lead in petrol is probably more than the chemicals on the vaccines.

As I mentioned somewhere

Isn't it really clear that vaccines do not cause autism, but our unwillingness to work on our strengths to overcome our weaknesses cause issues for us?
Click to expand...
 
While Jenny McCarthy and her insane views are a problem, there is an elephant in the room that should be mentioned. It is very problematic that there are a great deal of people that will just accept the word on vaccines from someone with no training whatsoever as a factual source of information and will consciously choose to reject well-established medical conclusions of vaccines that come from highly qualified people that do legitimate research on the safety of vaccines. Science denialism is a huge and pervasive problem, and Jenny McCarthy is only one example of this.
 
I absolutely agree. I work in a research facility and it is frightening to see some of the things that people who work there believe--people who should know better. Fortunately they are not the ones directly involved in research, but still, the very fact that science denialism exists within our very walls is disturbing.

A bit unrelated, but on the same vein: I am now taking classes at the local community college. One of my classes is about the cultures of Latin America. I was a bit disconcerted to hear the prof say, on discussing how the first peoples came to the Americas, "I don't know if you believe in creationism or evolution but . . ." He went on to say that what he was going to present was the standard scientific view of such things, but no one was obliged to accept it, they just had to know the terms for the test. I am going, WTF? In a public college? Have things gotten to such a pass that the creationists must be pandered to? What about the Mormons and their explanation of how the first people got to the Americas? I think I just might bring up the Book of Mormon next class just for the fun of it even though I'm not Mormon.
 
The Book of Mormon makes for hilarious reading. (How exactly does Creationism contradict emmigration, anyway? Does it say, "if the Native Americans descend from Asians, why are there still Asians?"?)

As for Jenny McCarthy, her biggest giveaway is that she says a gluten free diet "cured" her son's autism. Following basic logic (at which she fails), based on the premises which she accepts (vaccines cause autism, gluten free diet cures autism), she should be saying, "vaccinate your kids, then put them on a gluten free diet to cure the autism they contract from said life-saving vaccines."
 
How it came up (Creationism) was that the prof was talking about humans leaving Africa and the dates this was thought to have happened. Most Creationists I know believe that the earth is anywhere between 6,000 to 15,000 years old, so if you are talking about people coming to the Americas earlier than that--or even when they left Africa (for example, Australia is thought to have been settled around 40,000 years ago)--then there is a problem for those who are Creationists and believe the world is only about 15,000 years old like my former pastor. I was just amazed that he would even bring the issue up, so I am wondering if there have been some clashes with Creationist students at this school, which, as I said, is a public community college, not a sectarian school. But if you are going to admit Creationism as a possibly valid worldview, then I say the Book of Mormon is equally valid in talking about New World history. And I didn't hear him pandering to any Mormons in the class!
 
Last edited:
Spinning Compass said:
I see now that Jenny McCarthy, high priestess of the "vaccines cause autism" religion, has now renounced her faith and has told Time magazine that not only do vaccines not cause autism, her son never was autistic in the first place. Nice going, Ms. McCarthy. Can anyone say Class Action Suit?

I think an appropriate "penance" or "restitution", to use the language of the Catholic Church in which I grew up, is for Ms. McCarthy to now spend the rest of her career trying to undo the damage that she has done. How many people, especially children, elderly and the immunocompromised have lost their health or their lives because of Ms. McCarthy's advice? Diseases that were almost extinct have made a dramatic comeback, and the blame can be led directly at the feet of two people, Ms. McCarthy and "Dr." Andrew Wakefield. And we all know what his peers think of "Dr." Wakefield's "research."

The good "doctor" has pretty much faded from the scene and I expect that Ms. McCarthy will soon follow, to lick her wounds quietly in private without not a word of sorrow or sympathy. The sad thing is, even if she were to start speaking up about the fact that she was wrong, not just wrong, but seriously, life-threateningly wrong, there are many who will not believe her now and say that she has sold out to Big Pharma or something like that.

It is times like these that I wish that there really was a Last Judgement, because there will be no justice here on earth.
Click to expand...

Just keep her off TV for a week. I'm pretty sure she would curl up and die.
 
I meant no disrespect of the Mormon religion; personally, while I can't bring myself to accept it, I find its history fascinating. I brought it up, because I was surprised that my professor would mention possible conflicts with Creationism yet say absolutely nothing about the even greater challenge the Book of Mormon poses to mainstream North and South American archaeology. The Book of Mormon is quite detailed in naming names and places and even lifestyles, which is its Achilles' heel, since it claims to be a history of America's pre-Columbian inhabitants. As far as I know, however, no non-Mormon archaeologist has found anything at all corresponding to the descriptions given in the Book of Mormon, no towns, no kings, no nothing. So that raises several possibilities: a) there is evidence confirming the Book of Mormon, but non-Mormon archaeologists have suppressed it; b) the evidence hasn't been found yet (remember, Troy was also thought to be fictional until it was discovered); or c) the evidence completely and thoroughly discredits the Book. It is interesting from a comparative religion point of view that numerous digs in Israel and surrounding areas have confirmed that the Bible was right at least some of the time when talking about the peoples and cultures of that part of the world, so one would expect the same to be the case in the New World and it--so far--isn't. What I mean is even someone who doesn't believe the Bible is any more special than any other book can at least read it and say, yes, there were Romans, there were Persians, there were Egyptians; these countries and peoples did exist and some still do. So why would anyone who wasn't Mormon suppress evidence supporting the Book of Mormon? So my stance is more towards (c), but with a caveat, evidence may yet surface validating what the Book claims. In that case, in all honesty, I would have to re-evaluate my attitude toward the Mormon religion and to the supernatural in general.

But to get back to Ms. MCarthy. It doesn't really matter in the end whether the Book of Mormon is true or whether Smith made it up, in terms of harming others. Ms. McCarthy's claims, on the other hand, have much more serious consequences.
 
You mean it matters a lot in the end, but not for this thread. You don't see Mormons denying people life-saving treatment or talking them out of taking health precautions.

McCarthy… I don't see why we're not supposed to talk about her ******** here. What is the Admin afraid of?

Also, pretty sure that warning was meant for me.
 
I just mention the religion because any discussion of religion can become a very sensitive issue, it has been known to go downhill very quickly on this forum, and I'm just trying to keep a close eye on it. (as I am with this thread being related to the autism/vaccine controversy)

One thing I will not do is quesiton Ms. McCarthy's personal motivations. However wrong she may be; however irresponsible she has been promoting her nonsense; at the end of the day, I have zero doubt that she is deeply devoted to her son, and wants what is best for him. If she has backed off of her claims, all the better. What I find much more disturbing is both the media and other high-profile quacks latching onto the idea. What of the various talk shows that have given her much more air time than she deserves? What of Wakefield himself, who, despite being long discredited, continues to make the rounds at antivax conferences and spout nonsense? Ms. McCarty is only a small thread in this gigantic fabric that has been woven over the past couple of decades. While she IS a spokesperson, there is plenty of blame to go around...and, of course, plenty of others who will continue to plough along with this dangerous nonsense.
 
Last edited:
I like what Soup said... its crazy how much weight we give celebrity opinion . If only we would pay as much attention to the opinion of educated leaders in there respective field, Nobel Laureates , and great thinkers....Not some woman that was in playboy, and has been in a string of mediocre rom-coms.

I'm more criticizing whats valuable and important in society today. Not attacking her personally. I have to say as a teenage boy in the 90's , Jenny McArthy was the classic, achetype of all things sexy and good. But, we shouldn't really put any value on what she thinks, one way or the other.
 
GallacticGorilla said:
If only we would pay as much attention to the opinion of educated leaders in there respective field, Nobel Laureates , and great thinkers
Click to expand...

I think the most important thing there is IN THEIR RESPECTIVE FIELDS. Nobel laureates can say all sorts of crazy and dead wrong things about fields that are well outside their expertise, and people listen to them because, "hey, this guy/lady won a Nobel, they MUST be correct!" It's an excellent exercise in that delicate act of following the evidence and thinking for yourself while admitting you have to trust to SOME authority who is more intimately familiar with the subject than any of us could ever hope to be. The problem arises when highly educated people step far outside their fields of expertise and make statements that are blatantly wrong.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

New Threads

Top Bottom