Cracked: Don't Listen to Jenny McCarthy

Post Reply New Topic

Let's stop saying b**** please, we don't hate her for being a woman, so let's cut the gender based insult crap.

The things she says and the result of what she says are pretty horrific.
Her toxic rhetoric hits me on two levels:
1. As an autistic person: the implication that being autistic is so awful a life threatening disease is preferable is pretty darn insulting. My death wouldn't be better than my autistic life
2. As an immunosuppressed person: The point of immunizations is not to protect the health of the individual being vaccinated, it's to create herd immunity, to protect people who can't be vaccinated. Your disgusting unvaccinated spawn are running around spreading illness that could kill me or other people. Get your brats to the doctor and get them their shots before they kill somebody for the sake of your selfish ignorance.

Even if vaccinations did contribute to autism (which they don't), I would support them. Autistic life is as good as Allistic life and both are preferable to dying from some old school nonsense like mumps because mummy is a bigot.

i have read through this thread and i have not seen the word actualy spelled out.just written as b#### or something.

Alluding to it really isn't any better, I wasn't objecting to any profanity I took issue with the sentiment. B**** wouldn't be written in any iteration in a post referring to a disagreeable man.
Thanks for checking it out.

The fact that some parents do not vaccinate their children, do not make the children disgusting unvaccinated spawn, the children have no control over whether or not their parents refuse to vaccinate them, nor does the parent's decision not to vaccinate the children make them brats.

No need to insult gender or these innocent children with unwarranted generalized comments, over the ill-advised choices some of these parents are taking.

The dangers from vaccines have never been an autistic specific issue. There are documented cases of children whom are vaccinated that cause problems in children with both over active and under active immune systems.

Immune system problems are an identified co-morbid condition associated with autism, however immune system problems are not a symptom of autism.

The continued issue in research on potential harm from vaccines is to determine which children are vulnerable to vaccines to protect them from the documented ill-effects that the minority of children experience from vaccines.

If jenny McCarthy's son was immune system suppressed or overactive, and suffered ill effects from vaccines, she may be mistaken as has been evidenced over the autism issue, but it doesn't necessarily mean she is mistaken that vaccines caused her child health problems, due to existing inherent health problems.

Children that are understood to suffer from inherent problems that could potentially kill them if they are vaccinated, do not deserve to die, because of an issue that has been made into a political one, over autism.

These childrens lives are important regardless of what neurological disorder label they have attached to their medical records. The continued research into inherent dangers of vaccines to children regardless of what neurological disorder they might have, is vital, in that it can potentially be a matter of life and death for some of these children.

The benefits of vaccines outweighing the risks of vaccines have been proven, however that doesn't mean too much, for children with inherent problems that potentially make them succeptible to the ill effects of vaccine.

If research were abandoned to determine, identify, and protect the children that are really at risk of losing their life because of vaccinations, it would not be a medically ethical path to go down. The research continues, in the hopes of preventing harm to these children, so the proper ethical path has been taken.

This issue at one point was tilted too far against the use of vaccines, and for a time it was tilted politically away from research into the actual potential dangers of vaccines to some individuals with inherent health problems that made them potentially succeptible to side effects from vaccines.

The dangers of vaccines are not a black and white issue; thank goodness there are reputable scientists whom understand there is a gray area to be pursued, for the sake of the innocent children, that don't feel compelled to follow political rhetoric over the issue, that further research is unwarranted.

Jenny McCarthy has been proven wrong in her assumptions, as well as many others who had similiar generalized fears about vaccines; it is good to pursue all the facts and move in a postive direction in research that is of benefit to all children.

fair enough.Can we please tone down the sexest language everyone

It may not make them disgusting, but it does make them unvaccinated spawn.
Sorry if you found hyperbolic language towards something that could literally kill me offensive. I'll try to keep other people's sensitivities more in mind in the future.



I never said vaccines in general were an autism specific issue, but Jenny's rhetoric, the actual subject of this thread, is. There are a variety of reasons some children can't be vaccinated and their heath is put at risk when some parents chose not to vaccinate children who could be vaccinated because of a fear of autism.
I never said immune system problems are a symptom of autism, in my case they are separate and I identified them as such.



Interesting. irrelevant, but interesting.



Irrelevant, her stated reason for avoiding vaccinations is risk of autism. Hypothetical heath issues of a specific person's child has nothing to do with her public positions.



I agree, children who due to health reasons cannot be vaccinated deserve to be as healthy as possible and to be protected by herd immunity which shields them from the diseases they can't be vaccinated for.




Here is where I think you don't realize we agree. All children's lives are important, I agree. It's important for vaccines to be as safe as possible so as many people can use them as possible. Research into the efficacy and safety of vaccines is incredibly important because vaccines are so important to public health, I agree. We're not talking about general consensus or ideas aside from how they're influenced by Jenny's misinformation and fear mongering, which is autism specific



Research into *real* heath concerns, is always good, research devoted to propping up bigoted claims like McCarthy is not good. So yes, thank goodness for reputable scientists and thank goodness for education that helps us differentiate good science from bad.


So that there is no further confusion I will try to state my position as clearly as possible.
Some children cannot be vaccinated due to health reasons. This is fine.
Some children are not vaccinated because there parents chose to disregard their doctors, science, and common sense to protect their special snowflake from an imaginary risk of autism. This is not okay. This is misinformation endangering the health of both groups and any people with a compromised immune system. It's a result of fear mongering and it perpetuates fear.

i dont have a million links to back this up but outbreaks of measels and other diseases are on the rise especialy in western europe.there is no absolute proof that this is "autism scare"related.but it makes you think

Spawn is also a derogatory generalized word used to describe children. These children have no potential of killing anyone because their parents made an ill-advised choice not to vaccinate them.

There is also the potential that they may have an undetected overactive immune system or an underactive immune system that makes the danger similiar to the serious nature of it as it for individuals such as yourself. They too face the dangers of communicable diseases, because of the ill-advised choices by their parents.

They are completely innocent in the context of this situation and deserve the same respect any other child does in how they are described on a public forum.

These children do not deserve to be called disgusting, spawn, brats, special snowflakes, or children that are capable of killing anyone, because of the ill-advised decisions of their parents.

That said you are not hurting my feelings by stating these things. I am not a youth whose parents made an ill-advised choice not to vaccinate them, but I can see where if I was, and read your statement, that it wouldn't be a fair statement.

Other than that I don't have any significant disagreements with your points, I was expanding on the vaccine issue, Jenny McCarthy, Immune system problems and how it relates to issues in autism politics in pro/anti vaccine discussions.

There are those that have suggested that research should not continue to explore the potential that inherent problems associated with autism may be causing health problems in some autistic children, because of the political rhetoric over the extremes of the issue.

I am glad to see that you can see the importance of continued research; in part it is likely because you suffer from immune system problems, and can understand how serious the danger of vaccinations can be for those with inherent health problems. Not all people can look at the issue that up close and personal.

As far as your clarified concise positions, I agree with them, they are in alignment with the state of science on the issue at this point in time; except for the comment about special snowflakes.

diseases that were formaly almost wiped out by vaccines are on the rise.there was a measles mini epidemic in france recently.this was caused by any people not vacinating there children.however it is not known if fear of autism is what is detouring vacination.to laugh and say there is no danger is wrong.google the measles breakout in france and tell me im wrong

Not sure if you are addressing my posts, but I have personally stated several times that it is an ill-advised decision not to vaccinate a child. The positive benefits outweigh the risks, per research.

Of course, if there is an inherent health issue documented that potentially threatens the life of the child, if they were to be vaccinated, it is completely reasonable that they should not be vaccinated. In this case the risks would outweigh the benefits.

I do think that is pretty rare though; and my understanding is that one of the only ways to avoid vaccinations for children in the US, is to homeschool children, since the vaccinations are legal requirements to attend school in most cases.

I've heard different viewpoints from different experts as to why the new measle outbreaks are occuring. There are many areas of the world where children are not vaccinated, where outbreaks of these communicable diseases have continued and the diseases continue to have the opportunity to mutate with a human host environment.

There is always the potential of a strain occuring that modern vacines do not protect against in some individuals, but there is no doubt that some parents are avoiding vaccinations because of the "autism vaccination scare". Most health professionals, consider it risky not to vaccinate children, and real cause for concern.

I don't think that calling her a "b****" implies that you hate her because she is a woman. There are lots of fun insults which only work if the person is in a certain category. If you call a man a "b***ard", you're not saying that you hate them because they are male. If you call a kid a "little punk", you're not saying that you hate them because they are young.

I think that the modern feminist idea that "b****" is a hate word is just misguided. Compare the following two sentences. Which one doesn't make sense?

Fair, I'm a little sensitive to feminine slurs because a lot of online spaces seem hostile or women. I was really just trying to express some annoyance not language police but I got a little too serious.
Be careful with "little punk" though, according to this thread we have to be super careful about how we talk about kids because saying anything remotely negative about those perfectly innocent angel babies is so terrible it overshadows discussion of any actual topic.

Most people would not call a child a little punk, if they were behaving themselves at the doctors office. This would be calling a child a little punk based on the fact that they are a child.

And most people would not call a child a brat, if they were behaving themselves at the doctors office. This would be callling a child a brat because they are a child.

If someone did, it's pretty likely if a parent was in the room, that there would be a conversation on the topic.

It's a matter of perspective, and while this isn't a doctor's office, there are parents in the room.

As you felt the need to voice a concern over what you perceived as a comment that was not fair to women as a gender, I felt the need to voice a concern over what I perceived as a statement that was not fair to children as group that had not been vaccinated. If you can reasonably justify how your comments were fair to those children, I will sincerely apologize for pointing it out.

i was just addresing the fact that you said it was rude to imply unvacinated children were a spawn of danger,i was just making the point that there have been a rise in vaccinable diseases lately

i agree that the statements were anti Jenny McCarthy not anti woman,however online its best to error on the side of caution

good point