Doctors brace for a new wave of vaccine hysteria

Yeah, y'know, when I look for advice on what's good for my kids, I'd so much rather pay attention to an overhyped bimbo than to somebody who actually went to medical school. 

ETA: An interesting little link about the consequences of McCarthy's disinformation:

http://www.jennymccarthybodycount.com/Jenny_McCarthy_Body_Count/Home.html

"bimbo" wtf??????

Well I would say those Drs at the sight you attend sineed need their licenses pulled for stating that kind of classist crap. Utterly contemptable.

While I tend to agree with timebandit strictly around the vaccine issue, I'm going to agree with remind about how it was expressed.

Bimbo?!

I don't care how she makes her living.  She's a parent of a kid to whom something happened, and has every right to lobby loud and hard to get her point of view out.  This would be no different than devaluing my opinion as to my child's medical care because I'm just a dumpy middle aged guy with only a Mickey Mouse humanities degree.

Feminist principles on this board don't end with the feminist forum.

FWIW, my kids were vaccinated, and that's the side of that issue I come down on.  I still feel that way despite my sons Aspergers Syndrome which I believe to be unrelated.

Timebandit wrote:

As far as I'm concerned, a woman who bases her credibility around celebrity gained for taking off her knickers in public is fair game for the term "bimbo".  She may be an "activist", but I'm having difficulty finding some aspect of the public persona, activist or not, that inspires some form of respect.  Can't find one. 

I respect her for being the mother of a child with Autism who did everything in her power to help her child including speech therapy, ocupational therapy, applied behavioural analysis therapy and nutritional therapies. I may not always agree with the message or how it is presented but it is presented by a mother I respect for doing the best she can for her child.

Unionist wrote:

"Dumpy"!!?? WTF?

On a more serious note, I wouldn't be too concerned about Canadians "saving" their kids from vaccination. Not a big problem here. Down south, on the other hand, they even believe single-payer public health care is a Satanic plot, so I would expect millions to be resisting the Evil Needle.

 

Sorry Unionist but you obviously haven't been on many autism boards. I am on a few special needs boards, the ones not having to do with Autism not a whisper but definetly a big movement in the Autism biomed community. They know all the ins and outs of mercury, thermite etc

Dr Devra Davis said in 2007,

Quote:

The same fire retardant, chlorinated tris, that was removed from children's sleepwear 30 years ago is being used to meet the California standard. Tris is a mutagen and a carcinogen and CPSC studies predict 300 cases of cancer per million people exposed to tris in furniture. If tris were used across the US, 90,000 cases of cancer would be predicted.. 7. Dozens of scientific studies are under way looking at the relationship of other fire retardant chemicals to [url=http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/07284/824678-114.stm]birth defects, autism, hyperactivity, reduced fertility and sperm counts and other neurological and reproductive conditions[/url]

G. Pie wrote:

Thank you, remind.

And, while we're at it, what does "former Playboy bunny" have to do with it?  She's an activist, she doesn't have a medical degree, isn't that what's relevant?  There's a very ugly side to the public's criticism of McCarthy. 

Playboy bunny has everything to do with it; that's why she gets the attention in the 1st place.  To say we have to respect her activist creds on their own merit and ignore how she got famous is just as disingenuous as Billy Bob Thornton throwing a hissy when people mention his acting career.

Quote:

She genuinely believes that medical science is wrong on a critical issue. 

You don't "believe" science to be wrong. You PROVE it to be wrong.

Snert wrote:

Quote:

She genuinely believes that medical science is wrong on a critical issue. 

You don't "believe" science to be wrong. You PROVE it to be wrong.

And that may happen.

G. Pie wrote:

Sineed wrote:

Playboy bunny has everything to do with it; that's why she gets the attention in the 1st place.

I disagree.  I think anybody could have turned out to be the primary antivax activist.  She gets the attention because the public is justifiably alarmed at the rate of autism. 

Quote:

To say we have to respect her activist creds on their own merit and ignore how she got famous is just as disingenuous as Billy Bob Thornton throwing a hissy when people mention his acting career.

No.  Over the course of BBT's musical career, he will morph from "former actor" to "musician."  Bill Gates isn't routinely tagged a "former college drop-out."  But Jenny McCarthy will always be a "former Playboy bunny" and that's sexist and disgusting.

Jenny McCarthy joins a long list of celebrities, male or female, using their fame as a pulpit from which to preach whatever their personal obsessions.  To call her an activist is like calling Tom Cruise a spokesman for religious diversity.

Jenny may always be known as a former playboy bunny just as Billy Bob may always be known as that actor who was married to Angelina Jolie.  Such is the nature of fame.

remind wrote:

While on the topic of vaccinations what do people think about forced vaccinations for the swine flu?

Well, they have to invent it first.  And I doubt it'll happen - influenza vaccine-making resources are being used right now to make the regular seasonal flu vaccine.  WHO is still in wait and see mode; there'll be no vaccine if it turns out to be a mild infection as it makes its way through the southern hemisphere, which is currently entering its flu season.

Snert wrote:

Did you know that Ronald Reagan used to be an [i]actor[/i]. He once "acted" with a monkey!! I'll bet you didn't know that, because when men change careers, we don't dog them with their less-reputable pasts.

You know perfectly well what I mean, Snert.  There's a sexist nastiness to "former Playboy bunny."  Finding counter-examples doesn't change that.

G. Pie wrote:

Timebandit wrote:

 And yet the misinformation persists, with extra vitriol and vehemence, and kids get sick with preventable diseases.  Some of them die.  And Jenny McCarthy has publicly said that's okay if it fits with her agenda.  I have a real problem with that.

No, she hasn't said it's okay if kids die as long as she furthers her agenda.  That's a really offensive distortion.  Don't be such a bimbo!

Check the link I posted above:  "I do believe sadly that it's going to take some diseases coming back to realize that we need to change and develop vaccines that are safe."  Time Magazine article, April 2009.  Is that offensive enough for you?  I find it offensive that anybody would come to the defense of what this quackadoo spouts.

The thing is, the vaccines ARE safe, this has been demonstrated and still she calls for people to not vaccinate their kids, and she uses her celebrity to promote this very dangerous view.  That's right - put YOUR kids at risk so Jenny has somebody to blame for her child's illness.

I think it's tragic that McCarthy's son is autistic (although she claims he's cured now...), but that doesn't give her a free pass to advocate for spurious causes or spread false information.  I fully understand that a diagnosis of autism is devastating and that it's perfectly natural to look for a cause and maybe somebody to take responsibility for it.  Maybe if she'd switched to looking at plastics in our environment  when somebody showed her there's no evidence for the vaccine theory she might have some sort of credibility.  ADHD and autism spectrum disorders started rising shortly after the rise in use of plastics - and I'm not saying I think plastics are necessarily the cause, but doesn't it make more sense to rule out another thing rather than denying the obvious?

G. Pie wrote:

remind wrote:

Actually not coming back to this thread, the sexism and nastiness is intolerable.

I swear to God I wrote "sexist nastiness" before I read this.  Remind, I agree with you. 

I agree too, I think that anyone who dismisses a woman's argument by identifying her as a bimbo reveals more about themselves than the woman they are attempting to shut up.  As someone who has experienced that kind of bullshit it has been my experience that those individuals have tiny little.................

minds.

LOL

Shifting to insulting the "Sexism Police" only proves the point.  Thanks.  LOL

BTW, the article I linked to above has numerous links, and it details the fact that autism causational factors are not fully  known. And one of the links details "professionals" who are in conflict of interest when that have stated vaccinations play no part. It has a huge amount of informaiton in it.

Ennir I worked with autistics for years, and I too have the same anecdotal stories you have come across, plus there are 3 families here in town who have also suffered the same, children bright and developmentally fine until their 6-18 month vaccinations. It seems there is a relationship to older vaccines in more rural areas too, as health authorities by significant amounts and it might not get used fast enough in areas of low birthrates and thus degrades.

Timebandit wrote:

However, what has been addressed is whether vaccination has anything to do with autism spectrum disorders and that is something that HAS been exhaustively investigated.  And yet the misinformation persists, with extra vitriol and vehemence, and kids get sick with preventable diseases.  Some of them die.  And Jenny McCarthy has publicly said that's okay if it fits with her agenda.  I have a real problem with that. 

This is an utter fabrication on your part!

Dr Patricia Fitzgerald on Jenny McCarthy and autism

Quote:

When it comes to healing autism or any chronic condition, improving the diet and adding nutritional supplements are interventions that are rapidly gaining mainstream acceptance.

However, the most controversial area that Jenny and Dr. Kartzinel discuss in their book is that of vaccinations. The two have brought to light what they consider to be an excessive use of vaccines in the US, and therefore they have often been accused of being "anti-vaccine."

Here's how Jenny explains her view of this hot-button issue at the beginning of the chapter on vaccines: "Despite what anybody thinks, I'm still not against vaccines ... if I were you, I would educate myself on each shot and what it protects against, along with the possible side effects." The rest of the chapter is a conversation during which Jenny and Dr. Kartzinel discuss vaccine pros and cons, side effects, an alternative shot schedule, and the ingredients in vaccines. Resources for further research are also provided.

The autism-vaccine link is being studied because there are actual concerns that warrant these studies. Some studies support the use of certain vaccines, while other studies do not. Often there are conflicts of interest within studies. It can make anybody's head spin trying to sort through these studies.

Some research has denied the autism-vaccine link, while some has supported such a connection. There are two cases recently highlighted in the news related to children who received compensation because of a vaccination connection to autism spectrum disorder.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/dr-patricia-fitzgerald/jenny-mccarthys-aut...

Quote:

BTW, I don't see "bimbo" as so much an insult to McCarthy's gender so much as it is about how she runs her career.

And BS on the comment about how she runs her career, it is a narrow minded judgement on what you perceive as her morality as a woman and nothing more. And who the hell are you to judge what someone else  does with their "career". Plus your commentary IMV is slanderous!

Thanks for the link remind.

What I find outrageous is that those anecdotal stories are ignored, I suppose it is a strategy that has worked before and they assume it will continue to work.   The reality though is that increasing numbers of children are being diagnosed with autism and their parents have access to the internet.

The increasing numbers have been over the last few years, it has sfa to do with diagnosis being missed years ago.

The public health nurse here, actually quit being a public health nurse here, as she was forced to use close to expiry vaccines that she felt were not good. And there had already been 3 cases of children who of all sudden became autistic after they had received innoculations.

Sineed, frankly I would not trust your word if my life depended on it.

So what is so bad about questioning the link between drugs that are made by big pharma (cause we know how ethical they are) and behaviour.  If it isn't true, fine, if it is, I am glad that someone was willing to look.

NB most studies that say that there is not link are funded by big Pharma. 

Here is an article from the Huffington Post on one of three cases for the United States Government that were suppose to disprove the link between Autism and the Vaccine.  Instead they found that children who have a mitochondrial disorder and have the shot can develop Autism after the shot (Autistic symptoms are not a part of the mitochondrial disorder).  10-20% of the children with Autism have this Mitochondrial Disorder as compared to only 0.2% in the general population.  It raises enough questions for me to say there needs to be more research to find out if there are any other agrevating factors that would cause a child to develop Autism or any other issues other than Mitochondrial Disorder.

Huffington Post wrote:

After years of insisting there is no evidence to link vaccines with the onset of autism spectrum disorder (ASD), the US government has quietly conceded a vaccine-autism case in the Court of Federal Claims.

The unprecedented concession was filed on November 9, and sealed to protect the plaintiff's identify. It was obtained through individuals unrelated to the case.

The claim, one of 4,900 autism cases currently pending in Federal "Vaccine Court," was conceded by US Assistant Attorney General Peter Keisler and other Justice Department officials, on behalf of the Department of Health and Human Services, the "defendant" in all Vaccine Court cases.

The child's claim against the government -- that mercury-containing vaccines were the cause of her autism -- was supposed to be one of three "test cases" for the thimerosal-autism theory currently under consideration by a three-member panel of Special Masters, the presiding justices in Federal Claims Court.

Keisler wrote that medical personnel at the HHS Division of Vaccine Injury Compensation (DVIC) had reviewed the case and "concluded that compensation is appropriate."

The doctors conceded that the child was healthy and developing normally until her 18-month well-baby visit, when she received vaccinations against nine different diseases all at once (two contained thimerosal).

Days later, the girl began spiraling downward into a cascade of illnesses and setbacks that, within months, presented as symptoms of autism, including: No response to verbal direction; loss of language skills; no eye contact; loss of "relatedness;" insomnia; incessant screaming; arching; and "watching the florescent lights repeatedly during examination."

Seven months after vaccination, the patient was diagnosed by Dr. Andrew Zimmerman, a leading neurologist at the Kennedy Krieger Children's Hospital Neurology Clinic, with "regressive encephalopathy (brain disease) with features consistent with autistic spectrum disorder, following normal development." The girl also met the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual for Mental Disorders (DSM-IV) official criteria for autism.

In its written concession, the government said the child had a pre-existing mitochondrial disorder that was "aggravated" by her shots, and which ultimately resulted in an ASD diagnosis.

"The vaccinations received on July 19, 2000, significantly aggravated an underlying mitochondrial disorder," the concession says, "which predisposed her to deficits in cellular energy metabolism, and manifested as a regressive encephalopathy with features of ASD."

Full Article

Remind, I am assuming that you are responding to the "need an introduction to reality" from Timebandit, not the article I posted.

Timebandit: "They're not ignored, martin, they're DISCREDITED.  There is a world of difference. In fact, rather than being ignored, studies have been conducted, double-blind, analyzed, meta-analyzed and then the results have been taken through the system to the US Supreme Court, who recently ruled that, given the EVIDENCE (y'know, that inconvenient stuff made of, whaddayacallit, oh, FACTS) there is no connection."

I have made this point in another thread so I'll be brief. You can use the scientific method to establish a connection between facts, but you can't deduce anything from the absence of evidence of a connection. All you can say that you haven't found the evidence you were looking for. Says nothing about reality: you could have been looking in the wrong place, at the wrong pattern, you could have been careless or out of luck, but to put it simply, the absence of a sought correlation doesn't prove or disprove anything in itself. Science is built on observed, stable, repeatable correlations, not on the lack thereof. A theory can only be "discredited" by a better theory, not by a lack of authoritative evidence.