Jenny McCarthy Says She's Pro-Vaccine

[Paratus]

Oh thank god, I was losing sleep over this.

Shorty go and get your beauty rest. We got this and you need it. 😉

 

[shortylickens]

Slept.

Like a baby.

(water cooled mattress pad.)

 

[dank69]

It was you who assumed something before popping off about it like you knew the whole story. Speaking of "ass" you know what they say about "assume". I made no reference to any timeline. You had no factual basis to say that I was referring to recent times yet you did it anyway. That seems very ironic given what I'm being criticized for by you...

This is just a forum here. It's not incumbent upon me to give every detail of my past. If you had any class at all, you'd apologize for commenting on something before you had your facts straight. I made a factual point about my family's experience with Measles. If you had asked further questions I'd have been happy to answer them.

Get your facts straight next time so you don't look so foolish

Acceptable risk

 

[Sea Ray]

I don't give a shit if somebody is active or not. Being active doesn't make them intelligent, correct, or even scientifically literate, it just makes them the vocally stupid. There isn't a single shred of evidence to say they are correct and, in fact, most evidence says they are not. New evidence says they are flat-out wrong, such as the brain development study that shows (albeit a small sample) that this is caused in-utero.

Personally, I think it is far more reasonable to find that it is caused by factor being exposed while in development, as this has been shown in different cases to cause developmental issues. What if it is cell phones? We could make that correlation very easily, as they both saw a raise at about the same time. Why isn't anybody focusing on that? Because then what would we do? We would have to blame ourselves and eliminate such a great tool. It's far more convenient to create a boogeyman "big pharma" argument.

What if it is hair coloring, or nail polish, or caffeine? What if it is tanning solution, or a lack of vitamins or good nutrition? What if it is the fact that more moms take Ambien or some other sleeping pill rather than just deal with it?

All of this can be eliminated quite easily without any societal effects, yet nobody is willing to just say "I am going to have a clean pregnancy because maybe it is my fault".

Why is it being diagnosed in New Jersey more? Is it because they use Hair Spray far more than any other state in the country? Could Aqua Net be causing it?

What if it something out of Batman where it is a combination of the above factors?

Heck, my wife just cuts all of that stuff out. She had a "color mullet" during her first pregnancy because she refused to re-color her hair while carrying our son. Nor would she use nail polish, drink any caffeine or even take a baby asprin for a headache. Nothing. That doesn't mean she has a completely natural birth, as she'll do the epidural and such, but she cuts out what can reasonably and safely be removed.

Yet I see all of these mothers, several of them anti-vaxxers that'll run around with bleached hair and makeup and drink Starbucks just so they can get their fix. They'll blame "big pharma" but not themselves.

Is any of that the cause, or even have a correlation, to autism? Not a single one. However, none of them have far-reaching societal effects that can kill people because of shitty decisions and poor intellectual reasoning.

cell phone, nail polish, hair coloring? Sure, it could be any of those factors and if some pregnant gal chose to adjust her lifestyle to minimize those things I'd not call her ignorant or stupid nor ask her to show me peer reviewed research that supports her decision. I'd say fine and move on

 

[Sea Ray]

The only fool here is the one that put the health of their family and everyone they came into contact with at risk by delaying appropriate vaccinations.

You had the chance to show whether you had any class. Now we know...

 

[Sea Ray]

Why wait years to vaccinate though? Yes, a few months (3 months is kind of the norm), but years? That's just a lot of unnecessary risk.

Even the CDC doesn't recommend measles vaccine until after 12 mos

http://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/schedules/hcp/imz/child-adolescent.html

 

[Strk]

Even the CDC doesn't recommend measles vaccine until after 12 mos

http://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/schedules/hcp/imz/child-adolescent.html

12 months is shorter than 3.5 years by a little bit.

 

[Sea Ray]

12 months is shorter than 3.5 years by a little bit.

Sure is. That's why I brought it up around here.

If you want to be absolutely sure that these vaccines don't cause autism in your child, all you have to do is wait a few years. This is particularly prudent if you're not sending your kid off to day care. If you're 100% sure that vaccines have never brought on autism in any kid, then fine. You have nothing to worry about regardless.

 

[dank69]

Sure is. That's why I brought it up around here.

If you want to be absolutely sure that these vaccines don't cause autism in your child, all you have to do is wait a few years. This is particularly prudent if you're not sending your kid off to day care. If you're 100% sure that vaccines have never brought on autism in any kid, then fine. You have nothing to worry about regardless.

The CDC doesn't discourage the vaccine until 12 months because of autism. You know that, right?

 

[Sea Ray]

The CDC doesn't discourage the vaccine until 12 months because of autism. You know that, right?

Oh yes. I'm well aware that...

 

[Iron Woode]

Oh yes. I'm well aware that...

no your not.

you're just a troll. are you aware of that?

 

[werepossum]

Five pages and no images of Jenny McCarthy? This nation has truly lost sight of what is important.

cell phone, nail polish, hair coloring? Sure, it could be any of those factors and if some pregnant gal chose to adjust her lifestyle to minimize those things I'd not call her ignorant or stupid nor ask her to show me peer reviewed research that supports her decision. I'd say fine and move on

I too would much prefer to wait IF the child is reasonably isolated. Same with doing immunizations one at a time as Jenny McCarthy advocates. Unfortunately as a nation we're embracing a lemming-like group think mentality where dissent is not allowable.

On the other hand, most children today are not at all isolated. For them, the very small risk of early and multiple immunizations makes sense, as diseases can run wild through unimmunized populations.

 

[Brainonska511]

I too would much prefer to wait IF the child is reasonably isolated. Same with doing immunizations one at a time as Jenny McCarthy advocates. Unfortunately as a nation we're embracing a lemming-like group think mentality where dissent is not allowable.

There is no scientific basis for providing immunizations at a slower rate than the existing vaccine schedule. It's not an issue of "lemming-like group think mentality where dissent is not allowable."

 

[werepossum]

There is no scientific basis for providing immunizations at a slower rate than the existing vaccine schedule. It's not an issue of "lemming-like group think mentality where dissent is not allowable."

Neither is there any scientific basis showing that vaccinations must be given in groups, yet somehow you behave as though there is. Thus my comment. If Sea Ray wishes to vaccinate his child at a later age in association with a rational evaluation of his child's unvaccinated risk or Jenny McCarthy wishes to vaccinate her child one shot at a time, that should be their prerogative. Instead you (among many others) take the position that failure to adhere to the convention is the same as not vaccinating at all. That is indeed "lemming-like group think mentality where dissent is not allowable."

 

[dank69]

Neither is there any scientific basis showing that vaccinations must be given in groups, yet somehow you behave as though there is. ...

They are given in groups because they should be administered as early as possible...

 

[werepossum]

They are given in groups because they should be administered as early as possible...

I'd suggest they are given in groups for convenience.

 

[dank69]

I'd suggest they are given in groups for convenience.

No. At one year it is safe to give all those vaccines so that is why they are all given at one year. Unless you mean grouped into 1 shot but you can't mean that because that means you think if it was three separate shots at once that would be better.

 

[Vic]

Five pages and no images of Jenny McCarthy? This nation has truly lost sight of what is important.


I too would much prefer to wait IF the child is reasonably isolated. Same with doing immunizations one at a time as Jenny McCarthy advocates. Unfortunately as a nation we're embracing a lemming-like group think mentality where dissent is not allowable.

On the other hand, most children today are not at all isolated. For them, the very small risk of early and multiple immunizations makes sense, as diseases can run wild through unimmunized populations.

At what point does rejecting pseudoscience and debunked conspiracy theories become lemming like thinking?

 

[Victorian Gray]

Quote: Originally Posted by Victorian Gray View Post The only fool here is the one that put the health of their family and everyone they came into contact with at risk by delaying appropriate vaccinations.

You had the chance to show whether you had any class. Now we know...

You are not only a fool but a dangerous fool playing with the health and well being of your own family as well as that of the society around you.

 

[werepossum]

No. At one year it is safe to give all those vaccines so that is why they are all given at one year. Unless you mean grouped into 1 shot but you can't mean that because that means you think if it was three separate shots at once that would be better.

I was thinking more along the line of three injections given in one visit rather than one injection per visit spaced a week or two apart. For Jenny McCarthy this is no big deal; for a working mother or poor stay-at-home mother it is a big inconvenience.

Mind you I'm not saying these need to be spaced out, just that I'd agree with McCarthy that it's safer in theory as it removes the possibility of interaction. Personally I don't care either way. I could even make the counter argument that it's safer to have them all at once because the really bad side effects are so rare they may well be due to a rare environmental factor in the child as in Reye's Syndrome, a rare and difficult to diagnose initially (but repeatable once it's understood) interaction of aspirin (usually) and an active virus not normally present, or an airborne hijacker bacterium landing on the needle as it is pressed home. (This last also speaks to Sea Ray's point in that a mature immune system and fully formed brain almost completely immunize one from Reye's Syndrome, which shows how adverse reactions can be greatly dependent on the child's age and as we know, not all children develop equally or evenly.) Mainly I'm just objecting to characterizing someone like Sea Ray or even McCarthy as a nut for failing to toe the official line even though they reach the same conclusion and run largely the same risks.

At what point does rejecting pseudoscience and debunked conspiracy theories become lemming like thinking?

At the point one starts believing that the conventional wisdom must be followed like Scripture, with no deviations and no discretion to think for oneself.

 

[Vic]

At the point one starts believing that the conventional wisdom must be followed like Scripture, with no deviations and no discretion to think for oneself.

So if you tell me that 2+2=5, and I reject that as false, then I have failed to think for myself?

No one -- and I mean no one -- is arguing that vaccines are perfectly safe and effective. The issue that most people have with the anti-vax crowd is that the anti-vaxxers have greatly overestimated the risks of vaccines while greatly underestimating the risks of infectious diseases. And the evidence in that regard is so incredibly overwhelming, that yes, intelligent people can still think for themselves whilst ridiculing the anti-vaxxers.

 

[werepossum]

So if you tell me that 2+2=5, and I reject that as false, then I have failed to think for myself?

No one -- and I mean no one -- is arguing that vaccines are perfectly safe and effective. The issue that most people have with the anti-vax crowd is that the anti-vaxxers have greatly overestimated the risks of vaccines while greatly underestimating the risks of infectious diseases. And the evidence in that regard is so incredibly overwhelming, that yes, intelligent people can still think for themselves whilst ridiculing the anti-vaxxers.

I agree with all that. But in this case, the people being ridiculed include Sea Ray, a late vaccinator for reasonable reasons which he admits may not help but are not likely to hurt, and McCarthy, who advocates removing known toxic substances (which statistically will make no difference as human toxicity is more complicated than toxic and non-toxic, but isn't a bad goal as long as no adverse effects are introduced in pursuing it) and spacing out vaccinations to avoid any possible interaction. That's my objection, when people are ridiculing as anti-vaxxers people who merely deviate from the conventional wisdom in vaccinating their children. If Sea Ray was not vaccinating a child in day care or in school or in a crowded apartment building then his point would be moot, but he isn't. Same with McCarthy if she was advocating immunizations being spread out from 1 through six years to six through eighteen years. But as advocated, their deviations are not anywhere near being anti-vaccination.

Personally I'll come as near as anyone reasonable in saying that childhood vaccines are perfectly safe and effective. Considering the differences in development, environment and genetics and the multitude of possible viruses and bacteria to which a child can be exposed, I think what big pharma has accomplished is little short of miraculous. Children's vaccines are so incredibly safe that we can seldom even definitively point to the vaccine as the cause of the rare serious side effects, even for one in a million. That is a truly amazing thing from a species and culture that has had penicillin less than a hundred years and the ability to see a typical infectious virus less than half that.

 

[Sea Ray]

So if you tell me that 2+2=5, and I reject that as false, then I have failed to think for myself?

No one -- and I mean no one -- is arguing that vaccines are perfectly safe and effective. The issue that most people have with the anti-vax crowd is that the anti-vaxxers have greatly overestimated the risks of vaccines while greatly underestimating the risks of infectious diseases. And the evidence in that regard is so incredibly overwhelming, that yes, intelligent people can still think for themselves whilst ridiculing the anti-vaxxers.

There is no anti-vax person in this discussion nor is the regime of vaccines as settled as 2+2=4. They re-evaluate stuff like this all the time and recommendations may very well change. 2=2 will always equal 4...with a subject such as vaccines, not so much.

 

[Sea Ray]

Originally Posted by Victorian Gray View Post The only fool here is the one that put the health of their family and everyone they came into contact with at risk by delaying appropriate vaccinations.



You are not only a fool but a dangerous fool playing with the health and well being of your own family as well as that of the society around you.

As if class wasn't enough, another difference between you and me is that I don't hurl names at people I disagree with. But don't take that too hard...you're not the only one around here who's into name calling. Here's a tip: it doesn't help your case. In fact it shows how you lost...

 

[LegendKiller]

cell phone, nail polish, hair coloring? Sure, it could be any of those factors and if some pregnant gal chose to adjust her lifestyle to minimize those things I'd not call her ignorant or stupid nor ask her to show me peer reviewed research that supports her decision. I'd say fine and move on

But my point is that the impact of stopping any one of those things is negligible in comparison to anti-vaxxers and has as much grounding in science as the anti-vaxxers or evne your ridiculous points. One has massive societal impacts, the other does not, both have no grounding in science.

The bigger point is that it could be any one of those things, all of which have probably just as strong of a correlation to your idiotic meta-data study and are likely not even the cause. Furthermore, moronic parents would rather blame some exogenous variable, like "big pharma" than themselves, or at least even be introspective about it.