Subscribe via RSS Feed

The Myth That Won’t Die

[ 102 ] May 14, 2012 |

Glad to see the Chicago Sun-Times is giving noted moron Jenny McCarthy a forum to spread her anti-vaccination idiocy.

Comments (102)

Trackback URL | Comments RSS Feed

  1. Western Dave says:

    She didn’t say anything about vaccination in the article, just treatment.

    • Barry Freed says:

      Yeah, seconded. She’s reprehensible all right but nothing about vaccination there.

    • Warren Terra says:

      This is sort of true. It’s true in that se says nothing about vaccination – but it’s an exaggeration to say that she’s discussing “treatment”. She’s discussing unproven ideas about “detoxifying” that lead directly to the same unproven (in some cases disproven) ideas about metal toxicity that leads desperate parents to blame mercury preservatives in vaccines and to seek out unlicensed, ineffective, expensive, and unsafe chelating procedures to remove supposedly causative metal contamination.

      Beyond anything she happens to say in this carefully scripted and edited interview, she is a dangerous and a toxic force in our society and should not be given credibility. You wouldn’t have a soft-focus interview seeking the advice of and praising Bernie Madoff, no matter how unobjectionable the views he happened to propound in that instance.

    • Murc says:

      So what?

      If someone tells me the Earth is flat, I immediately dismiss them as uncredible. If they come to me the next day and ask for a forum in which to say the sky is blue, I’m still not going to give them one, because they’ve proven that they’re UNCREDIBLE.

    • R Johnston says:

      Giving Jenny McCarthy a forum for talking about autism treatment is insane. Her idea of treatment is no less bogus than her idea of cause, and even if it weren’t, as has already been pointed out, lending her credibility on the issue of autism is simply awful and evil.

      The only person with whom McCarthy should be allowed to talk about autism is her therapist.

    • DrDick says:

      She is a loon who promotes quack theories of causality and of curing. She needs to be laughed off the public stage for the buffoon she is. Hardly surprising that the Sun-Times would give her space, probably looking for a Page 3 girl.

      • Anonymous says:

        Can you not do that, dude? McCarthy is wrong. You don’t have to throw sexist jibes at her to prove that. This place stinks, sometimes.

        • Stag Party Palin says:

          (a) you have a pretty low boiling point there, and (b) since Ms McCarthy has modeled nude for Playboy, well, do I really need to go on?

          • Murrietta says:

            Yeah, you really do. Because I’m interested in hearing about how her having posed nude is the reason that her views on vaccinations should be mocked and dismissed — as, indeed, they should be. But that’s not why, and all of you ought to know better than to resort to these frat boy jibes. Putting in the Page3 link is as good as calling her a slut. Do I really need to explain to you why doing so, in the context of refuting her (entirely inaccurate and harmful) ideas about something as non-sexual as vaccines might strike some of us as ill-considered?

            • Bijan Parsia says:

              Agreed. The sexism is unnecessary and inherently problematic for all the standard obvious reasons. Let’s not do that.

            • Anonymous says:

              Putting in the Page3 link is as good as calling her a slut.

              You think posing for photographs in a bikini means you’re a slut? Really?

              • rea says:

                Previous anon. was me.

              • DrDick says:

                I also never said or implied that she would was interested in that or would do so, only that it informs the Sun Times decisions. I am not impugning her in this regard, but asserting the Murdoch’s papers have a history of exploiting women for profit.

                • proverbialleadballoon says:

                  the sun-times isn’t owned by murdoch. it’s owned by wrapports llc. the sun-times is in a lot of ways a rag, but it also gives page room to some liberal voices, as well as breaking the casey kochman murder/manslaughter case involving former mayor daley’s nephew, which had been swept under the rug for nearly ten years. it definitely subscribes to the ‘both sides do it’ rule of the mainstream media, but it’s no murdoch paper.

                  not to excuse this, but jennie mccarthy is a chicago hometown girl, so she gets/has gotten a lot more press around here over her career than elsewhere, which is what i would bet got her this platform.

                  also, i don’t see this column in the physical paper itself, either in today’s or yesterday’s paper (my folks get the sun-times). this possibly is an internet-only article?

                  again, no excuse for giving mccarthy a platform to preach her stupidity, but the sun-times isn’t that bad, in the grand scheme comparison.

                • Ed says:

                  Respectfully, whatever your intention, your OP doesn’t read as a condemnation of the Murdoch papers but as a swipe at McCarthy.

                  What Bijan Parsia and Murrietta said. I would also add that it’s the wider culture, not just the likes of Murdoch, that values women primarily for their bodies and encourages them to take off their clothes to get attention. No matter if she’s photographed in a bikini or buck naked, that doesn’t mean it’s open season on her for sexist jokes and slurs for the rest of her life.

              • fasteddie9318 says:

                I, also too, am interested in how it’s sexist to dismiss Jenny McCarthy as a “page 3 girl,” but not sexist to decree that being a “page 3 girl” ipso facto makes one a slut.

                I would think both comments are fairly troubling.

                • Anon21 says:

                  to decree that being a “page 3 girl” ipso facto makes one a slut.

                  So, that’s not what Murrietta said. S/he said that “[p]utting in the Page3 link is as good as calling her a slut.” The more natural reading of that is that she is interpreting DrDick’s post, and what he meant to signify by using the link in that way. I don’t think Murrietta expressed any personal view about what posing as a Page 3 Girl means.

                • fasteddie9318 says:

                  The inference itself suggests a strong “personal view about what posing as a Page 3 Girl means.” I don’t assume that any girl who poses for a provocative photograph is a slut, and I didn’t read that into DrDick’s comment. As far as I can tell Murrietta has a different set of assumptions.

                • Anon21 says:

                  Not so much. It suggests a keen understanding of the typical cultural construction of a woman who poses scantily clad, and a realistic appraisal of what the implication of posting a link like that means. A poster who implies that no paper could be interested in listening to a woman unless it involves her taking her clothes off is more likely than the average person to hold that association between shameful sexual promiscuity and bikini posing, and more likely to intend his readers to make that association for themselves.

                • mpowell says:

                  How the hell can suggesting a former playboy girl be a plausible page 3 girl be equivalent to calling the woman a slut? She already posed for playboy! Either you think that makes her a slut or not, being a page 3 girl or not hardly changes anything.

            • DrDick says:

              I was referencing the nature of Murdoch’s papers with that comment (please read the phrasing), not Ms, McCarthy (though it was informed by her stint in Playboy). If you read what I actually said, you will see that I said we should reject Ms McCarthy because she is a loon (and would be regardless of gender).

              The comment that offended you was in reference to the business practices of Murdock papers (The Sun is one of his). It suggests why they would give her space, since her views are about as credible as those of flat earthers. Nothing sexist about it.

              • Hogan says:

                The Sun-Times is not the Sun, and hasn’t been owned by Murdoch since 1986.

              • rea says:

                The Sun is a British tabloid. The Chicago Sun-Times . . . is not British.

                • DrDick says:

                  I am aware that the Sun and Sun Times are different papers, as I lived in Chicago for 12 years. I was not aware that Murdoch had sold the paper and assumed this was just another example of his typical business practices.

                • Pseudonym says:

                  But are you aware of all internet traditions?

          • Walt says:

            I agree. How does the fact that she posed in Playboy make any difference to her credibility? She would be just as much of a nut even if she dressed as a nun all the time.

            • Spud says:

              Now you are just getting kinky.

            • DrDick says:

              Pleas read what I said. The comment that has everyone in a twist is about the Sun Times and not her. I frankly do not care if she is a porn star and it has no bearing on the validity of what she said. It does reflect on the motivations of the paper in airing her views.

              Also, I am not the one saying she is a slut. Her decisions about these sorts of things are her own and are not indictments of her character. That others are morally offended by some women’s decisions in this regard is not my doing.

              • Spud says:

                OK I will say it.

                The reason why posing for Playboy affects her credibility is that it is really the only thing she is famous for.

                She is not a doctor, she is not a scientist, she makes a living off of displaying her body.

                Nothing about her informs the public that she has any kind of authority on the subject or is even an intelligent person. Judging by what she says in public, its clear she is a moron.

                The only reason she has any kind of media attention is because of her body, so proudly displayed in various media.

                So yes, it does affect her credibility.

                • Anonymous says:

                  I’m thinking it’s the “pride” upon which most dudes here are hanging their hats. Something awful distasteful about a little lady who knows she’s beauty compliant. Got to knock her and her stupid opinions off that pedestal, double quick.

                  Ought to be interested next time an Actor Man or Musician Man deigns to share with us his lordly political views. Will anyone suggest that he’s too good-looking to have an opinion? That he ought to go back to tooting that horn, or fingering that geetar? I rather doubt it.

                • Malaclypse says:

                  Something awful distasteful about a little lady who knows she’s beauty compliant. Got to knock her and her stupid opinions off that pedestal, double quick.

                  What is “distasteful” is the fact that children that don’t get vaccinated get sick and sometimes die.

                  Ought to be interested next time an Actor Man or Musician Man deigns to share with us his lordly political views.

                  And if those views lead to the death of children, then they are assholes, regardless of gender. That’s what is getting lost in this gender discussion – real children die because morons tell parents not to vaccinate kids. That’s the issue – dead fucking children.

                • Anonymous says:

                  If that’s the case, then say so. Talking about her tits hardly fits the bill or is commensurate with the harm she may be indirectly causing.

                • Anonymous says:

                  A “gender discussion”? Wouldn’t want women to take up too many space or too many words in a mere “gender discussion.” Might get thoughts above their station, having one whole leg of a much larger thread be devoted, pearls clutched, to the ladies.

                  Fucking hell.

                • Malaclypse says:

                  I sincerely apologize for thinking that we should perhaps be discussing the dead children.

                • Anonymous says:

                  So why are we talking about (wanking over, furiously) McCarthy’s tits then? Did they detach themselves from her body and go on a child-killing spree?

                • Malaclypse says:

                  “We” have not been. “We” have never mentioned McCarthy’s appearance even once.

            • ajay says:

              She would be just as much of a nut even if she dressed as a nun all the time.

              Ceteris paribus, someone who wasn’t a nun but went around dressed as a nun all the time would probably be even more of a nut than someone who dressed normally.

    • Bexley says:

      Actually the treatment stuff is just as scary. Various unscrupulous quacks prey on gullible parents and inflict some unproven “treatments” with potentially nasty side effects on autistic children.

    • Halloween Jack says:

      As Eileen notes below, Andrew Wakefield is one of the keynote speakers at this conference that’s being promoted in the article (which even includes a handy link to registration).

  2. sleepyirv says:

    A nice reminder that money cleans all. No matter how you made it, no matter what you’re saying, you and your beliefs are respectable if you have some money backing it up.

  3. Amok92 says:

    I think Erik being fair here, the article mentions her organization which has this web page:

    http://www.generationrescue.org/resources/vaccination/

    • Erik Loomis says:

      Right; she might not be able to make the connection directly in the piece, but it gives this incredibly uncredible person credibility and encourages readers to believe her on these matters.

    • DocAmazing says:

      Generation Rescue is a community of parents and families who have vaccinated their children and now believe in informed consent.

      Gosh, it’s good to know that they have now embraced informed consent. The rest of us got the clue around the time of the Nuremburg Trials.

      • arguingwithsignposts says:

        I remember getting three kids vaccinated, and listening as the pediatrician recited the risks. Was I dreaming all that?

        • DocAmazing says:

          The dancing squirrels in the background should have been a giveaway, if being in your underwear in front of your fifth-grade class wasn’t.

  4. Njorl says:

    It was nice to see that almost every comment at the CST condemned the paper for promoting the quack.

  5. Ken says:

    Got a flyer in the mail today for the conference Jenny’s promoting. Let me dig it out of the recycle bin…

    This AutismOne/Generation Rescue conference… formerly cost $300 per person to attend. It is now reduced to only $25.

    Seems to me there’s more between the lines than in the lines.

  6. calling all toasters says:

    Nothing like Murdoch journalism:

    The Sun-Times proudly supports Generation Rescue & Autism One.

  7. Spud says:

    I liked her better when she was just known for a couple of Playboy spreads, large breasts, and being a dismal failure in television comedy of both sketch and sitcom varieties.

    • Anonymous says:

      Yep, no misogyny here.

    • Blue Neponset says:

      Me too.

      It would be nice if every interviewer reminded people that she got “famous” by posing naked.

      • Warren Terra says:

        Well, no, but people with the opportunity to interview her might remember that she is famous basically for getting naked for the camera and for being tragically, dangerously wrong about vaccines, and decide she’s simply not worth interviewing.

        • Furious Jorge says:

          But if not for the former, no one would care about her opinions on the latter, and she’d be unable to cause so much damage.

          • Spud says:

            I get the feeling that the only reason the articles get published is to justify the time the interviewers spent staring at her chest.

      • Anonymous says:

        Why would posing naked, in and of itself, damn her credibility and make her a worthless subject for an interview?

        The men in this thread are having it both ways, on the one hand scandalized that a woman followed standard operating procedure for female celebrities (“racy” photographs, oh my!) might have a strong opinion (wrong though it may be), on the other expressing the belief that tits are all this particular woman’s good for, anyway, and how dare you call us sexist for bringing up her tits.

        Crazy.

        • Why would posing naked, in and of itself, damn her credibility and make her a worthless subject for an interview?

          I too think the comment you were reacting to is sexist, but I think you have to turn this one around: the reason she is being interviewed is because she posed naked and still looks good. It’s the Sun-Times and that is her value in their eyes. Is there a picture of her in the article? I see there is. Maybe if she gets kidnapped or bitten by a shark she can edit the science page.

          • sherparick says:

            I think this is a good point. All the English papers are incredibly sexist, even when run by women. Murdock brings that mentality to both the Sun-Times and the NY Post.

            • Anon21 says:

              1) Murdock is the Indiana GOP Senate candidate. Murdoch is the media tycoon.

              2) Murdoch does not own the Sun-Times.

          • Anonymous says:

            I don’t agree that that’s why she’s being interviewed. She’s being interviewed because she’s publicly latched onto this issue and makes loud proclamations to all and sundry her uninformed opinions. She’s famous and noteworthy for more than nude-y photos: she hosted a couple television programs and had a sketch show. Just like a million other male comics, none of whom would be treated like this. Her celebrity is what gets her noticed, and what continues to provide her fora for her (admittedly stupid and dangerous) views. Just like Clooney, grade-A jack ass, gets heaps of attention for voicing ideas that would otherwise be dismissed as so much pro-colonialist propaganda, but because he’s handsome and a celebrity, people notice and papers flock to him and he may even be allowed to fete and/or rub shoulder with minor and major politicians on the strength of these “accomplishments.” No one would ever think of telling Clooney to shut his pretty mouth and strike a pose for us, baby, because dudes’ opinions, even when they differ from our own, generally possess enough authority to be treated with respectful distaste rather than outright contempt or violent sexism.

            Using McCarthy’s looks against her, or making with the slut-shaming, are easy, lazy ways of dismissing her. Better to confront the ideas head on, explain why they’re wrong (and, in this case, they’re undoubtedly wrong), and leave the sexism out of it, unless one wants deliberately to alienate other women who also might fear that their looks, which ought to be irrelevant, or their sexual histories, ditto, be used to silence them whenever they speak out of turn.

            • Her celebrity is what gets her noticed

              I’m happy to retreat to this position: it doesn’t change the position of her marketability for the Sun-Times, and it still doesn’t make her an expert on autism. I am not so plugged-in to celebrity culture but I still hear “former Playboy centrefold Jenny McCarthy” often enough when I hear her name.

              I agree with you that her being good-looking and previously naked shouldn’t be held against her, but neither should it be a strength. There is sexism here in comments, but there is sexism in the Sun-Times pushing her view over bland and plain people who know what they’re talking about.

              • Anonymous says:

                Well, that’s a red herring, isn’t it?

                When in the world has a woman ever been afforded special privileges (I mean, actual privileges–authority in her assumed field, respect from male peers, increased salary or wages) from being perceived as good looking (we’ve all previously been naked, at one point or another)? Is anyone arguing that because some people find Jenny McCarthy attractive, we need to listen to what she says?

                Googling phrases proves what, exactly?

                Of course sexism informs journalism, and choices made by for-profit media. Sexism informs everything because we live in a patriarchy. Normally that’s not a valid reason to endorse more sexism and more sexist slurs, because that’s Just the Way It Is.

                • When in the world has a woman ever been afforded special privileges (I mean, actual privileges–authority in her assumed field, respect from male peers, increased salary or wages) from being perceived as good looking (we’ve all previously been naked, at one point or another)?

                  ???

                  Googling phrases proves what, exactly?

                  Given that it was a link to current news articles and not just a web search, I think it demonstrates something about the nature of her celebrity.

                • Anonymous says:

                  You can continue to insist that McCarthy has been given a platform to speak because you find her beautiful. I’ll continue to ask for evidence proving this link beyond your own impulses, and I’ll continue to damn apologists for condoning sexism when it’s aimed at the Bad Harlots who deserve it.

                • I’m with you on condemning sexists. That Jenny McCarthy has gained benefits from her looks is evident: there is a picture of her in the article because…why?

                • Hogan says:

                  There can be only one possible reason.

                • I thought instantly the answer was “Why not a picture?” Still, I note that neither Ron Paul nor broomstache guy are tipping a shoulder TO ME PERSONALLY.

                • Anonymous says:

                  I’d hardly say providing endless fodder for misogynists to vent their anger is a privilege. She got her picture in the paper? That’s your evidence?

                  Out of all the minor feats she has accomplished, woman operating in a sexist society most celebrated for a couple racy photographs somebody took of her, shock horror. Is this supposed to prove something? Should she just be gagged or made dumb for the rest of her life as penance for doing something vacuous and silly?

                  Unless you’re trying to convince me that the editors and powers that be at a run-of-the-mill centre-right rag are more enlightened about women than a chunk of male commentariat at a self-professed left-wing blog, your larger point continues to elude.

                • Should she just be gagged or made dumb for the rest of her life as penance for doing something vacuous and silly?

                  Should she be promoted and honoured for the rest of her life as reward for doing something vacuous and silly? Posing for Playboy, as far as I can tell, is not a millstone around her neck, and she plays with that experience in calling her child-rearing books “The Naked Truth”.

                • Anonymous says:

                  She is not being asked to comment on the tenuous (in fact, so far mythical) link between autism and vaccination because she’s subjectively pretty. Continuing to say so is stupid and demonstrably untrue.

                  She’s been interviewed (undoubtedly the result of actively seeking out papers and magazines likely to provide her a forum with which to broadcast her particular fact-free, antiscientific rubbish) about the subject because she’s taken it up publicly as her cause, is touting herself as a minor authority and expert on the subject, and is using her position as a mother to further exploit this precarious position for financial gain.

                  I’m not an idiot, and neither are you.

                  McCarthy is either deliberately or unconsciously giving voice to a lot of very dangerous lies. Whether she cares about the consequences of these lies and the harm they are doing is, at present, unknown.

                  It’s for all these reasons that she should be condemned, and not because she incidentally has a pretty face. Men who are good-looking, who have the gall to be publicly and arrogantly and stubbornly stupid in public, are not treated in at all the same fashion. Pretending this is about prettiness is disingenuous.

                  There are much easier ways of dismissing her bunk, methods that do not affect and harm all women in the process. Why is this so difficult a concept to grasp?

                • I have not condemned her for having a pretty face, and yes, that’s not a reason to dismiss her. At the same time not recognizing that she continues to trade on her past – and that it really is part and parcel of her celebrity – is weird.

                  She does what she likes, and the media will use her as they see fit. I’m cynical about the uses they have for her, and I don’t think that cynicism is crazy. If she goes missing she’ll be the biggest story for a year.

                  I agree with you that good-looking men get better treatment when they have idiotic ideas.

                • Anonymous says:

                  Yes, McCarthy lives in a culture in which women’s social and economic status are defined, disproportionately, by their looks and how those looks conform to ever changing standards of beauty, subjected to the scrutiny of an increasingly fickle male gaze.

                  Unless she’s personally to blame for that culture, accusing her of “trading” something in exchange for money with which to live is itself an unusual charge. It’s simple slut-shaming: if you don’t want to be accused of and dismissed as being a slut, don’t act like one. It’s also irrelevant, unless, again, you’re suggesting that naked boobs themselves are somehow anathema to civil discussion.

                  When trying to undermine the arguments of any woman–whether she’s on your side or not–bringing up her past or trying feebly to smear her with it is not only tacky and sexist, it’s a non-sequitur. It simply doesn’t matter. The dude that ventures into that territory when he encounters a lady who is saying shit he doesn’t like is sexist, and is trying to appeal to a male audience who recognize the value and efficacy in such tactics. Dudes playing dumb right now are convincing exactly no one, and were McCarthy an entirely different sort of person being attacked by right-wing misogynists, dudes on the so-called left would react much more sternly.

                • Pseudonym says:

                  What are we arguing here? Should McCarthy be dismissed because she apparently showed her boobs? No. Did she gain her celebrity in part by that action? Yes. Is there anything wrong with that? No. Should she be dismissed because she’s unqualified and wrong? Yes.

                • I’m not really sure we disagree about anything except the currency of the more salacious side of her fame – which I agree is neither here nor there to her arguments, but is obviously important to her prominence and celebrity.

                  Unless she’s personally to blame for that culture, accusing her of “trading” something in exchange for money with which to live is itself an unusual charge.

                  I’m not “accusing” her or “charging” her, I’m saying she does it and the reason I mentioned it is because you were insisting that it was her “past” when it’s a current issue. Believe me: I don’t care what she does, and neither should she care what I think about it.

                • What are we arguing here?

                  I think you’ve got it right.

                • Anonymous says:

                  Great. Then keep the sexism out of it. This place’s a fucking boys club as it is.

  8. Melissa says:

    Does the Sun-Times cover the pertussis epidemic in Washington state?

  9. Shay says:

    To hell with Washington state, did the Sun-Times cover the pertussis epidemic right here in Illinois?

    • Halloween Jack says:

      They may have run a brief wire article on it. The Sun-Times is a tabloid, and tabloids seem to be in even more trouble in the US than newspapers in general; the only thing that it’s really had going for it for decades now is Roger Ebert, and he could go anywhere else (or just go it alone) if he wanted to.

  10. Eileen says:

    There is a petition you can sign on Change.Org calling for the Sun Times to give equal space for parents who advocate autism acceptance and evidence-based treatments. Although Ms. McCarthy may not have mentioned vaccines in the article, Andrew Wakefield (disbarred physician in the MMR study scandal) is a keynote speaker at the conference. And Mark Geier, the doctor under investigation for treating children with autism by chemically castrating them to “calm them” is also speaking. As are all the folks at Age of Autism, a site solely devoted to the belief that vaccines cause autism. You need not look far to find the connection between Ms. McCarthy and the vaccine conspiracy theory. I have two children with autism, and these people have made all of us look crazy and radical, have distracted the country and its resources from the real issues we face: funding for programs, discrimination in the world, grim options for the future in terms of job placement and appropriate housing for adults on the spectrum. Their portrayal of people with autism as brain damaged is incredibly destructive. People with autism are complete people who need opportunities and support, not dangerous experimental treatments.

    • Tyto says:

      This. I think it was Respectful Insolence that summarized the loon position as, essentially, “my kid, who should be ‘normal,’ is trapped inside this prison of autism, just waiting for the right treatment to free him/her.”

      Not that I don’t understand the impulse. My son was, after a long series of tests, determined not to fall within the Spectrum. My wife was afraid of the potential diagnosis, and I often had to remind her (she knew, really, but just needed to hear) that a Spectrum diagnosis didn’t mean we would leave the doctor’s office with a different kid than we brought; it’s merely a descriptor for who he is that may help us help him be the most he can.

  11. Lee says:

    People like Jenny McCarthy are why I believe in state paternalism, at least to a certain extent, when it comes to certain decisions like health care. When parents make bad decisions regarding their children’s health, it hurts their children and other children. This really shouldn’t be allowed. People should be allowed to make bad choice but preferable those bad choices should hurt them, not other people.

    • Anon21 says:

      Even libertarians tend to endorse mandatory vaccination, on the theory that herd immunity is a public good that government is justified in providing, even if that involves coercing non-consenting members of the public.

  12. sherparick says:

    The probblem is not Jenny McCarthy’s past career and lifestyle choices (and she was mildly famous in Chicago as radio-TV personalilty before she hit MTV and then posed naked in Playboy), but that the Sun-Times reporter is so credulous in the interview and article. And also, she is a moron, and she still be a moron if she looked like Attilia the Hun. I feel sorry that her son is Autistic, but in the meantime she is grifting herself and enabling other grifters pull a scam no much different in result than Harry Lime’s scam in the Third Man. For the human suffering that is the result of this grift: See: http://hereandnow.wbur.org/2012/05/15/whooping-cough-washington

  13. herr doktor bimler says:

    I am bemused that Ms McCarthy should be interviewed as an expert on the treatment of autism when her obervational skills are such that for a year or so she was touting her son as an Indigo Child — a member of the coming generation of spiritually-advanced humanity.

    Stealing a comment from elsewhere (in the context of Landau-Kleffner Syndrome as a better fit to the symptoms McCarthy has described):

    Jenny McCarthy’s story about what her son has, when it started and how it presented has changed more times than I care to count. I doubt that even Jenny McCarthy herself can remember what the truth is.

    I strongly suspect that if Jenny thought that she could get more media attention by saying that her son’s problems were due to silicone breast implants, she’d probably find a way to “morph” his story to support that. However, I have no proof of that.
    [...]
    In reality, however, it matter not to us what Evan’s diagnosis is or what actually happened to him. It is sufficient that we know that Jenny McCarthy has given so many versions of the “what happened to Evan” story that none of them should be taken as the literal truth. This not only calls into question her already questionable status as Oprah’s Expert on Autism, but also her status as Autism Warrior Mommy.

  14. J R in WV says:

    No reporter with an autistic child should be covering autism for her publication/network/web site. It is rank amateurism, unethical, immoral and improper.

    It is like allowing a convicted stock manipulator to cover Wall Street on CNBC.

    That said, anyone publicly promoting unapproved treatments for autism should be arrested for malpractice or practising medicine without a license. Anyone distorting what is known about autism or vaccines, likewise.

    These snakeoil salesmen and naturpathic women are endangering society by interfering with the immunity of the population as a whole, as well as damaging the personal immunity of individuals they manage to scare out of participating in vaccination programs.

    In a world where terrible diseases have been wiped out and are no longer seen anywhere, like smallpox, slandering and libeling the treatments and the scientists and epidemiologists who have developed these miracle drugs is despicable and illegal.

    These people should be in jail if a single child succumbs to whooping cough (or any other disease for which a vaccine has been implemented) anywhere in this nation. Because it is their fault these diseases are now posing a threat to people who should be absolutely protected from diseases for which successful vaccines exist.

    • This Jenny McCarthy-inspired site may be worth a link.

    • Manta1976 says:

      Why? A reporter with an autistic son will be interested in the subject of autism, and presumably have learned about it, more than the average guy.

      Of course, he can reach wrong conclusions, but that is true about any reporter.

      Or are you maintaining that personal involvement in some subject should prevent a reporter from covering it? For instance, Greenwald should not write about gay rights?

  15. You’ve got incredible thing listed here.

Leave a Reply




If you want a picture to show with your comment, go get a Gravatar.

  • Switch to our mobile site