even more jenny mccarthy

Post Reply New Topic

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/Ente ... 548749.cms

She is the one person who seriously pisses me off with her utter ignorance and bombastic remarks, she has no brains, no credibility, no sense in her peroxide head...and very, very few things irriate me like her......

Amanda Peet is way hotter, and can actually act! And she is intelligent - who could ask for more?

warning, I got 4 popups in 3 seconds...

Jenny is one of the most ignorant people I have ever seen, I even doubt that her son ever had autism. We as a community need to stand up against this lying wretch who advocates for not vaccinating children. You know I wouldn't have so much of problem if it was just the child who was at risk of getting these highly contagious diseases but infants, the elderly and those with weakened immune disorders are all put at risk because of this reckless abandonment of responsibility to both child and community.

Ah, that b***h probably has a kid with CDD, but her ignorance is painting all autistics as nonverbal monsters, and all aspies as pretenders. Whattabitch. She does realize vaccines no longer contain mercury, right? Even if it did, it isn't in sufficient amounts, would be absorbed into tissue and passed out the body, and would not behave as she claims? Or hasn't she found that webpage yet?

Jenny's book is called "Mother Warriors". Of course, if your kid can't compete at prep school, you simply become a mother warrior and do battle against the evil monster called Autism holding your child in its death grip. Sometimes I think Western society has gone mad, everybody is so damn self-centered, it's not about helping the child to have a happy life, it's all about YOU as a mother and living life through your child. If you can't force your kid to be a hedge fund titan, then you can become St. Georgina slaying the autism dragon and heroically saving your child. And I thought that those really annoying people on cheap US TV talent competitions who have little to recommend them except an ego that could smother life on earth were just an extreme chosen for effect. They're like roaches, EVERYWHERE.

This is what 20 years of self-esteem education in US public schools has gotten us-people who have few marketable skills but who have giant egos that bruise easily, and when that happens it's World War 3 time. They were led to believe that they deserved the finer things in life, and when the finer things go bye bye, it's not time to buckle down and make do with less, or maybe adjust one's expectations of life, but time to exact revenge on those who crossed the monster ego. If you have an autistic child, help your kid be the happiest (not most arrogant) and productive autistic they can be. Don't "go to war" against Autism and ruthlessly slay the demon possessing your child by torturing the kid. Who says we've come a long way from witch trials?

Wow, such vitrol. Do any of you yahoos HAVE children? My grandson has classic autism. We want him to be able to do those little things in life like drive a car, go on a date, earn a living and choose to live in his own home. I could care less WHAT he does, I just want him to be able to do what he wants. He can't. Not without a LOT of help. I'm sick and tired of you people making it sound like anyone who wants to help their loved ones with autism are shallow and unaccepting of their loved ones. Since when is it an evil act to want your beloved child to be able to navigate the world around them independantly. Some people might actually consider that goal good parenting.

I don't know if what Jenny says is valid or not, I'm not a scientist. I'm not thrilled to watch these claims of "liar, liar, liar!" though. Do any of you have any way of knowing that she is actually lying and not mistaken (if she's wrong at all)? I add the last because I haven't actually read anything she's written. I've seen a couple of interviews and she seems passionate but I haven't seen her say anything that I would take offense at. However,

"Ah, that b***h probably has a kid with CDD, but her ignorance is painting all autistics as nonverbal monsters, and all aspies as pretenders. Whattabitch."

can't be taken any way EXCEPT offensively. So tell me, Ishmael, just who is the offensive person here? Why are you so incredibly rude? And why do you try to hold her to standards that you don't hold yourself to? If you can't disagree without some basic civility maybe you should ignore Jenny and start focusing on Emily. Some etiquette lessons seem to be in order where you're concerned.

Frankly, if Wrong Planet is just a place for judgemental, big mouthed bigots to get on and badmouth anyone with a different take on life than they themselves have, maybe it's the wrong place for me. I'd rather be someplace where adults can respectfully discuss their different takes on the world without decending to the sewers for descriptive words and without believing that they have some absolute take on all that is known. Frankly, Ishmael, you're an ass and you have NO credibility in the comments you've made about Jenny McCarthy. In fact, one of the biggest lies you've told is that she's against vaccines and wants to put other people at risk. LIAR! She's simply pushing for a safer and individualized vaccine schedule and coming up with vaccines that just might be safer for people to recieve. Oh, but you don't care about that because you've made up your mind and you're the only person here who knows anything.

Pah, I'm so angry right now I need to stop before I start using uncivil words myself.

Rebecca_L, you are starting to annoy me. I don't need etiquitte, I was born NT. Etiquitte with them is a good way to get beaten up... only w*kers and pretenders with nothing valid to say bother couching words in niceties. You admitted you havn't read her work! I have!
She is a horrific, offensive, unbalnced person, who literally said autism steals the souls of "real" children! She is peddling dangerous fringe theories, pushing for a "safer" vaccine schedual that would be, in fact, dettimdntal, promotes quacks who recommend chelation to "cure" autistic kids, advances the autistic stereotype, ignores factual information and evidence about vaccines, and slanders anybody who disagrees with her.
Try to know all sides of an argument before judging, please, and don't take that high-and-mighty approach assuming I have not done such. We have fully valid reasons to hate that b***h and her sycophantic fanclub. Or, perhaps, you don't mind that her groups promotions of frequently disproven quack theories has caused the murder of several autistic children, by their parents? Whether or not they got the idea from her or not; she is the face of the group that leads to that sort of thinking - even if they do not realize it. Idiocy and mob mentalities are not something to revere just because the leader happens to be a mother. Boo frickin' hoo, I have one of those. Much smarter than Jenny, and has had to put up with far, far, far more, to boot.

Let me see if I understand you.

You were born Neurotypical and then what? The autism fairy visited you?
Jenny McCartney is somehow responsible for deranged parents killing their children with autism.
It's perfectly valid to call women "b***h" because you would be beat up by "mainstream" society if you don't?
You have a valid opinion and that means you can express it any way you wish?
Does this sum it up?

If you were a true person of reason you'd be able to express your opposing views in an educated and compelling fashion. The fact that you feel that only bile and virulent rhetoric will make you properly heard tells me that you don't really have faith in your stance, you're just trying to shout down the opposition. I find it laughable that you accuse her of slander when you and your syncophants have been accusing her of lying (with no factual evidence that I've seen), nit picking the phrasese she's used, (he wasn't "dead" you can't be revived from "death". Excuse me, but every person I know would consider a person whose heart has stopped beating and who is not breathing "dead" whether they were revived or not. But I'm not a big scientist person either...) In short, you have no moral high ground to stand on. The only difference between you and what you accuse Jenny of is the stance you've taken. I have no respect for you or your opinions. I don't have to read what Jenny has written to know that the way you express your disapproval is inappropriate and invalidates any point you might actually have to make. If you want to be respected you must show respect. It's pretty simple, really.

Oh, and many biomedical treatments seem perfectly reasonable to me. We're going to try my grandson on the GFCF diet. It can't hurt and it COULD help. I don't see any problems with sensible suppliments either. Our diets today are nutrient poor. And, while I don't think autism has a "cure" I don't see any reason to rule out mitigating treatments. Just as I take glucosamin and chondroitin for my knees, I'm willing to give Cod Liver Oil to my grandson. Personally, until you have something better to offer I can only consider you to be one of those people who attacks anyone with an idea. Maybe instead of pointing out the evils of Jenny you could focus on something positive, something that might help some of those low functioning children who are in constant pain and have no quality of life that anyone can detect.

Rebecaa_L look at it through our eyes, a lot of this stuff parents are doing has not been proven to help with autism. I heard a parent say "I cured my son because I took gluten out of his diet now he is normal" I almost screamed, gluten has nothing to do with autism. If you have intestinal problems would you really want to be social? Let me ask this question if you were at a party with twenty of your closest and dearest friends and you have diarrhea rushing down to the exit would you be happy or irritable?

Now I find interesting that your not aware that the majority of the scientific community has said Jenny and people like her are wrong. Before you attack us do your homework because she is pushing for unproven sometimes unsafe treatments she even said herself that autism is reversible if you put your kid on a gluten free diet. There is no risk to vaccines I would like you to read this article I wrote then do your own research.

Rebecca_L, please, try to learn more dialects, okay? For my entire life, NT has meant Northern Territorian. I'm not blunt because of "mainstream". Eloquence is a waste of time that only politicians and tourists employ in ordinary arguments. It identifies you as a git, most of the time it's too bloody humid to pretend to be polite.
Pay attention. Hero worship Jenny for being a mother of an autistic kid - my, how unique - and for "raising awareness", but it's the wrong kind of awareness! As for what people are doing to help the classically autistic? I am researching ways to stabilize - not eliminate - the gene. As are few others, globally. Why? Because I can't in good conscience ever have a child until I can gaurantee that child won't be a stereotyped classic autistic or a philosophical savant. Don't make assumptions based on what you don't know.

Philosopher,
You say that the GFCF diet hasn't been proven to "cure" autism. I agree that there's no cure (and that anyone claiming there is one is either deluded or a quack), but I don't agree that there aren't treatments that might very well mitigate symptoms. Now, GFCF hasn't been proven to help, according to you. Has it actually been tested? In a peer reviewed double blind study? If so, I would love to see a link to the study. If not, you dismissing it is a bit hypocritical, wouldn't you say? You don't actually KNOW, you simply assume. Since autism is a vastly misunderstood condition there is no way ANYONE can state definitively what does and doesn't work. And since a GFCF diet is in no way harmful to implement, just who are you to tell me doing so is wrong for my child? (Or my grandson.)

"I don't care if your a parent you don't have the right to decide who a person is even when they are your child, such treatments violate a child's right to give consent or not to give consent."

If you feel that way about a simple diet change, I'm amazed that you would advocate for vaccinations. After all, this child is perfect the way they are and they certainly haven't given consent for this "treatment". So who are we to decide that vaccinations are what they want?

Yes, I am aware that the majority of the medical community vehemently oppose what Jenny and others who believe in treatment say. I'm also aware that the same medical community STILL (in some cases) feels that autism is caused by "cold" parenting. I have an aunt who is a Microbiologist and she has done vaccine research on several different types of vaccines. The stories she's told me of politics and back stabbing and egos does not lead me to place a great deal of faith in the mainstream medical community. Offit also does much to destroy any credibility they might have. I'm all for vaccines, within reason and on a schedule that fits the child.

"There is no risk to vaccines I would like you to read this article I wrote then do your own research."

Are you serious?! If there's no risk, then why do I have to read and sign a paper on the risks of vaccines before my child is innoculated? Why do children die from vaccine reactions? Why is there a vaccine court. Don't insult my intelligence. OF COURSE there is a risk to vaccinating your child. I believe the consensus is that there is MORE risk from not being vaccinated. That may or may not be true. I haven't had to live through a true epidemic, so I'm withholding my opinion at the moment.

You are right, however, that I should not have called Ishmael an ass. My main issue with him is his own name calling and it is hypocritical of me to reduce myself to his level. However, his credibility is an issue that I can and will bring up. Since he, like you apparently, seems fond of absolute statements, his credibility is something that SHOULD be questioned. He has nothing to back up his statements, they are simply his opinions. Since he cannot state those opinions in a mature and rational fashion it is only sensible that I do not give credit to them. I do, however, apologize for calling him an ass. It was wrong and inappropriate of me.

Finally, while I strongly disagree with the conclusions you've drawn from your research, I appreciate that you are able to express your opinions without crossing the line into verbal abuse. I will debate you any time you like. I also appreciate you calling me on my own hypocrisy. It helps me to improve my own argumentative tone. I hope that you can see some inconsistencies in your own position, however. Particularly that which equates attempting pallative treatments for a child with autism to a violation of their "right to be themselves". How do you know they want to be themselves? How do you decide when ANY parent has stepped on their child's "right to be themselves"? My oldest grandson hates school with a passion. He's ADHD with sensory issues. Should we allow him to stay home. Perhaps it isn't part of who he is to learn to read and write and do basic math? It is, in my opinion, a worse offense for you to judge my my attempts to help my grandson live a better life than it is for me to attempt to "possibly" improve his ability to function. Who are YOU to decide what's best for him? Once again, if you are happy with who you are, wonderful. It doesn't make me wrong to want better for my grandson. It doesn't make me shallow or selfish either. We weigh every step we take with him. Is this going to improve his life or just stress him out for no reason? Is this worth it for any of us? Am I doing enough, or too much? Don't you DARE to judge me or my love for my grandson until you stand in my shoes.

She was on a CBC show called The Hour with George Stroumboulopoulos, which is an interview show
here in Canada, she comes off as being very ignorant regarding autism, she really acted like a total spazz

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A1u1rOVzkEc[/youtube]

This GF-CF idea is a joke. The effects are identical in autistics/non autistics. Unregulated placebo-type treatments can be dangerous when considering unknown factors. People who peddle it as an end-all "cure" to autism are drawing attention away from real research, and further restricting what limited choice classically autistics have to begin with.
This notion that there is no harm is a short sighted one. Whilst there are little immediate problems, future repurcussions on a far greater scale are terrifying. Ever see these groups with their full-page newspaper ads, TV ads, touting anectdotes as fact, and labelling autism in the wrong light - a thing that steals the real child, leaving a "place holder". That is no interpretation, they have said just that much themselves. They don't want a better life for their autistic children, they may think they do, but what they want is for their children to be better suited to attain that life. Strangers with the same face, and it is astonishing how they speak of their children as being shells with their "true" child trapped, screaming inside.
That may emotionally well intended, but one sided and unreasonable. Their anger at being denied their perfect child leads them into hate groups targetting anybody who disagrees with them - the vehement displays here are little more than reactionary. Their pushing at a dangerous game, with stars in their eyes.