Dec 012011

UPDATE:  two youtubes featuring Jenny McCarthy, one on Larry King Live.   The other is with her partner, Jim Carrey.

Big Pharma will portray McCarthy in a bad light.   Focus on what she is saying, the content,  her personal experience.

We first reported on McCarthy,   July 2009  (see  Her story is consistent with Robert F. Kennedy Jr.’s documentation, in the same posting.

= = = = = = = = = ==

NOTE:    James Montgomery “Commented” on this posting and I replied (see below).  James is a professor in the College of Veterinary Medicine which has a long and strong connection to “Vaccines and Infectious diseases”.  

A community’s method for dealing with conflicts-of-interest is interesting:

  • what my Grandparents, Parents and community understood intuitively
  • has almost been lost
  • but is now in the process of being re-established because of science. 

James’ comment exists in the context of a conflict-of-interest.   The University of Saskatchewan has a long history of investment in vaccines (see **).  The largest employer in my city, Saskatoon, is the University.   Emails about vaccinations cause some people to exit this network.   The professor attacks the personal experience of McCarthy and then lambasts me – an attack on my person, nothing to do with refuting the arguments.   

Would this have happened 40 years ago?   Or would the professor have been at-arms-length to the discussion because of possible conflicts-of-interest of his workplace?   

TODAY – – bring on the science!     MRI imaging of neural pathways in the brain show that if you give me information that is in conflict with my “deeply held belief”, my brain will bypass the centre for processing the information rationally.  Anyone who is teaching or whose living is related to the use of vaccinations will have a “deeply held belief” about vaccines.  (A general statement, not specifically James Montgomery.)

The science tells me there is no sense creating ill will.  Similar to what was done intuitively in the past, the question of vaccines needs to be judged free from the influence of those whose neural pathways will not “hear” or process the information.  Energy is directed with positive outcome to those who do not have their being tied up in the issue.   Not because they are bad, but because we are human and each have a few defects!    And to confound ourselves further – –  I think I’m perfect!   (ha!)

I am tempted to say things like:  for people who are vaccinating, it is simply too threatening, on more than one level to have the discussion.  Or, if I walked in their shoes, I am sure it would be difficult or impossible for me to have my work, reinforced by all my teachers and colleagues, brought into question.  By a bunch of nincompoops to boot!  Current research is saying:  the person doesn’t even HEAR the argument.  By no fault of their own.  

I like James Montgomery.  I want him and his partner to feel welcome in this community.  I desire healthy relationships.   It seems to me that the erosion of conflict-of-interest standards is detrimental to community-building.

**   Regarding the development of vaccines at the University of Saskatchewan:  2009-11-19 H1N1 (or nukes or gmo’s or energy) in the context of “Selling Out”: the larger issue. Immune systems. TB. Constant Gardener.     

What used to be called VIDO (Vaccine Infectious Diseases Organization,  re-launched under the name InterVac – –  University of Saskatchewan) is introduced through the book “The Constant Gardener” (movie of same name).  I advise people to read the author’s real life comments in the book.  Le Carré says the story in his book is a holiday card version of what the pharmaceutical corporations do in the real world.  His books are well researched. 

– – – – – – – – – – –  – —


Jenny McCarthy’s story was circulated earlier.   (    2009-07-27  This is all about the pharmaceutical, chemical and biotech corporations, and their collaborators in government. All at the expense of our interest in health. Some of it is heart-breaking. Autism, Kennedy, Psych Ward Story  – –   Scroll down to  (6)  A MOTHER’S JOURNEY IN HEALING AUTISM BY JENNY MCCARTHY.) 

– – – – – — – – –  

EXCERPT from the 2009 posting:

In her new book, Louder Than Words: A Mother’s Journey in Healing Autism, actress Jenny McCarthy shares her emotional story of diagnosis, hope, … 

Excerpt from  

 . ….  In recent years, the number of children diagnosed with autism has risen from 1 in every 500 children to 1 in 150  (UPDATE:  The incidence is higher now.) — and science has not discovered a reason why. Jenny says she believes that childhood vaccinations may play a part. “What number will it take for people just to start listening to what the mothers of children who have seen autism have been saying for years, which is, ‘We vaccinated our baby and something happened.”

  7 Responses to “2011-12-01 UPDATE: Autism – vaccination, Jenny McCarthy, youtube.”

  1. Oh ok, Jenny says… “Jenny says she believes that childhood vaccinations may play a part.”

    And her credentials are what exactly?

    The vaccine – autism connection again, seriously?

    The paper that made that connection was flawed and subsequently retracted.

    Yes, people can have reactions to vaccines, but the rate is VERY LOW.

    We live in a world essentially without smallpox, polio, and many other diseases that ROUTINELY killed people.

    It is asinine and irresponsible to promulgate the misinformation that vaccines cause autism. It puts you on the level with Michelle Bachman.

  2. There is a clear distinction between people who have “credentials” and people who have personal experience. McCarthy obviously falls into the latter category.

    If you wish to challenge on the basis of credentials, you really should show where the errors lie in, for example, the work of Dr. Boyd Haley (Sept 4, 2011 posting) or others of the doctors and scientists.

    Regarding your statement: “The paper that made that connection was flawed and subsequently retracted.”. There is not one, but numerous papers that make the connection.

    I suppose you are aware of the degree to which Big Pharma corrupts both science and the media coverage of issues related to their products.

    Should I have concerns when an academic, a teacher, makes attacks on the person (me) instead of on the substance of the accumulated file of material?

  3. Allow me to make a further rebuttal.

    First of all, I have no conflict of interest with respect to vaccines. I teach diagnostic imaging. Saying I have a conflict of interest on this issue because I work at the University of Saskatchewan is like saying I cannot enter a debate on the events of the D-Day invasion of Normandy because the University of Saskatchewan also has a history department.

    My interest in this topic is more one of promoting science and rationality over ignorance. The idea that I only think vaccines are beneficial because I have had that “belief” repeatedly beaten into my brain by those who taught me is simply incorrect.

    I am glad you brought up MRI. It sounds like you are speaking of functional MRI which has been used to map which areas of the brain are more active during certain activities and are associated with memory. This is an area that Sam Harris has done a lot of research in association with religion and belief. I think you are confusing “belief” which is more akin to “faith” and not necessarily associated with or backed up by facts, with “knowledge.” Perhaps that is an argument of semantics, but if you are going to debate, you need to be precise in your terminology. People can “believe” in Santa Claus as children and later grow up to understand that is not true. Your description of neural pathways is incorrect. Because you form a memory pathway (learn something) it does not mean that your brain somehow then decides to bypass the thought process all together and no longer allows you to judge whether things related to that issue are true or false.

    Being a skeptic is great – people should question the status quo, but there is a responsibility that comes with that in the form of making sure your claims have real evidence to support them. With the vaccine-autism debate, there is just not a good link there – in spite of many people looking. You have to look at who is providing the information, and what that information actually means.

    There is also a misunderstanding among the general public about the difference between ethylmercury (thimerosol) and methylmercury. Ethylmercury is the one used in very small amounts as a preservative in some vaccines. Methylmercury is the one associated with industrial pollutants. The real debate should be why we still allow so much mercury to be spewed into our atmosphere through the burning of coal to generate electricity. There is a big difference between the two compounds – think of the difference between ethanol (which we drink at Christmas parties, etc.) and methanol (which if you drink it, even in low doses, you go blind and may very well die).

    A search in Google Scholar lists many articles on this subject by reliable sources. You cannot take a personal account (Jenny McCarthy) and establish cause and effect. It is overly simplistic, doesn’t meet the standards of evidence-based medicine, and is full of flawed logic. We know the benefits vaccines have had for civilization. The reason we do not collectively remember what many of these disease outbreaks look like is because vaccines have worked so well. The child-sized coffin industry took a huge hit when vaccines came on the market. We have seen some of these diseases start to return in areas where parents are refusing to vaccinate their kids, and there is just no good reason for it. You expose your kids to mercury (the really toxic kind!) by feeding them tuna fish sandwiches – there are actually cases of kids that ended up in the hospital due to mercury toxicity because their parents thought feeding them tuna was good for them. Let’s talk about that!

    Here is one article by a doctor trying to remind people why they need to be vaccinating their kids:

    This article is a very interesting one on why agents containing mercury compounds even ended up in vaccines in the first place:

    Then there is this article ( with the following conclusion:

    There has (probably) been no real increase in the incidence of autism. There is no scientific evidence that the measles, mumps and rubella (MMR) vaccine or the mercury preservative used in some vaccines plays any part in the aetiology or triggering of autism, even in a subgroup of children with the condition.

  4. I started reading your sources. The first one: Prof Brent Taylor, University College London, is an author of the study (1999) that looked at autism associated with the introduction of MMR vaccination to the UK in 1988. And finds no relationship. There was controversy over the data analysis. From what I can see, the difficulty in assessing the study is that Taylor has refused to give other scientists access to the data set.

    I have wondered why the defence in the U.S. to the vaccination programme consistently trots out doctors from the U.K.? There are doctors in the U.S. (like Boyd Haley, etc.).

    In 1988 in the U.K., were the same number of vaccinations being given, as in the USA?

    There is a common problem with “science” and regulation (as in the tar sands and elsewhere): the analysis and regulation is based on ONE (vaccination / smokestack). But in the real world, it is “one more” vaccination and “one more” smokestack. Either conveniently, or in ignorance, CUMULATIVE effects are completely disregarded.

    Taylor looked at the link between ONE vaccination, MMR, and autism. I expect you will have seen the vaccination schedule for infants in the U.S.

    The claim is not that ONE vaccination causes autism. The claim is that there is a causal relationship given ALL the assaults. And it is not only autism that is a detrimental consequence.

    I also urge you to look at http: // (remove the spaces so the link will work). It is the addition of rotavirus to the vaccination schedule. A damning and recent story.

  5. Hi again James, INCREASE IN INCIDENCE?

    Regarding your statement, “There has (probably) been no real increase in the incidence of autism”.

    The following (included in the rotavirus posting) attributed to Eric Fombonne (Montreal) indicates that autism is rising. When I check further, it is not clear exactly what Fombonne is saying. In context, out-of-context, I don’t know. I will email or phone him to verify.

    The CDC (Centre for Disease Control)’s input, as reported in Time Magazine is at http: // ww w.,8599,1927824,00.html (remove the spaces in the URL).


    “ The incidence of autism is rising dramatically. In the fifties, it was 1/10000; 1/2000 in the seventies; 1/500 in 1996; 1/250 in 2000; 1/147 in 2001 according to the noted epidemiologist, Dr. Eric Fombonne. Is this rise in incidence because we have better diagnostic techniques? Are we better doctors now? I believe that if a child could not speak, had no eye contact, mutilated himself, and did not sleep but a couple of hours per night he certainly would have been given some kind of a diagnosis.

    Nationwide statistics in US school children for the school years 97-98 vs. 98-99 in children ages 6 to 21 show a 2.6% increase in all disabilities, 2.3% increase in specific learning disabilities, 1% increase in speech impairments, 1.9% increase in severe emotional disturbance, and a 26% increase in autism. Autism is now the number one disability entering California’s developmental services system. Historically, autism accounted for 3% of the intakes into the system. Autism now accounts for 37% of the new intakes. From April 3 to July 8, 2001, 664 new children with autism were added to the system. This is the largest number of autistic children added to the system in the 32 year history of the group. At this rate, California will add 2700 new children with autism to it’s system in 2001 alone. This is more than all of the new cases entering the system in all of 1994, 1995, and 1996 combined. “

  6. Last comment, for now:

    We have NORMALIZED the incidence of disease and developmental problems.

    The situation is exacerbated by the fact that we are “Treating” and “Finding a cure”.

    Under the current funding regimes and criteria REAL efforts around removal of cause will happen when we re-define the corporation and make some other adjustments.

 Leave a Reply

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>