This Is Why Jenny McCarthy Is Dangerous

mccarthy

“Dirty, lying little piece of big business funded, corporate scum. Tell your children that tonight.”

— Eric144144 responding to Slate’s column, “‘The View’ Hires Notorious Anti-Vaxxer Jenny McCarthy”

This column isn’t about how Jenny McCarthy shouldn’t be given a nationwide platform on The View to almost assuredly bring her anti-vaccination crusade to its largest audience yet, how being complicit in such a move is irresponsible and dangerous. This column is about why Jenny McCarthy shouldn’t be given a nationwide platform on The View to spout her anti-vaccination evangelism, why it’s irresponsible and dangerous and why ABC should put people’s lives over profits and immediately withdraw its unholy offer to McCarthy. And I barely have to do anything at all. I can let those who’ve already succumbed to McCarthy’s ridiculous campaign of ignorance and stupidity do all the work for me. All I have to do is pull a few of the comments with which they’ve flooded any piece questioning the hiring of Jenny McCarthy that’s been posted over the past few days.

“Vaccinate a baby? May as well let mom smoke crack or take prescription drugs while pregnant.”

— Marsha commenting on Think Progress’s column, “Jenny McCarthy To Bring Her Anti-Vaccine Activism To ‘The View'”

I’ve railed against McCarthy for quite a while now and I’m certainly not the only one who has. A piece I wrote skewering “Dr. Playboy Bunny” back in May of 2009 stands as the only thing I’ve ever submitted to the Huffington Post that’s been turned down flat, with what passed for an explanation being nothing more than the suggestion that I take a look at the site’s “Living” page. McCarthy’s personal quest to turn the clock back decades to a time when children died of diseases that have since proven to be easily curable has been enabled throughout the past several years by all kinds of idiots charmed by her good looks, her convictions as a mother, and her moral certitude as a celebrity. But never before has she had the kind of rapt audience of easily led astray moms like the kind she’ll have on The View. Never before has she had a forum that hands her more than 3-million people on a daily basis on a show that’s garnered more than two dozen Emmys in its run. ABC and Barbara Walters are giving Jenny McCarthy the keys to the kingdom — and the result for the children of this country and for all of us could be devastating.

“The blind obedience of corporation-trusting sheeple like yourself… I’ll take an activist over a corporate defender any day of the week.”

— TJtruth responding to Salon’s column, “Dear ABC: Putting Jenny McCarthy on ‘The View’ Will Kill Children”

We live in a conspiracy culture these days, one in which any ridiculous opinion, no matter how thoroughly divorced from reality, can be given credence and can earn a following, thanks mostly to social media and the human nature to believe anything that’s put in print and that sounds legit. I don’t doubt McCarthy’s good intentions, but I despise her willful ignorance and arrogant belief that being the mother of a child with developmental issues somehow earns her an automatic medical degree and the privilege of dispensing health advice to the masses. There’s no sense in running down the studies that have utterly, unequivocally debunked McCarthy’s rants on the supposed connection between childhood vaccines and autism; you already know about their existence and if you choose to ignore them then there’s nothing anyone will be able to say to change your mind. Sorry, but you’re officially a conspiracy theorist. No better than a 9/11 Truther, a Sandy Hook truther, a Birther, a tinfoil-hatted Ron Paulbot, a raving Alex Jonesian nutjob. You’re all of these things because you refuse to accept fact over folly. You make incredibly detailed and bombastic claims about collusion between the medical industry and the government and evil pharmaceutical corporations and yet you offer zero proof to back it up. You have plenty of speculation. Plenty of “well, DUH!” but nothing else.

“If you are one that support vaccines, what’s your issue? Get in line and get your shot and move on. IT’S MY CHOICE, TO CHOOSE WHAT I BELEVE IS BEST FOR MYSELF AND CHILDREN. MY CHOICE! Not yours.”

— Tomaczim commenting on the New Yorker’s column, “Jenny McCarthy’s Dangerous Views”

The worst kind of person who refuses to vaccinate his or her child is the person myopic and clueless enough to think that doing so — or not doing so, really — is simply a personal choice as a parent. Sorry, no. There are some things you as a parent have to accept and therefore take responsibility for and the fact that your child interacts with other people’s children is one of them. I’m sure by now everyone has heard the term “herd immunity.” For the few who haven’t, what it essentially means is that if a group of unprotected elements within a herd becomes large enough, immunity for the entire herd is put at risk; after a certain point, even those who are vaccinated become susceptible and inoculation basically winds up being worthless. There are already enough people out there who believe that not vaccinating a child is a good choice for that child — despite the fact that childhood vaccinations, along with clean water and sterilization, represent one of the biggest advancements in human history when it comes to keeping us safe from disease — but what these people never seem to take into consideration is that they’re not just putting their kid’s life in danger but everybody’s. Thanks to poorly informed skepticism over vaccines, diseases we once thought were pretty much wiped from existence are now back — and kids have died as a result of it.

“You are asking why we shouldn’t unquestioningly be injected by FOR PROFIT INSIDERS who are FUNDED BY THE COMPANIES THAT MAKE THE VACCINES? Oh and the FDA is going to protect us? They are a criminal racket. If you’re so sure vaccines are harmless (we won’t even pretend they are effective – they are not), will you accept PERSONAL LIABILITY FOR ANY DAMAGES? I didn’t think so, you brainwashed shill.”

— GodDamPasswords commenting on the New Yorker’s column, “Jenny McCarthy’s Dangerous Views”

“So you think nothing is wrong, huh? The CDC and FDA never do the bidding of big corporations, huh?”

— Lisacaz commenting on Salon’s column, “Dear ABC: Putting Jenny McCarthy on ‘The View’ Will Kill Children”

Pore over the comments of so many pieces written about McCarthy’s crusade and ABC’s decision to tacitly express approval for it and you see not just the usual invective, the kind I’ve included here — you see views that seem well-thought-out and relatively sane, full of complex medical jargon and link after link taking you to official-sounding studies and experts. These latter opinions are infinitely more damaging to the discussion than the former and they’re part of the McCarthy Effect, with Jenny McCarthy offering up shoddy research and a desperate tendency toward confirmation bias in place of genuine fact. McCarthy’s passion and absolute certitude is, ironically, infectious. What’s worse, McCarthy’s acolytes — like all acolytes of conspiracy theorists — fall back on the flawed argument that every opinion is one with considering, even ones with no basis in actual fact. The media of course don’t help because as far as they’re concerned the appearance of objectivity is more important than anything and if something becomes a product of “Wikiality” — that is it becomes real and true by cultural consensus — then it can stand on equal footing with proven scientific fact. The problem is not all opinions are created equal. Some are crap.

“Way to go Jenny! Go get em! As a person who works on a daily basis in the treatment of Autistic children I find (this) ignorance… sickening.”

— Christy commenting on Think Progress’s column, “Jenny McCarthy To Bring Her Anti-Vaccine Activism To ‘The View'”

There’s a story that broke a couple of days ago that I love — that puts a smile on my face and brings me to tears at the same time. It’s the story of Hazel Hammersley, a two-year-old little girl fighting cancer at Children’s Hospital here in Los Angeles. Last week, Hazel and her mother, to pass the excruciating time, wrote a giant message on the inside of the little girl’s hospital window. It read, “Send Pizza Room 4112.” A couple of days later, a Redditor spotted the message while driving by and took a picture of it. After it was posted, the internet rose up and flooded the hospital with pizza deliveries — and Hazel and her entire ward were treated to, sincerely, the best pizza party ever. If you visit the blog that Hazel’s family created to keep extended family informed of her progress, you’ll see a post about the message in the window, the Reddit response, the pizza party, all of it. Below that post are more than a hundred comments from people who’ve now heard about Hazel’s situation because the pizza story went viral. Most are offers of prayers, money, support, hope — all from people who’ve been touched by Hazel’s battle and the miracle of goodness that brought her so much love and happiness from her fellow human beings. But near the very top you’ll find one very long comment that reads like someone furiously taking the mother and father by the arm and desperately shouting at them while glancing in all directions to make sure the Agents aren’t about to haul her away. It has the feel of hastily disclosed secret information, à la The X-Files. The gist of it: There’s a cure for cancer. Every cancer. It’s been suppressed by the pharmaceutical industry which controls the government and the media and the banks. Read this report! See what they don’t want you to see!

Now of course cancer isn’t the same thing as autism, although if you’re willing to accept a lack of evidence to make one connection really anything is possible. But the basic elements of the McCarthy Effect are still there: Someone put it into this idiot’s head that there’s a secret cabal that’s keeping the truth about lifesaving medical procedures and discoveries away from all of us, and the entire medical industry is in on it. This person believes this without being hammered with it on a semi-regular basis on national television by a self-appointed and incredibly charismatic “expert” in celebrity pseudo-science. People will already believe any kind of nonsense, especially when it comes to a subject as emotional as diseases that affect children. They don’t need Jenny McCarthy’s help and they don’t need ABC to unwittingly validate views that are based in nothing more than pure fantasy.

But imagine the damage that can be done if they get it.

“Theres a reason why autism is on the rise, if you want to ignore it and stick your head in the sand, thats fine..condemn your kids to being window lickers.

— StupidPeopleAllAroundMe commenting on the Huffington Post’s column, “Jenny McCarthy’s ‘View’ Hiring Met With Outrage Due To Her Anti-Vaccine Views”

  • Candace Castle

    I am increasingly disturbed by the smearing of “anti-vaccine” parents, writers, doctors, thinkers. There is so much that is not known about the long term effects of the multiple vaccination schedule recommended for children today. Whenever opposition to vaccination is brought up, there is a howl of disparaging invectives from mainstream journalists and people who are otherwise open-minded, except on the issue of vaccinations. On that subject these people have accepted without question the necessity of giving children 64 different vaccinations by the age of 16(and that includes Hep. B given to newborns who were never a risk group for hepatitis B). What strikes me is that these pro-vaccination-no-matter-what thinkers have not researched all sides of this issue. Children are individuals with different genetic strengths and weaknesses, not “one-size-fits-all” subjects. If someone dares question mainstream, conventional “wisdom” they are automatically labeled a quack, a child-killer, a fringe nut-case and worse. I find that the organizations that question vaccine safety have done much more research on both pro and anti vaccination points of view. Some of these organizations are not strictly anti-vaccine, but recommend vaccinating with an alternative schedule(something that Jenny McCarthy endorses). Points are always made about the cases of children dying from diseases that vaccines have been developed for but they never seem to research just how many cases there have been of vaccine injury, which have been recognized and documented with more frequency around the world. That most of the research being done on vaccines today is paid for by the pharmaceutical companies that profit from them should be a cause of concern for everyone.
    http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2012/10/06/dr-palevsky-disease-vaccines.aspx
    http://www.globalresearch.ca/vaccinations-deadly-immunity/14510

  • Candace Castle

    I am increasingly disturbed by the smearing of “anti-vaccine” parents, writers, doctors, thinkers. There is so much that is not known about the long term effects of the multiple vaccination schedule recommended for children today. Whenever opposition to vaccination is brought up, there is a howl of disparaging invectives from mainstream journalists and people who are otherwise open-minded, except on the issue of vaccinations. On that subject these people have accepted without question the necessity of giving children 64 different vaccinations by the age of 16(and that includes Hep. B given to newborns who were never a risk group for hepatitis B). What strikes me is that these pro-vaccination-no-matter-what thinkers have not researched all sides of this issue. Children are individuals with different genetic strengths and weaknesses, not “one-size-fits-all” subjects. If someone dares question mainstream, conventional “wisdom” they are automatically labeled a quack, a child-killer, a fringe nut-case and worse. I find that the organizations that question vaccine safety have done much more research on both pro and anti vaccination points of view. Some of these organizations are not strictly anti-vaccine, but recommend vaccinating with an alternative schedule(something that Jenny McCarthy endorses). Points are always made about the cases of children dying from diseases that vaccines have been developed for but they never seem to research just how many cases there have been of vaccine injury, which have been recognized and documented with more frequency around the world. That most of the research being done on vaccines today is paid for by the pharmaceutical companies that profit from them should be a cause of concern for everyone.

    http://articles.mercola.com/si

    http://www.globalresearch.ca/v

  • Anthony Mays

    Science. Eggs are bad for you. Science. Eggs are good for you.

    I recently read a study that stated Diet Coke contains toxins. My first
    thought was ‘You think’. But the study, as well intentioned as it was,
    didn’t state, until the end, that you would have to drink 1000 8oz cans a
    day in order for diet coke to be toxic. That equates to 42 8oz sodas and hour. Really? Seriously. 42 can an hour. Would not a person simply drown from the attempt? For me, this was a fairly stupid study. And lead me to think, if I hold my breathe, lets say forever, may be harmful to me.

    Science and medicine are good things, however, I have found in life, where ever the herd goes is usually the wrong direction.

    Again, eggs are bad … eggs are good.

    Thanks for the article though. BTW, I think McCarthy is an idiot.

  • kfreed

    Why does McCarthy look like a blonde Michele Bachmann on crack?

    • Jeff Cramer

      Perhaps because Bachmann is against vaccination herself.

  • Schneibster

    1. HuffPo and anti-vaxxers: why I don’t read HuffPo

    2. Ditto Rolling Stone. Worse than Faux Entertainment.

    3. Anybody who doesn’t know that Andrew Wakefield committed fraud to enable fraudulent claims for autism against vaccine manufacturers and had to leave the UK to avoid being sued has no claim to truth. He’s not only a fraud, he’s a vicious fraud, responsible for every person who dies of a disease they could have been vaccinated for– and he did it for money. And that’s hundreds of thousands of deaths already. And yes I can produce proof- there have been outbreaks of measles that have crippled and killed, plus all the ones in Africa who were made afraid of the AIDS drugs. There has been an outbreak of whooping cough– Whooping cough!!??!? nobody even freaking remembers what whooping cough is for crying out loud– on the West Coast of the US. Not in Canada- they don’t believe that anti-vaxxer BS, they’re too well educated.

    ABC needs to be spanked.

  • Dave Garry

    Hey, if you want to shoot your kid up with thimerosal, mercury, squalene, formaldehyde, pig’s blood, monkey DNA, and aborted fetus tissue, beat my guest. You better leave my kid alone though. I know doctors and nurses that refuse to give their kids vaccines anymore. What do they know? They might have been a good thing at one time, but these days they put so much garbage in them – they pulled a bait and switch on us.

    Vaccines are the backbone of the entire Pharmaceutical Industry. The vaccinated children become customers for life.

    http://www.naturalnews.com/031197_Sherri_Tenpenny_vaccines.html

    • Sebastian L. Jackson

      Yeah, if the only thing backing up your argument is NaturalNews.com, you really don’t have much of an argument.

      • Dave Garry

        Please…continue to believe only MSM sources and establishment doctors who are bought and paid for…they’ll keep you dumb and sick…which brand of cigarettes does your doctor smoke?

        • Schneibster

          Can you describe the practice and theory of a double blind test, and explain why it is the gold standard of medical research?

        • Schneibster

          I will explain.

          In a double-blind test, neither the ones passing out the drugs, nor the ones receiving them, know whether they are receiving a drug or a placebo.

          The outcomes are checked after a fixed time, normally when the course of treatment or the progress of the disease have run their course. The information on who got placebo and who got drug is revealed at this point and checked against who got better and who didn’t.

          If most of the ones who received medicine got better and most of the ones who received placebo didn’t, you’ve got a medicine.

          Sometimes to increase the accuracy people who receive nothing are included, usually the same number as who did, and who did not, receive the drug. They are called “neutral controls” and are there to show that they react the same as the placebo group. Just in case of some mistake, while making sure neither the patients nor the administrators know who got what.

        • Schneibster

          This is why we accept vaccines as good public medicine. They’ve passed this test.

      • Candace Castle

        I am increasingly disturbed by the smearing of “anti-vaccine” parents, writers, doctors, thinkers. There is so much that is not known about the long term effects of the multiple vaccination schedule recommended for children today. Whenever opposition to vaccination is brought up, there is a howl of disparaging invectives from mainstream journalists and people who are otherwise open-minded, except on the issue of vaccinations. On that subject these people have accepted without question the necessity of giving children 64 different vaccinations by the age of 16(and that includes Hep. B given to newborns who were never a risk group for hepatitis B). What strikes me is that these pro-vaccination-no-matter-what thinkers have not researched all sides of this issue. Children are individuals with different genetic strengths and weaknesses, not “one-size-fits-all” subjects. If someone dares question mainstream, conventional “wisdom” they are automatically labeled a quack, a child-killer, a fringe nut-case and worse. I find that the organizations that question vaccine safety have done much more research on both pro and anti vaccination points of view. Some of these organizations are not strictly anti-vaccine, but recommend vaccinating with an alternative schedule(something that Jenny McCarthy endorses). Points are always made about the cases of children dying from diseases that vaccines have been developed for but they never seem to research just how many cases there have been of vaccine injury, which have been recognized and documented with more frequency around the world. That most of the research being done on vaccines today is paid for by the pharmaceutical companies that profit from them should be a cause of concern for everyone.

        http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2012/10/06/dr-palevsky-disease-vaccines.aspx

        http://www.globalresearch.ca/vaccinations-deadly-immunity/14510

    • kfreed

      “Natural News” is a conspiracy site.

      Some examples: “Natural News” – Truth or Spin?”
      http://www.herbs.org/herbnews/2011/06/natural-news-truth-or-spin/

      “Global Warming Hoax” http://tv.naturalnews.com/v.asp?v=B833A7290B7A54D2BE2F10B0D316850C

      Have a look at the crap “Natural News” puts out (oh, and a shout out to moonbat Ron Paul): http://www.naturalnews.com/conspiracy_theory.html

      “Does Natural News Do Cover Ups?”
      http://www.forbes.com/sites/jeffmcmahon/2011/04/12/does-natural-news-do-cover-ups/

  • Dave Garry

    The thought controllers cannot allow anyone to express an opinion, even once, that is contradictory to the agenda. Speak up even once, even when you’re not on the air, and you’ll be smeared, ridiculed, hit with blanket derision, sarcasm, criticism and condemnation by ALL in every high profile position (that’s because everyone in those positions are part of the ‘brotherhood’). It is a form of discrediting someone or some process by mass disapproval which can lead to control by the consensus.

    • Schneibster

      So, paranoid much?

      Thought controllers?

      Whoa.

      • dbtheonly

        It ain’t the stuff he doesn’t know that bothers me. It’s the stuff he knows that simply ain’t so.

        • Schneibster

          This is what happens when you tell adults jebus claus is real.

  • Glenna Norlin

    Oh, if only the target audience of The View had access to science and information. Oh, those poor men.If only guys didn’t solely rely on The View, and instead relied on reliable internet sources or talked to their physicians and nurses.
    I mean, I can see how comedians and Playmates can seem authoritative, but I have more faith in American males. I think that they can see right through the celebrity and faux-expert talk. American guys will choose what’s best for their kids.

    • dbtheonly

      Yep,

      Women shouldn’t sit on the Supreme Court, the Senate, or the House. I guess Secretary of State is okay, ’cause after all it’s a secretarial job.

  • DHaradaStone

    ABC is just testing the waters to see if Alex Jones might work out as a host on Good Morning America.

  • http://www.pbcliberal.com/ PBCliberal

    This takes personal attack to a new level, cherry-picking the comments of the stupidest people you can find who support McCarthy and trying to tar her with them. I’m no fan of McCarthy, but you sir have no shame.

    As I write this, I see four inserted ads at the bottom of your piece. The first is for a free stock analysis. The second is for a gold scam. The third invites me to see Obama’s “hidden plan” and the fourth warns me of a “shocking government plan and coverup” to rob me, complete with audio.

    Since these are your supporters, you must be at least as stupid and dangerous as McCarthy is.

    • Alex0001

      When you clearly don’t understand how ad space works, it’s best not to use that as your argument. Just sayin’.

      • http://www.pbcliberal.com/ PBCliberal

        Then perhaps you can explain it to me. My guess is these ads appear here because they’re bought at auction by one of the several agencies that deal in such stuff. The ads don’t even come from the same server as the webpage. To be technical, they’re a javascript element that runs a script that brings them in, and also inserts other “sentinel” elements that lets the ad server affirm that I actually saw them.

        That’s why I chose this as an example. This author has no more responsibility for the content on this page that wants to hitch their wagons to his star than Jenny McCarthy has for any fool who decides she needs their help in some comment thread.

        So do I have the technical side of this about right? It’s best not to accuse somebody of being ignorant about a subject when you have no idea what they do. You had no way of knowing that I’m in the process of writing javascript code to parse VAST 3.0 ad insertions. Just sayin’.

        • kfreed

          OMG! You’re writing CODE? Well, thatmakes you an expert on everything!

          Contrary to your disingenuous rant over “tarring” McCarthy with the fan base she created, this article happens to be about The View providing McCarthy’s dangerous misinformation a national platform and why it is the height of irresponsibility. Read it again.

  • Jeff Cramer

    OK, my Tom Cruise example is not the best one. I only mention Tom because I suffer from depression and his statements on depression are not only dangerous but could kill someone suffering from depression. I think Jenny promoting her views are dangerous and could really hurt someone.

    I haven’t watch “The View” many times, but I do know of examples when O’Donnell,Goldberg and Hasselback stated their beliefs that cause controversy, but there could be rebuttal to their statements and not everyone who watch the show became a conservative like Hasselback was. But I realize people here on this board don’t want to risk one person who might harm a child for not getting vaccine and that’s understandable.

    I do remember when Rush Limbaugh went on “Monday Night Football.” There were people protesting just like on this board. But there were viewers who gave him the benefit of the doubt till his comments on Donovan McNabb and then he was given the boot. Likewise, I am going to give Jenny the benefit of the doubt till she makes her comments and then booing her like the rest of the board. I don’t think that is disagreeing with people here that it is a bad idea to give her a bigger platform to address her awful, dangerous, harmful beliefs.

    People on the board may not like me giving Jenny the benefit of the doubt (one of my comments about Jenny is the most unpopular I have written as it has gotten 7 votes down), but I am not the type that decide someone’s employment on what their beliefs are, no matter how matter how much I disagree with them. I only have a problem when they use the workplace as a forum for the beliefs.

    • dbtheonly

      Jeff,

      I don’t think it’s so much a matter of giving McCarthy the benefit of the doubt as much as it was conflating the appearance of an actor in a scripted movie and an advocate for an untested/inaccurate/dangerous theory being given a slot on an unscripted discussion show.

      I think we all hope the word vaccination never escapes her mouth. I wouldn’t bet on it.

      “I am not the type that decide someone’s employment on what their beliefs
      are, no matter how matter how much I disagree with them. I only have a
      problem when they use the workplace as a forum for the beliefs.”

      Generally I agree with you. But imagine a Christian Scientist Doctor. His faith precludes his using any number of more traditional medical procedures.

      But in this case the workplace, i.e. the show, is the forum for her beliefs. The very problem that concerns you is (IMHO) mandated by the form & structure of the show.

      • Jeff Cramer

        ” But imagine a Christian Scientist Doctor. His faith precludes his using any number of more traditional medical procedures.”
        If I was an employer, a Christian Scientist doctor wouldn’t be hired period. He’d be out the door before the interview started. Medicine is the job and to do the job requires medical procedures.
        Now if I was ABC, this would be a different story, first off, the show is not just about her, its about the other ladies on the show, its about the guests. Like she did on the recent New Years Eve special, there are plenty of ways for her to be Jenny without talking about anti-vaccination. If I was ABC, I would tell Jenny, she can be on the show, but she can’t talk about vaccination. She could agree, not agree. The other condition of her employment would also be judged by how the public accepts her. I would pretty much do what Monday Night Football did with Rush Limbaugh.

        But I’m not ABC, so that point doesn’t really matter. I know this isn’t popular on the board and nearly everyone disagrees with me, but the thing is I am going hold fire till she actually does do what we are afraid of on the show and then join everyone. Since everyone on the board here is certain she will do that, and by then, everyone can tell me, that they told me so.

        What can I say? Its how I truly feel.

        • dbtheonly

          Okay Jeff. I’ll certainly admit that you are much more optimistic about this than I.

          What’s the over/under? 6 months? More like 6 weeks.

          • Jeff Cramer

            “What’s the over/under? 6 months? More like 6 weeks.”

            Sorry, I don’t understand that last sentence.

          • dbtheonly

            It’s a wagering term. I used it to ask how long you wanted to bet it’d take McCarthy to speak on the Anti-vac issue. “dellapina” above says within the first week. I think it might be longer.

          • Jeff Cramer

            OK, we’ll bet. If you have PayPal, I’ll do a $20 bet with you. :) We can do 6 weeks or 6 months, take your pick.

          • dbtheonly

            I don’t do Paypal but within two weeks of her becoming a regular on the TV show, “The View”, the subject of vaccinations will come up & she will give her opinion.

            6 months or even weeks struck me as too long a time.

            If I win, just donate the money to your local homeless shelter.

          • Jeff Cramer

            Alright, let’s do 2 weeks. If its OK with you, I would rather give it to an autism support or any charity that supports gets vaccine for children (basically any charity Jenny wouldn’t like)? Bet?

        • Christopher Foxx

          He’d be out the door before the interview started. Medicine is the job and to do the job requires medical procedures.

          Hear, hear!

        • Christopher Foxx

          I know this isn’t popular on the board and nearly everyone disagrees with me,

          Yet you refrained from being insulting (path all to often taken by folks, on both sides) and continued to calmly express and explain your view. Noted and appreciated.

          • Jeff Cramer

            Thank you for that Chris!!

          • Christopher Foxx

            Yer welcome. And I prefer Christopher. Thanks.

          • Jeff Cramer

            OK, thank you Christopher!!

  • blackdaug

    The whole concept of a meme is that it is an idea that spreads through a population like a virus.
    McCartney’s anti vac campaign is the horrible ironic confluence of scientific reality and sociology.
    The virus she has spread has done enough harm without giving her a huge platform to promulgate it further.
    ABC just gave her a ticket to the Superbowl..and a hot dog vendor license….

  • Big Fritz

    I have 2 boys with autism ages 11 and 12. My sister has 3 boys ages 3, 7 and 13who do not have autism. We both followed the same vacination schedule. Jenny’s theories would say that my nephews would have had a better chance on autism than my boys. Just another reason she is a raging dumbfuck with nothing but looking good naked to bring her the lifestyle she has. Saying her son has been “cured of autism” shows just how stupid she is.

  • Christopher Foxx

    IT’S MY CHOICE, TO CHOOSE WHAT I BELEVE IS BEST FOR MYSELF AND CHILDREN. MY CHOICE! Not yours.”

    In matters of opinion, such as religion and politics, I’ll cede the parent’s prerogative. But in matters of science and reality, No. You do not get to “choose to believe” that forgoing life-saving vaccinations is best for your children.

  • BlueTrooth

    Huh…”window lickers”…is that the compassionate terminology they’re using?

  • Lady Willpower

    A cure for Cancer would be the most lucrative medical innovation in the history of mankind. That alone is enough to destroy the conspiracy theorist’s argument.

    Also, the View has won Emmys???

    • Daigoro Ogami

      Daytime Emmies, which don’t really count.

    • Claude Weaver

      Not just that, but the silver bullet that destroys any “cure for cancer” claim right out the gate: which cancer does it cure?

      Because “cancer” is a catch all term for several diseases with difference causes, symptoms, effects, and issues to address. There can only be a cure for “cancer” like there is a cure for “war”.

      • Lady Willpower

        You would think if there was an actual cure for Cancer, Steve Jobs would have paid to get it.

        • YesMan4

          Jobs had a very simple pancreatic cancer which he ignored and stupidly tried to cure through meditation. It then metastasized and killed him. I take your point though.

    • YesMan4

      What if it was a plant?

  • http://www.facebook.com/felonious.grammar Felonious Grammar

    The medical community needs to take some responsibility for this. Andrew Wakefield’s fraudulent study was published in a well-respected medical journal— the “Lancet.” His numbers were suspect at a glance for research scientists. It was twelve years later that the study was fully retracted. Most people don’t understand scientific concepts like the authoritativeness of “theory” and statistics. Most people don’t understand that one study doesn’t really mean that much and that in order for it to be trustworthy it needs to be replicated by independent researchers. The problem of medical journals publishing poor to fraudulent studies— especially ghost-written industry funded studies with twenty or so “key opinion leaders” signing themselves on as authors— is widespread.

    Science reporting is so bad that news of martinis having anti-oxidants was published widely from a yearly spoof issue of “The New England Journal of Medicine”, in which the article about “anti-oxidants” included the information that the martinis needed to be “shaken, not stirred” and another “paper” showed that women named Betty were more likely to contract venereal disease.

    A country that worships individualism has difficulty understanding the importance of epidemiology; but the medical community needs to admit that vaccines can harm, though it is very rare so that they don’t appear to be liars when someone is harmed by a vaccine, for any reason, including negligence on the part of a manufacturer.

    When I was in physical rehab for MS, I met a man who had contracted polio from a vaccine in the ’70s. Being a community minded FDR democrat, he didn’t think what happened to him should discourage people from being vaccinated. The medical community and journalists need to paint a picture for the general public showing the importance of vaccinated populations.

    • dbtheonly

      FG, wasn’t there some talk that the Wakefield Study was a scam from the get-go & Lancet was the victim of a fraudulent article?

      I’m afraid I don’t remember much more.

      • http://www.facebook.com/felonious.grammar Felonious Grammar

        The study was a scam.

        The paper should not have been published in the first place, the sample size was ridiculously small, and the data should have been examined closely. It’s a medical journal. Anything claiming to have evidence that vaccines cause anything as profound as autism should be gone over with a fine-toothed comb. Even from the self-interested point of view of advertising it was a bad move.

  • Jeff Cramer

    I hear you, but curious, when a major studio puts out a Tom Cruise movie, does that mean they think like Tom does that postpartum depression doesn’t exist or they share Scientology’s anti-psychiatry views?

    I am not sure if ABC is exactly validating her views by putting her on unless she continues to talks constantly about anti-vaccination on “The View” and there is no rebuttal of this.

    • http://www.politicalruminations.com/ nicole

      “I am not sure if ABC is exactly validating her views”

      It doesn’t really matter if they intend to validate her views or not. The fact is that if she promotes those views (which are driven solely by the money she’s made from them) to an audience that large, ABC is just as responsible as McCarthy is for the outcome.

      If they want to behave responsibly, i.e., if they care about the health of the public insofar as how they might affect it with their programming decisions, they would not have hired her.

      She is detrimental to the public health. (and she’s a money-grubbing ass as well)

      • Jeff Cramer

        So, do you believe movie studios are responsible as Tom Cruise is since he pretty much thinks no one should take medication for postpartum depression? And he said those things on TV to a large audience as well.

        • http://www.politicalruminations.com/ nicole

          Apples and oranges. Straw man.

          • Jeff Cramer

            If is apples and oranges, if she goes on the show and starts talking about her stupid crazy anti-vaccinations beliefs on “The View”, but if she goes on the show, just chats and doesn’t say a word about her anti-vaccinations though on “The View” then its no different than a Tom Cruise film because Tom does not state his stupid beliefs in the movie.

            I don’t like Jenny, I think the anti-vaccination things she says are dangerous just as I think the things that Tom Cruise are dangerous and stupid. But unless you know in fact that she will talk about anti-vaccination, then its apples and orange arguments. Otherwise, as much as the beliefs are dangerous, it isn’t.

          • dbtheonly

            But “The View” is a discussion program where the anti-vac topic can/will arise. Cruise’s movie playing a down-on-his-luck sports agent offers no forum for his promotion of his beliefs.

          • Jeff Cramer

            If it does arise, then everyone on the board has a point and I don’t argue it.

            As for Cruise’s movies, none of his movies offer the forum for his views unless he decides to follow Travolta in adapting another of L. Ron Hubbard’s books.

          • dbtheonly

            Producing another movie from one of Hubbard’s books is God’s way of telling you you have too much money.

            As long as you acknowledge the essential differences between a talk show & a scripted movie; we’re in agreement. I’ll be surprised & pleased if the issue never arises.

          • Aaron Litz

            Tell me, have you ever seen The View? What panelist on that show has EVER refrained from promoting their personal views? (pun not intended, but gladly embraced)

            Did Hasselbeck, O’Donnell, or Goldberg refrain from expounding on her beliefs?

            And with McCarthy, we have someone who is VERY convinced of something and VERY outspoken about it. I don’t see how it is reasonable to think that she would suddenly reverse her established pattern after being given a soapbox on which to preach.

          • dellapina

            My guess is this topic will come up on the View within her first week on the show.

        • Lady Willpower

          If Tom Cruise had a talk show where he pontificated on his crackpot theories, that might be different. When he’s acting, he’s not Tom Cruise. Jenny McCarthy on the View is Jenny McCarthy, complete with insane views on medical science.
          I hope you can see the difference.

          • Jeff Cramer

            Yes, I see the difference and you are correct if she does go on there, stating the crackpot theories. Chez and pretty much everyone on the board are pretty sure that she will state these stupid crackpot theories. Maybe she will and the board is right, the Tom Cruise example is irrelevant.

            However, unless she keeps her mouth shut (which I know it’s Jenny and it will be hard to do), then I see this the same as Tom Cruise.

      • Christopher Foxx

        if they care about the health of the public insofar as how they might affect it with their programming decisions, they would not have hired her.

        Or, whenever she promotes or mentions her nonsense they make sure she’s countered on air by someone pointing out how ridiculous and dangerous she is.

        Which they won’t do, of course.

        • http://www.politicalruminations.com/ nicole

          “Which they won’t do, of course.”

          Nope. Especially with Joy Behar gone. Hell, they almost never talked back to that right wing loser, Elizabeth (I think that’s her name). .

    • Steven Skelton

      I think the difference is that a Tom Cruise film doesn’t provide the same sort of platform that a spot on The View does.

      I think your point has some validity though, I wouldn’t want cruise on a panel discussion show either.

      • Jeff Cramer

        Thanks, Steve. If she is going on there and promoting her views, then I would have a problem with ABC. But if she is on there and just chatting like the rest of the ladies and not saying a word about her crazy anti-vaccinations beliefs, then I don’t see this different than a Tom Cruise film.

    • Christopher Foxx

      When a major studio puts out a Tom Cruise movie he isn’t portraying Tom Cruise. I get at times it can be difficult separating an artist from the work. (I won’t pay for an Orson Scott Card book no matter how well it is written because I don’t want to provide the vile bully and coward with any of my money.)

      But Cruise as Ethan Hunt isn’t the same as McCarthy as Jenny McCarthy.