Cross out "autism" and write in "climate change" then read this thread

[SSG Snuggle Bunny]

LynneSin  (1000+ posts)        Thu Jan-06-11 04:27 PM
Original message
Dear Jenny McCarthy - your 'proof' turns out to be a steaming pile of crap! So move on now!
 Former Playboy Model & MTV host Jenny McCarthy has spent years now perpetuating the hoax that vacccinations are linked to autism. And she kept citing some British report that was her 'proof' that this is true.

Turns out that report is a hoax. So dear Jenny, please stop putting milliions of children at risk for deadly diseases and learn about how childhood vaccinations SAVE LIVES


________________________________________

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2011/01/autismvaccine-study-... /

Study linking vaccines, autism branded an ‘elaborate fraud,’ but author sticks to his guns

A 1998 study that linked childhood autism to a vaccine was branded an "elaborate fraud" by the British Medical Journal (BMJ) Thursday, but its lead author said he was the victim of a smear campaign by drug manufacturers.

In an interview late Wednesday with CNN, Andrew Wakefield denied inventing data and blasted a reporter who apparently uncovered the falsifications as a "hit man" doing the bidding of a powerful pharmaceutical industry.

"It's a ruthless pragmatic attempt to crush any investigation into valid vaccine safety concerns," Wakefield said.

VeryConfused (46 posts)      Thu Jan-06-11 04:28 PM
Response to Original message
1. Andrew Wakefield should be charged with murder

LynneSin  (1000+ posts)        Thu Jan-06-11 04:31 PM
Response to Reply #1
3. Jenny McCarthy should be too
 She uses her fame to promote this hoax.

MurrayDelph (1000+ posts)        Thu Jan-06-11 05:19 PM
Response to Reply #3
4. She's a mother of an autistic child
 who wants to find some rational reason for why he is the way he is, and having believed that she found one, is trying to act to prevent others from having to suffer.

So, please cut her some slack; she's misguided, not evil.

AngryAmish (1000+ posts)        Thu Jan-06-11 06:46 PM
Response to Reply #5
14. Jenny McCarthy made no money from this nonsense? Bullshit.
 (and saying that only a financial motive is evil is nonsense. People do the things they want because they want something - money, fame, sex, influence whatever. You can be poor and famous and yet the greed for the fame can be just as corrupting as money. Or power - do you think Pol Pot was greedy? Was he evil? People want to be seen as virtuous and have done evil in that way...anyway)

She wrote a bunch of books, had seminars and the like. She is just as guilty and probably made just as much money.

Also, she makes money from being a celebrity. Being a public person seen as virtuous (she fights autism!) raises one's profile and bids up the price of your services.

No passes for that asshole. 

jallo (6 posts)      Thu Jan-06-11 08:31 PM
Response to Reply #14
21. She's a moran and wrong
 But she has the right to be wrong and to spout her absurdity. She has no legal obligation to be right, and she has the right to spout falsehoods, especially if they are falsehoods she sincerely believes. So, the idea that she should be charged with "murder" etc. are ridiculous. She happens to be wrong but plenty of people who the entire medical establishment thought were wrong, sometimes turn out to be right. You can't have true free speech, scientific inquiry etc. if people could be charged with a crime for stating their opinions on medical matters, even if those opinions are dangerous if people follow them. 

I've got my eye on you.

roguevalley (1000+ posts)        Thu Jan-06-11 05:38 PM
Response to Reply #4
6. actually, now that science has proven her wrong, her continuing
 down this line moves from misguided to evil because her mania is harming children.

MineralMan  (1000+ posts)        Thu Jan-06-11 04:29 PM
Response to Original message
2. A number of people are still defending Wakefield.
 I guess dogma trumps truth. Feh!

Paging, Dr. Mann. Your acolytes are on Line 2.

jallo (6 posts)      Thu Jan-06-11 08:32 PM
Response to Reply #20
22. Wafefield is wrong BUT
 there have been tons of cases in the past where the weight of the scientific opinion has been 100% wrong, and the tiny minority has been right. 

You are just asking for it, aren't you?

woo me with science  (1000+ posts)      Thu Jan-06-11 08:47 PM
Response to Reply #22
23. Do tell.

Most of the examples I am aware of in which medical opinion has been woefully wrong or treatments erroneously cited as safe have been because the risk at issue was not studied or even recognized ahead of time.

One of the hallmarks of pseudoscience is the extent to which it focuses on the existence of rare exceptions and hypotheticals, instead of the weight of science in front of us.

Do tell.

edhopper (1000+ posts)     Thu Jan-06-11 06:15 PM
Response to Original message
9. What about Oprah
 her biggest cheerleader and provider of her biggest soapbox?

Yes.

What of oprah?

Oh wait.

Jenny McCarthy is white and attractive. Two things that frustrate and intimidate liberals.

earth mom  (1000+ posts)        Thu Jan-06-11 07:07 PM
Response to Original message
18. Bullshit! NOTHING has been proven or disproven here! Where are the in depth studies?!
 Where is the NEW information about the Mitochondrial Dysfunction that most, if not all autistic children very likely have? Where is the PROOF that vaccinations did NOT play a role?!

This article is nothing but a bunch of doctors trying to protect themselves from a lawsuit or who are afraid of the pharma giants.
These people should be ashamed of themselves! If there is a god, may they all fry in hell for it!

Children With Autism Have Mitochondrial Dysfunction, Study Finds
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/11/1011301615...

Children with autism are far more likely to have deficits in their ability to produce cellular energy than are typically developing children, a new study by researchers at UC Davis has found. The study, published in the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA), found that cumulative damage and oxidative stress in mitochondria, the cell's energy producer, could influence both the onset and severity of autism, suggesting a strong link between autism and mitochondrial defects.

So says "earth mom".

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=439x125875

[chitownchica]

You beat me to it SGT.  I saw a couple of threads late last night about this, and that was my very thought.  I've gotta find the original thread I read and post some of it. Cognitive dissonance at its finest.

H5 for the post.

[JohnnyReb]

If Jenny McCarthy was an ugly, ranting, moonbat, lesbian they would be defending her and the "science" behind vaccination caused autism.

[jukin]

Or replace AlGore with Jenny McCarthy.

Lots of hate for a good looking white woman, not so much for the black billionaire that gave McCarthy the bullhorn.

[DumbAss Tanker]

MineralMan  (1000+ posts)        Thu Jan-06-11 04:29 PM
Response to Original message
2. A number of people are still defending Wakefield.
 I guess dogma trumps truth. Feh!

O wad some Power the giftie gie us
To see oursels as ithers see us!

 

[jtyangel]

roguevalley (1000+ posts)        Thu Jan-06-11 05:38 PM
Response to Reply #4
6. actually, now that science has proven her wrong, her continuing
 down this line moves from misguided to evil because her mania is harming children.

No dingbat...if the parent of an autistic child chooses to follow something that is false then it is THEY who are harming their child, not Jenny McCarthy. I am the parent of an autistic child too. I absolutely believe in our case there is heredity at play and I am very verbal about that opinion. I'm sure having an autistic child lends some credibility to what I say in someone's eyes, but let's face it, I can't make any other parent do anything where it concerns their child--that is totally on them and the nature of parenting.

As for no vaccines, I've known more moonbats then I have anything else who practice the whole attachment parenting, no circ, no vaccination way of parenting.

[Ptarmigan]

I wonder why The Lancet did not review the article by Dr. Andrew Wakefield and published it in 1998? They put their reputation at stake, since The Lancet is a respectable medical journal like New England Journal of Medicine.

[SSG Snuggle Bunny]

I wonder why The Lancet did not review the article by Dr. Andrew Wakefield and published it in 1998? They put their reputation at stake, since The Lancet is a respectable medical journal like New England Journal of Medicine.

The Lancet is also where they get their bullshit figures about the Iraq war killing 1 2 10 85 million Iraqis.

[AllosaursRus]

Rush brought up the fact that back in the early 80's saccharin was considered a cancer causing agent!

Well, well, well, it has now been proven they were full of shit! DUmpster divers are hell bent on blaming society over obesity, yet if saccharin hadn't been taken off the market by these Nanny State Evil Doers, we would have had a sugar substitute with zero calories all these years!

DemoncRats, you're chickens are comin' home to roost!

Here's hopin' we can cut your damn heads off while we have 'em stretched out on the choppin' block!

ETA:

Thought I better furnish a link, as primitives don't believe shit unless it's posted on the internet!

Saccharin Study!

What have studies shown about a possible association between specific artificial sweeteners and cancer?

Saccharin

Studies in laboratory rats during the early 1970s linked saccharin with the development of bladder cancer. For this reason, Congress mandated that further studies of saccharin be performed and required that all food containing saccharin bear the following warning label: “Use of this product may be hazardous to your health. This product contains saccharin, which has been determined to cause cancer in laboratory animals.”

Subsequent studies in rats showed an increased incidence of urinary bladder cancer at high doses of saccharin, especially in male rats. However, mechanistic studies (studies that examine how a substance works in the body) have shown that these results apply only to rats. Human epidemiology studies (studies of patterns, causes, and control of diseases in groups of people) have shown no consistent evidence that saccharin is associated with bladder cancer incidence.

Because the bladder tumors seen in rats are due to a mechanism not relevant to humans and because there is no clear evidence that saccharin causes cancer in humans, saccharin was delisted in 2000 from the U.S. National Toxicology Program’s Report on Carcinogens, where it had been listed since 1981 as a substance reasonably anticipated to be a human carcinogen (a substance known to cause cancer). More information about the delisting of saccharin is available at http://ntp.niehs.nih.gov/ntp/roc/eleventh/append/appb.pdf on the Internet. The delisting led to legislation, which was signed into law on December 21, 2000, repealing the warning label requirement for products containing saccharin.

Wonder if the Nanny Stater's are gonna reimburse the industry they destroyed? What say you DUmmies?

[true_blood]

If Jenny McCarthy was an ugly, ranting, moonbat, lesbian they would be defending her and the "science" behind vaccination caused autism.

You can bet on that.

[AllosaursRus]

You can bet on that.

Not to worry! Some still are! It's a conspiracy! doncha know!

[true_blood]

Not to worry! Some still are! It's a conspiracy! doncha know!

I know. I wouldn't put anything pass those DUmmies. I bet my dog is smarter than most of them.

[jukin]

I wonder why The Lancet did not review the article by Dr. Andrew Wakefield and published it in 1998? They put their reputation at stake, since The Lancet is a respectable medical journal like New England Journal of Medicine.

Respectable, a word I would have never associated with those two political organizations.

[Ptarmigan]

Respectable, a word I would have never associated with those two political organizations.

Well, respectable before Wakefield. Now, a major joke.