SkepticblogSkepticblog logo banner

top navigation:

Jenny McCarthy’s Body of Work

by Phil Plait, Apr 08 2009
Jenny Mccarthy and syringe, small

I am no fan of Jenny McCarthy. I have called her a public health risk before, and I stand by that: her claim that vaccines cause (or contribute to) autism is nothing short of breathtakingly ridiculous.

And I’m not the only one who knows this to be true. Medical doctors Orac and Steve Novella have words about her, as does Skeptic Dad, and the Stop Jenny McCarthy site was created to expose her as the danger she is.

And now the gauntlet is well and truly thrown down: a website has been created called Jenny McCarthy Body Count. Stark and grim, it has one purpose: to show how many preventable illnesses and preventable deaths have occurred due to unvaccinated people since Jenny McCarthy became the de facto face of the antivaccination movement.

The website, created by skeptic Derek Bartholomaus, stops short of saying she is directly responsible for these illnesses and deaths, but her indirect responsibility is arguably relevant. We know that some outbreaks of measles have occurred due to the antivax movement, for example. And there have been deaths — children have died — because they were unvaccinated. McCarthy may have started out as a comedian, but I’m not laughing at her anymore.


jmbc


The statistics for the site are from the CDC’s Morbidity and Mortality reports, which Bartholomaus has linked for reference. The diseases specifically include measles, mumps, rubella, polio, tetanus, Hib, the flu, and diphtheria. In fact, his numbers underestimate the problem, since other vaccine-preventable diseases are not listed in the CDC reports. Not surprisingly, the vast majority of fatalities are from the pediatric flu, a tragedy I have a difficult time grasping.

The Jenny McCarthy Body Count site itself only launched on March 29, but it’s already had thousands of views. Bartholomaus, a self-described "statistics geek", updates it by hand once a week, when the new CDC reports are issued. He also has some basic info on McCarthy’s claims there, but for more background info on McCarthy and her pro-disease stance, go to Stop Jenny McCarthy.

It’s too bad we need something like this site, but McCarthy gets a free pass from the media, even from those that claim to "spar" with her (but really only give her a platform in which she can spew more dangerous nonsense). The Jenny McCarthy Body Count site is a very stark — and sadly, very necessary — reminder that just because people’s beliefs aren’t real, they can still have a very real and very tragic impact.

52 Responses to “Jenny McCarthy’s Body of Work”

  1. BillDarryl says:

    Where’s she been? About two years ago, she was on Oprah, Larry King, in front of Congress, etc. But lately I can’t recall seeing her beautiful (albeit evil) mug popping up anywhere.

    Is the MSM over her nonsense? Is she considered no longer a viewer-worthy entity for these shows? In which case, can we claim a minor win (she’s still talking, but no one’s really listening)?

  2. neokortex says:

    Actually BillDarryl I am aware of 2 TV appearances she did last week when she was brought on as some sort of “expert” for Autism Awareness day. Last Thursday on one of the morning news shows (I think it was Today show) and again Friday night on Larry King, next to co-expert Jim Carrey.

    Which leads to the question: What responsibility do people like King and the producers of these shows bear in the body count for letting her blather on with no serious challenge?

  3. SeanJJordan says:

    As long as these appearances get ratings, the pundits will continue to feature these people, because the conflict seems to imply that there’s a story.

    The way to fight back is not to silence Jenny McCarthy or to go head-to-head with her on TV (where she will always win), but rather to work with organizations like the AMA to engage in public education.

  4. bill babishoff says:

    We as skeptics want to be skeptical about our beloved subjects but when someone is skeptical about science or big pharma we attack them. HIPPOCRATES. There is something seriously wrong with injecting pollutants in our bodies in order to keep the population “safe”. Obviously Jenny McCarthy is not an expert on the subject but as skeptics we should look much deeper into the issue of forced medical procedures. I repeat “forced medical procedures”. I don’t like innoculations as they only delay disease reality. In the long run they make us weaker. Having ALL of our children survive and be semi-healthy doesn’t seem to benefit the race to me. They may also CAUSE illness as MS. McCarthy believes. More and honest research is needed in this area.

  5. Boy, that identifies the magnitude of the problem, doesn’t it?

  6. tmac57 says:

    @bill babishoff-“More and honest research is needed in this area.”
    Bill, judging from the tone and content of your diatribe, I’m guessing that all of the research in the world that would continue to show vaccines to be safe and effective, would never be enough for you.

  7. Scott C. says:

    @bill babishoff , “Having ALL of our children survive and be semi-healthy doesn’t seem to benefit the race to me.”

    OK, what child mortality percentage is acceptable in your eyes? Should we drown children who don’t meet our standards of fitness to correct the course of human evolution? Is a “semi-healthy” life not worth living (or saving?)

    You might wish to take an opportunity to rephrase that thought, unless you are a Social Darwinist and said precisely what you mean.

  8. “Having ALL of our children survive and be semi-healthy doesn’t seem to benefit the race to me.”

    Hmmm. I seem to vaguely recall a period or three in hbistory when the powers-that-be of the time would not suffer to live those they judged inferior in some way. Can anyone help me remember when that happened?

    Bill? I have nine children. Six are fully healthy. Three are not entirely healthy. One has a chronic breathing disorder. One is deaf. One is wheelchair bound due to problems at birth. They are all stable, but with irreversible medical issues. Since these three children are only semi-healthy, by your criteria it doesn’t seem they could benefit the human race.

    Would you please post the criteria by which their mother and I should decide which of the three, if any, should be allowed to live, and which of the three, if any, should be allowed to die – for the benefit of the human race, of course.

    I think that would be highly enlightening and would help all of us to understand your position.

  9. bill babishoff says:

    I am surprised that my comment aroused more ire in you readers than the actual article. Obviously I hit a nerve. I suppose I need to spell it out for you.
    Vaccinations don’t make you healthier, they MIGHT make you ill. They MIGHT keep you from getting a particular disease but how does that help future generations? Once the organisms that cause disease in us are no longer affected by these vaccinations what do we do then?
    We survived as a species for thousands of years without vaccinations just fine. The strong survived and the weak didn’t. This is evolution. Not eugenics. Nobody makes the choice of who gets sick and who doesn’t and nobody should. I learned long ago that stress makes some of us stronger and some weaker. The best way to protect our children is to tell them the truth as we know it and let future generations make their own decisions. Hopefully we get some good science and find out if vaccinations actually work on a short and long term basis.
    As far as “devils advocate” is concerned I am deeply sorry that some of your children have illness issues and I wish them better health in the future. As a handicapped person myself I understand some of those feelings but don’t sell them short. Handicapped people can make great contributions to humanity. People who are ill can have perfectly healthy offspring. Endangering healthy children with vaccinations just doesn’t make sense to me.
    I did not mention euthanizing handicapped people, where did you get that idea?
    Another problem with vaccinations is the person getting them HAS NO CHOICE IN THE MATTER!
    If there is ONE person who can step forward and PROVE a particular vaccination or innoculation saved their child from disease I’d like to hear about it. Why don’t we hold the manufacturers and promoters of these vaccines to the same skeptical standards as we do faith healers and other snake oil charlatans? You are reacting the same way as these believers. Isn’t it easy to be a fair weathered skeptic!

  10. Nathan M. says:

    @Bill Babishoff –
    “but when someone is skeptical about science or big pharma we attack them. HIPPOCRATES.”

    Skepticism means to looks at something rationally and scientifically. Being skeptical of scientifically proven things is not skepticism, it’s insanity. I’ll fully admit that pharmacies are trying to make money, who isn’t? But how can pharmacies make money if their products harm their customers?! Until you can show evidence that X company is harming the public, even though they’ve been regulated by the FDA, then you’ll have something there (about X company only).

    “There is something seriously wrong with injecting pollutants in our bodies in order to keep the population “safe”.”

    Yours and mine definition of “pollutants” may vary but, assuming you understand what are in vaccines, I’ll go ahead and give you that definiton. Is there ANY scientific evidence to your claim that “there is something seriously wrong” with vaccines and innoculations? So far the evidence shows that your chances of recieving X diseases decreases tremendously after innoculation. There are plenty of statistical analasis for this, (inverse correlations of cases of polio and the rise of polio vaccinations can be seen all over the internet, including here: http://www.cloudnet.com/~edrbsass/poliotimeline.htm).

    “I don’t like innoculations as they only delay disease reality. In the long run they make us weaker.”

    How so? Please state sources, I am a skeptic after all, I can’t just take somebody’s word for something. The only cases where vaccines have caused harm are through misfirings where the weakened virus manages to reproduce. This is an extremely rare case and, considering this possibility, vaccines still save magnitudes more lives than they harm. This also usually happens because of an undiagnosed disease that the child already has. Diseases like Leukemia make it risky for innoculations.

    “They may also CAUSE illness as MS. McCarthy believes. More and honest research is needed in this area.”

    Until research shows that innoculations cause more harm than good, I’m going to be skeptical of Jenny McCarthy’s belief that vaccines can cause autism. I’m going to stick with the null hypothesis that the current science is correct.

    Keep up the good work, Phil. I’m saving up my money to try and see you and other heroes at TAM7 this year.

  11. Nathan M. says:

    @Bill Babishoff –
    “Vaccinations don’t make you healthier, they MIGHT make you ill.”

    Baloney. There is evidence to the contrary. Vaccinations have lead to the eradication of several horrific diseases.

    “Once the organisms that cause disease in us are no longer affected by these vaccinations what do we do then?”

    We make a new vaccine. That’s why we have new flu shots each year. The virus mutates, we update the vaccine.

    “We survived as a species for thousands of years without vaccinations just fine.”

    That is the biggest understatement I’ve heard. No, the human species has not “survived… just fine”. Which is better, being able to catch smallpox or not being able to catch smallpox. If you can easily prevent smallpox why not do it? BTW, the concept of vaccination has been around since 200BC ( http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17633292 ).

    “Nobody makes the choice of who gets sick and who doesn’t and nobody should.”

    I stress that if you are able to cure a disease, especially a nasty one, then you should cure it. Nowadays with today’s medicine and with vaccinations we are able to effectively prevent illnesses. And are thusly able to make people well again. By this statement it seems like you’re saying we shouldn’t treat sickness because “nobody makes the choise of who …doesn’t [get sick], and nobody should.”

    “If there is ONE person who can step forward and PROVE a particular vaccination or innoculation saved their child from disease I’d like to hear about it.”

    http://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/Pubs/vis/default.htm

    Sponsored by your taxpayer money. I can also show you evidence of the opposite, where children have died directly due to the lack of vaccination.

    http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm58e0123a1.htm

    There is a difference between you and I as “skeptics”. When I see evidence I stop being skeptical about that particular, when you are shown direct scientific evidence you still hold on to your belief. That is when it stops being skepticism and starts being fanatasicism. Please take your beliefs rationally and scientifically.

  12. bill babishoff says:

    Nathan,
    First off implying that I am insane because I don’t believe in a particular theory is not cool. All theories must have some opposition. I don’t know of a single scientific idea or theory which is 100% proven and agreed to by all. Science is not the be-all know-all of life, it is a METHOD. I am skeptical of Jenny McCarthy. I’m not agreeing with her. She has a right to state her opinion. I don’t know that vaccines are safe or not. I don’t know if they contribute or cause autism, NOBODY DOES. I am not trying to tell people not to get them. I personally wouldn’t get them.
    Why should I have to prove vaccinations are harmful? They should be proven safe FIRST and they have not. I believe you have it backwards.
    You also should look up the definition of “skeptic”. Science is not a part of the definition. Science is not an untouchable, it gets things wrong frequently, good science corrects those errors. Skeptics can and must be skeptical of all things including the sciences.
    There are reams of documents proving various medicines cause illness. Just look at the health warnings included with your prescriptions.
    As far as polio is concerned, I personally have a friend who has polio symptoms CAUSED by the vaccination. Polio is alive and not extinct and was on the decline before the vaccine came out. Polio will come back again just as bubonic plague and influenza will. It is cyclical, we can’t stop it. I have read reports that viruses do evolve and become immune to vaccines, but I will not quote them as I am not an expert in that field. But as an example look at V.D. It use to be a simple shot of penicillin would do the trick, not any more! We don’t need to eliminate disease to survive and thrive as a species. We need to learn how to coexist with these pathogens.

  13. bill babishoff says:

    @tmac57,
    You might be right, I haven’t seen all the research in the world. If the pharmaceutical companies would list ALL of the ingredients, explain how they kill the pathogen, explain how they could harm you and show me some valid studies I would consider taking the shots. I personally have issue with someone injecting an unknown substance into my veins or especially my children.

  14. Nathan M. says:

    “First off implying that I am insane because I don’t believe in a particular theory is not cool. All theories must have some opposition. I don’t know of a single scientific idea or theory which is 100% proven and agreed to by all.”

    If something has been independantly verified by scores of scientists doing proper double+ blind testing then it is considered empirically proven. If you don’t think that empirical proof is good enough then you are insane. Kent Hovind said he wouldn’t believe in the Big Bang Theory unless it was reproduced in a laboratory, he’s insane. I stick by my claim that being skeptical of scientifically proven things is a form of insanity, though probably mild insanity.

    “I don’t know that vaccines are safe or not. I don’t know if they contribute or cause autism, NOBODY DOES. I am not trying to tell people not to get them. I personally wouldn’t get them.”

    The link I provided above ( http://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/Pubs/vis/default.htm ) should give you all of the evidence that you need about vaccination. As for whether or not vaccines can cause autism, we know that too. This wikipedia article describes everything you need to know about the genetics of autism (complete with links of sources).

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heritability_of_autism

    We also know that there is currently no convincing evidence for the hypothesis that vaccines can cause autism:

    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15858952

    “Why should I have to prove vaccinations are harmful? They should be proven safe FIRST and they have not. I believe you have it backwards.”

    They have been proven safe (need I link http://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/Pubs/vis/default.htm again?). If you are denying that the science done is incorrect then please show me the scientific evidence showing that vaccines are more harm than good.

    “You also should look up the definition of “skeptic”. Science is not a part of the definition. Science is not an untouchable, it gets things wrong frequently, good science corrects those errors. Skeptics can and must be skeptical of all things including the sciences.”

    Perhaps I should have worded it differently?

    “[Good] skepticism means to look at something rationally and scientifically. Being skeptical of scientifically proven things is not [good] skepticism, it’s insanity.”

    You should not be skeptical of empirically proven things.

    “There are reams of documents proving various medicines cause illness. Just look at the health warnings included with your prescriptions.”

    And there is no label or warning saying that innoculations can cause autism, yet they’re still approved by the FDA. Pharmaceutical companies aren’t shy about saying their side-effects. I hear “May cause sexual side-effects and even death” all the time in TV commercials for X drug. They always follow with “consult your doctor before taking X”. That’s why perscription drugs are perscribed, you need a doctor’s permission saying that you’re healthy enough where X side-effects won’t hurt you if they’re serious or deadly.

    “As far as polio is concerned, I personally have a friend who has polio symptoms CAUSED by the vaccination. Polio is alive and not extinct and was on the decline before the vaccine came out. Polio will come back again just as bubonic plague and influenza will. It is cyclical, we can’t stop it.”

    As a skeptic, you should know that anecdotes are not valid evidence, and unless you have sources to back-up the other claims in this paragraph (besides the constant mutation of the influenza virus) then I won’t take any of it seriously. Obviously Polio is still alive, but the only way it can spread is by affecting unvaccinated people.

    “I have read reports that viruses do evolve and become immune to vaccines, but I will not quote them as I am not an expert in that field. But as an example look at V.D. It use to be a simple shot of penicillin would do the trick, not any more!”

    Penicillin is used to cure bacteria, not viruses. Viruses cannot become “immune” to vaccine. Vaccines give your body’s immune system the recipe to defeat specific viruses. Vaccines are not effective if the person already has the disease, it is a preventative measure only.

    “We don’t need to eliminate disease to survive and thrive as a species. We need to learn how to coexist with these pathogens.”

    Are you recomending that we don’t treat illnesses? That’s it’s okay for people to die from preventable and curable diseases because it won’t hurt us “as a species”?

  15. Courtney Franklin says:

    “Why should I have to prove vaccinations are harmful? They should be proven safe FIRST and they have not. I believe you have it backwards.”

    Because they have been proven safe. It’s up to you the “skeptic” to find evidence that counters the evidence of the fact that it’s safe.

    Yes not reading or ignoring studies isn’t research.

  16. steve says:

    I’d inject her with my jab, if u know what i mean

  17. Cristobel Rey says:

    How does letting anyone survive (or not) benefit the race? Evolution happens over generations. So letting those sick kids die benefits no one in the species except the coffin makers. The way to control the issue is to control breeding rights if your concern is about humanity’s genetic well-being. No one has to die when it is medically avoidable. They just shouldn’t be allowed to reproduce if you want that great genetically clean pool of inbred supermen.

    Personally, I’m more a supporter of the hybrid vigor.

    Now affecting procreational rights is a whole different can of worms so to stay on point, I’m glad I did the research on the dangers and decided to get my daughter vaccinated: a healthy, reasonably happy 2 year old girl. If asked my opinion I would tell anyone and everyone that if the option is there, get your kid protected from the diseases out there.

    As far as VD evolving, yes, do take a look. VD has many varied forms that, like all species, change over time and generations. You know syphillis used to be lethal in a matter of days? Now a quick shot of moldy bread even a few years later and boom, ready to bang your next hooker with no side-effects.

    My point is that in order to maintain our resistance to diseases we have to have people alive to contract them. And some resistances aren’t so great. Sickle cell anemia immediately springs to mind. Nasty disease to have. Unless you’re in the tropics and exposed to malaria a lot. Personally, I’d rather have a vaccine than sickle-cell. Not an option just yet, but way more feasible than just letting us folk die out because we wanted to visit Florida.

  18. gwen says:

    Bill Babishoff, If you had an acute case of epiglottitis, would you take antibiotics? May be because you CAN’T BREATHE,but…. this treatment does nothing to alter future generations, except this person has an opportunity to produce one! Gosh, if your child develops type 1 diabetes, do you forgo treatment and let the child die??? Treatment for pneumonias, hypertension, heart, kidney and liver transplants…why do them, it does nothing to change future generations. Your argument makes no sense at all. I WAS BORN BEFORE MOST OF THESE VACCINATIONS WERE CREATED. I REMEMBER people getting extremely ill from these diseases. There were people with the residual effects of polio in my schools. AS A NURSE, I have cared for children who have DIED from whooping cough in one of the best childrens hospitals in the country. I have cared for children EXTREMELY ILL from measles pneumonia and measles encephalitis. I have cared for EXTREMELY ILL children with chicken pox encephalitis, and one of my coworker’s niece DIED from chicken pox ENCEPHALITIS. I have cared for many children devastated by HiB meningitis–that is–the ones that DID NOT DIE….

  19. Stuey says:

    bill, you are right,

    They manufactures have to demonstrate that the vacines are effective and safe. They do this in the development of the vacines, runing trails, studing outcomes etc. And yes some vacines don’t pass the trail and then it is back to square two and development cycle starts again.

    There are lot of vacines that work really well and diseases that ate effectivly extinct due to vacination. But just as the vacines need to be shown to be safe and effective, if you want to say that the vacines are unsafe and cause issues, then where is the study? when is the evidence. Unfortunatly science leaves gaps in out knoweledge, a vacine could cause me to sprout wings and fly around the room, should it be up to pharma to prove otherwise, NO. They key question is does it work? and is it safe and that can and do demonstate it. If you want to claim otherwise, then show the world your data.

  20. bill babishoff: “Having ALL of our children survive and be semi-healthy doesn’t seem to benefit the race to me.”

    The implication here is pretty obvious – to benefit the human race, semi-healthy children ought not be allowed to survive.

    If you meant something different, by all means go for it. Your attempt to wiggle out of this would be entertaining.

  21. Vagrarian says:

    Problem is, as human beings, we are all semi-healthy at best. (At least in my opinion.)

    There is hard-and-fast proof that people are now dying because of unvaccinated children. There is hard-and-fast proof that the study that started this crapstorm was faked.

    The anti-vax crowd keeps railing about the “possibilities” but to my eye, there’s more benefit to vaccines than harm. Even the autism community is worried that this is drawing needed attention and funds away from finding the REAL causes of autism, and ways to help and treat those with the condition.

  22. Mr B says:

    @ bill babishoff

    You seem to be a little bit confused about the way in which the scientific method works.

    You suggest that vaccines haven’t been proven to be 100% safe. The implication being that it is resonable for you to doubt there efficacy until they are. Furthermore you imply that this is the proper view of a sceptic.

    It isn’t. Scepticism is hard because you need to be able to evaluate all of the evidence available and make an informed opinion based on the merits of the arguments. It requires at the very least some understanding of sampling and basic statistics.

    When you form your opinion as a sceptic you need to be able to tell the difference between a controlled scientific study and hearsay on a chatroom and weight your opinion accordingly.

    We don’t know things with absolute certainty and many people would argue we can’t. What we can say is that vaccines are extremely effective in stopping the spread of very dangerous diseases and that the dangers from side effects are very small by comparison (I don’t think anybody would claim there aren’t some dangers, to the immuno-compromised for example).

    We can also be fairly sure there is no link to autism as it has been comprehensively studied (go to Google Scholar and do a search); the only study I am aware of which did claim to find a link has since been comprehensively rubbished and the author suspended by the GMC for scientific misconduct.

    What I’m saying is that just as certainty can’t be absolute nor should doubt be. It should be a question of balance based on evidence; and you need to have an understanding of the nature of that evidence before making a judgement. Where the benefits outweigh any potential costs as massively as they do in this case it’s really a no brainer.

    You should probably start by understanding the scientific method before you try to criticise it. Read some ‘The Logic of Scientific Discovery’, or ‘Conjecture and Refutations’ by Popper maybe.

    And out of interest, how precisely would you be qualified to evaluate, ‘ALL of the ingredients’, in an injection?

  23. bill babishoff says:

    @devils advocate,Gwen and Cristobel,
    you should read what I said and stop trying to read between the lines.
    I NEVER advocated the culling of the sick and infirm, Where do you get this? Children who get vaccines are getting them to (hopefully) prevent illness, not cure one.
    I will not trust ANY study by a company who sells the product, testing must be done independent of profiteers.
    The way not getting vaccinations helps us get stronger is by building up immunity through exposure which, ironically, is how most vaccines are supposed to work. There is no proof that any specific individual is going to acquire a specific disease before getting a vaccine, therefore there is no way to prove the vaccine kept the individual free from the specific illness. IT IS JUST A CRAP SHOOT!

    I AM NOT SAYING VACCINES DON’T WORK. Some may, But are they worth the risk? Why would someone risk the health of their child to reduce the miniscule odds of them catching a rare disease? I believe many people get the vaccinations because they are forced to by schools and are in fear of becoming social outcasts. Just look at the negative words I have received just for saying I don’t agree.
    Trying to eliminate disease by killing pathogens simply doesn’t work in the long run. The pathogens evolve into something worse. It seems to make more sense to have periodic disease and a relatively healthy population than be disease free for a few years then have to deal with a much more difficult pathogen later down the road.
    Gwen, you are right, these diseases are real and very dangerous and I’m sorry for your past experiences with them. That doesn’t however, prove the vaccines stopped those diseases or that the vaccines don’t make people ill in other ways.
    I feel the public deserves better.
    Tests should be done independent of manufacturers and sellers. Individuals should be allowed to choose weather or not to get the vaccines.

  24. Be careful, Bill. You could break a leg riding a bicycle backwards like that. Then you’d be semi-healthy.

  25. Vagrarian says:

    “I AM NOT SAYING VACCINES DON’T WORK. Some may, But are they worth the risk? Why would someone risk the health of their child to reduce the miniscule odds of them catching a rare disease? ”

    The reasons so many of these diseases are “rare” today is because of vaccinations. Previously, many of them were quite common, and there’s fear that they may become common again. We’ve already seen outbreaks of polio, measles, whooping cough, and mumps, and deaths from measles, meningitis, and enchephalitis, all of which are directly linked to unvaccinated people. There’s real fear that diphtheria, once common but now rare, could make a comeback in this country because of the unvaccinated.

    I know…diphtheria? You may think of that as a “rare” disease, but once it was quite common. In the 1920s diphtheria was responsible for 13,000 to 15,000 deaths annually in the U.S. alone, mostly children.

    These are not “rare” diseases…if they were indeed so rare, there wouldn’t have been vaccination programs. (Maybe it was a mistake on your part, but your referring to these diseases as “rare” gives the impression that you are not as informed or educated as you make yourself out to be, and lack perspective.) Vaccinations were started to put common diseases under control, which is why these diseases are rare today. If you want them to be common again, well, that’s your right, I guess. But realize that not vaccinating children means you are potentially putting others at risk. And if one’s unvaccinated child turns out to be the “patient zero” for a deadly outbreak of some vaccine-preventable disease….is THAT worth the risk? If you think it is, fine, but please, keep your child at home.

    Personally, I say vaccines are worth the risk, because the risks are either extremely rare, or chimerae generated by fear and paranoia.

  26. bill babishoff says:

    @ devils advocate,
    It is very difficult to make a statement of my opinion when others add words or meaning to what I am trying to say. I was not backpeddling, merely trying to clarify my position.
    It is true; people hear what they want to hear and see what they want to see.
    I stand firm on my position.
    I do not believe vaccines have been proven safe or that they prevent disease. It is also possible they cause illness.
    Independent research is needed in this field.
    It is also difficult to respect the opinion of someone who doesn’t even have the courage to use their real name.

  27. HCN says:

    Bill Babishoff asked “Some may, But are they worth the risk? Why would someone risk the health of their child to reduce the miniscule odds of them catching a rare disease?”

    Okay, why don’t you give us the risk benefits analysis.

    How about Hib? A child recently died of it in Minnesota, and three out of seven who were reported with Hib in Pennsylvania also died. Hib used to be fairly common in the late 1980s, but declined when the vaccine was introduced for infants in the early 1990s. Why don’t you tell us why infants and toddlers should not get the Hib vaccine. When you provide documentation make sure it is in a paper I can access at my local medical school library.

    How about pertussis? It kills over a dozen American babies each year, and the incidence of it is rising with the scare stories about vaccines. Give us the actual factual evidence that shows the DTaP has a higher risk than diphtheria, tetanus (there is no herd immunity to this!) and pertussis (which I repeat has a death rate that is increasing).

    Do the same for the MMR, a vaccine that has never had thimerosal and has been been used in the USA since 1971. Measles used to be very common, and now it is not… except in those communities that do not vaccinate (do you see a trend there?). Show us your actual factual evidence that the MMR is riskier than measles, mumps and rubella. It has to be papers of the caliber of the list on the left of this paper:
    http://www.immunize.org/catg.d/p4026.pdf

    Bill, digging deeper said: “I do not believe vaccines have been proven safe or that they prevent disease. It is also possible they cause illness.”

    Science in not belief based, it is based on evidence. Show us what actual factual evidence supports your above statement. It has to be real science, and not a paper written in “Medical Hypothesis” (if you want to know why, look up the word “hypothesis” in a dictionary).

    Continuing, Bill said “It is also difficult to respect the opinion of someone who doesn’t even have the courage to use their real name.”

    Well, how do we know that is your real name? Why should it matter? I don’t want “opinion”, I want facts and evidence. What one writes is more important than their identity.

  28. Vagrarian says:

    Yup….Vaccinating is a private choice with public consequences. The choice whether to vaccinate or not vaccinate affects not only your child, but the people your child comes into contact with.

    And it has been proven, beyond any reasonable doubt, that the decision to NOT vaccinate a child, has had deadly consequences for innocent bystanders whom that child had infected which an easily communicated, highly contagious disease.

    It’s not just about one person’s child, but about everybody.

  29. “It’s not just about one person’s child, but about everybody.”

    No, I’m pretty sure it’s about what Bill knows and believes. Those are the limits for all.

  30. gwen says:

    Bill, I’ve cared for these children over a span of 10 years in ONE HOSPITAL. I shudder when I extrapolate my experiences to the rest of the country. NOTHING is 100%. Nothing has a 100% rating…it can’t, this is unrealistic. However, you have a higher incidence of morbidity with the disease, than with the vaccinations. Scarlet fever used to be a disease that caused heart disease and failure, kidney disease and failure, arthritis, and other chronic diseases if it did not kill you outright. Antibiotics have made this a rarity. You have NO IDEA of how many diseases that we are routinely treating, that were killers only a couple of generations ago. My mother often told me of almost dying of a tonsillitis!!! Who dies of tonsillitis nowdays?? Vaccines do not cause illness. The only vaccine that has caused illness was an old formulation of weakened polio, that is no longer used. The people who were getting ill were the parents who did not wash their hands after changing their infant’s diaper and self contaminated. You can get e-coli infections the same way (hint: wash your hands). Show so proof of of the harm done by vaccinations that in any way out weighs the good. I wish you could see what children commonly died from when I or my parents were children, before the vaccines existed. Andrew Weil should be jailed for manslaughter.

  31. Vagrarian says:

    I’ve never seen this addressed…what are the legal ramifications of not vaccinating? Say Mr. and Mrs. Jones doesn’t vaccinate young Billy. The Joneses go on vacation and Billy ends up carrying home a severe measles virus that he spreads to others, even some of the vaccinated (because no vaccine is 100%). And people end up dying from it.

    Could the Joneses be charged criminally? Could the families of the others who died after being infected by Billy sue the Joneses for wrongful death? Are there any precendents?

    This all just occurred to me…

  32. bill babishoff says:

    To all who replied to my post,
    this is the last comment I am going to make on this subject. I have discussed this subject with many people over the years and the same thing always seem to happen. People get overemotional, they choose sides and they argue and insult one another.
    If you read my posts you will see that I was defending Ms. McCarthys right to express her opinion.
    I also tried to state some personal opinions.
    The main point I was trying to bring up was forced medical procedures, which is a legal and ethical issue and also connected with the vaccine issue.
    I also explained my fears and beliefs. I asked for proof that they are unfounded.
    I got attacked, one of you made insinuations that I am insane! Some of you even tried to put words in my mouth implying that I was for the culling of the sick or euthanasia! Pure eugenics, pure nonsense. I never made any such comment!
    Is this how you convince people to come to your side? Attack them?
    No one answered my questions, no one showed concern for me or my family. You just attacked me.
    Only the mysterious HCN, who doesn’t believe identity is important, offered any actual evidence that I can use to research. Thank you HCN for the link!
    If you want to convince people to get vaccines I reccommend you take a different approach.
    First, be NICE! Once someone is on the defensive side it’s very difficult to bring them around.
    Second, try to understand their concerns and help them find the information they need to make a proper decision.
    Third, answer their questions. They may seem trivial to you but they wouldn’t have asked if it weren’t important to them.
    I feel I brought up some valid objections that many people who are afraid of vaccinations would cite.
    I tried to clarify my position and was still attacked!
    What I learned from this exercise is that the real issue here is one of communication, not misinformation.
    It’s easy to sit in the back of the room and heckle anonymously, but that only gets you a laugh. No real results.
    No one even bothered to ask if I(er, my wife) was about to have a child and if I was going to get the vaccines!
    Frankly, I am disappointed in the juvenile responses some of you gave.
    Enough said, no one convinced me or I’m sure anyone reading who is on Jenny McCarthys side of this story that vaccines are safe.

    FYI. You should be happy to know I am not going to be having children now or in the future.

  33. HCN says:

    Bill said “If you read my posts you will see that I was defending Ms. McCarthys right to express her opinion.”

    That is fine, but do you also defend our right to call her on her falsehoods?

    Continuing: “The main point I was trying to bring up was forced medical procedures, which is a legal and ethical issue and also connected with the vaccine issue.”

    No one is forced to get vaccines. They are not mandatory in the USA, though they are often required to attend public schools.

    By the way, I am not mysterious. I have been around for a long, long time… and used to post often on Usenet:
    http://groups.google.com/groups/profile?hl=en&enc_user=pJnAhg4AAACW81YPJASOoFvzdd7a2XS_ (but it is now too silly a place, plus my ISP no longer subscribes to the newsgroup service).

    I even have a whale.to page because I annoyed that infamous pig farmer John Scudamore too much: http://www.whale.to/a/hcn_.html (by the way, look up Scopie’s Law).

    Bill continued: “FYI. You should be happy to know I am not going to be having children now or in the future.”

    Yippee! But you should also try to make sure you get your tetanus boosters every ten years. Really, this is not something you want to joke about. Lots of folks like McCarthy throw out the word “toxin” without really knowing that one of the most deadly toxins comes from bacteria that cause tetanus, about one out of five who get tetanus die a very painful death. Since I am an avid gardener, this is something I make sure is up to date (tetanus lives in soil, and has been known to be contracted through an insect bite).

  34. gwen says:

    Sorry if you confuse FACTS with ‘getting emotional’, I’ve never seen that definition for ‘facts’ in any dictionary I’ve checked.
    Herd immunity is even more important in those among us who are not able to take immunizations because they are immunocompromized, family members already fighting cancers and/or other diseases requiring steroid treatments are a disastrous setup for a ‘simple childhood disease’.Vaccinations may not work on them and if they get sick, they WILL end up in an ICU. It is important for the rest of US to get immunized to protect them, as well as ourselves. It does not matter if you and your wife will or will not have children, that you are spreading these fallacies among your friends/family/coworkers/etc/etc is a large part of the continuing problem. The ‘juvenile’ label is an ad hominum attack that has nothing to do with the issue at hand.

  35. Cristobel Rey says:

    Yeah bill b, maybe I was a bit more sarcastic than I ought to be. It happens. Apologies. However, I just want to illustrate that what caused the furor was largely this little phrase right here, “I don’t like innoculations as they only delay disease reality. In the long run they make us weaker. Having ALL of our children survive and be semi-healthy doesn’t seem to benefit the race to me.” It’s not a logical leap to go from that statement to eugenics of some sort. More of a hop. Closer to a skip, if anything. Half-stuttering step at worst. When you mention survival in such a fashion (the antecedent “ALL our children”) implies something other than what I now suspect you were driving at. Your emphasis was more on the semi-healthy bit.

    In that light, I think the science and research speaks for itself. Most of the inoculated kids are better off than those without being inoculated at all. The quantitative analysis is rather explicit. I wish I still had my research from 18 months ago to share with you. Alas, my computer was not much longer for this world and so went most of my life from before child. Whats more frightening is that the opposing science is now shown (earlier this year) to be flawed.

    What I think is even more scary, what if the opponents are, in fact, correct, but because they chose to cut corners and fraudulently misrepresent themselves, they are akin to the boy who cried wolf.

    Generally such great reversals aren’t common, but not unknown. To be sure, my own determination for my family is that the benefits do indeed far outweigh the actual risk.

    By allowing the diseases to survive and evolve by not vaccinating or selective vaccinating reduces the survivability of all humans.

  36. While I was not sarcastic enough. It is the Bills of the world, who feel others should behave in accordance with their level of ignorance and in accordance with their beliefs rather than in accordance with the objective evidence that, on this topic, get children killed.

    What can you say about a guy willing to let ‘imperfect’ children die because he doesn’t accept the science of immunization and innoculation?

  37. HCN says:

    Aargh… my comment is still stuck in the moderation ether.

    Anyway, I am not mysterious, I have been around for quite a while dealing with anti-vax clowns. I even have my own “tribute” page because I annoyed John Scudamore, the pig farmer who runs the website that inspired “Scopie’s Law”: http://www.whale.to/a/hcn_.html

    Devil’s Advocate said “What can you say about a guy willing to let ‘imperfect’ children die because he doesn’t accept the science of immunization and innoculation?”

    And then Bill says he wants us to be nice?

    I see no reason to be nice to people who think it is okay that my son with a very severe genetic heart condition could die from a number of vaccine preventable diseases, and has in fact landed in the hospital from what is now a vaccine preventable disease.

    Here is me being nice: Bill, while it is wonderful that you will not pass your genetic legacy on to another generation, but you should do yourself a favor and keep up with your tetanus boosters. That is a very nasty disease that there is no herd immunity for, and one out of five who get it die.

    I would also suggest you do some actual reading on the subject, I have a list of good books on the history of medicine, diseases and vaccine development:

    Plagues and Peoples by William McNeil (this is where I learned over 90% of the Native population in the Americas were wiped out by European diseases like measles and smallpox)
    Flu by Gina Kolata (read this first)
    The Great Influenza by John Barry (goes into more detail, read second)
    Polio: An American Story by David M. Oshinsky’s
    Vaccine by Arthur Allen
    Vaccinated by Paul Offit

    Also, you should look for the CDC Pink Book (I am trying to stick to one URL). It is an online book with a chapter on each vaccine preventable disease, along with chapters on the principles of vaccination and safety.

  38. I know I’m coming late to the party, but if in the event that Bill B. comes back I’d just like to point out to him that one of his requests was impossible. He asked “If there is ONE person who can step forward and PROVE a particular vaccination or innoculation saved their child from disease I’d like to hear about it.”

    This is impossible because vaccines are primarily a preventative measure. Take for example a neighborhood that gets 50-60 break-ins a month. An overnight beat cop is then assigned to roam the area for 6 months and break-ins decline to 20-30 each month.

    Would it be fair or even sensible to reassign this cop because no one individual can step up and say, “Hey! My house wasn’t broken into because this beat cop was assigned.”?

    In this analogy, your contention would be that because people still get robbed, the beat cop is ineffective despite statistics showing that break-ins declined by 50%.

    This is why everybody here is treating you as though you’re irrational.

  39. Well, when someone asks for what is essentially an impossible level or type of evidence, you just ask them what specifically they would accept as evidence. Then you watch them get back on the bike they rode in on and back-pedal away.

    Will Bill post again? Maybe, maybe not. But I’ll guarantee you he is reading.

    Isn’t there some internet forum Rule that states whenever someone leaves in a huff vowing never to return, they always return?

  40. I’m wasn’t convinced he understood his question was impossible, which is why I tried to rephrase it in a context that most people would be able to understand.

    Or at least I hope I did…

  41. gwen says:

    Maybe ‘he’ was actually Jenny McCarthy or Andrew Weil trolling for converts!!??

  42. He posted in other threads and there revealed considerable ignorance in other topics. For instance, he posted that evolution “is all speculation anyway” a la the “it’s only a theory” nonsense.

    Ignorance of evolution is so prevalent it hardly surprises when I see it, but this guy would clearly allow his own children to become vectors for potentially fatal communicable disease, for no other reason than he chooses to remain ignorant of very basic science, especially where it conflicts with opinions he formed without regarding readily available information. That is absolutely frightening.

    Hard to say with so little a sample, but he seems to be APAS (a priori anti-science). Contempt prior to investigation is among the surest pathways to error.

    I’m sure his blood pressure rises reading these last few entries, having posted himself into the corner of “I won’t post again.”

  43. tmac57 says:

    Not to pile on , but I was just thinking that ,yeah, there are probably confused and misinformed parents out there that may have concerns about vaccinations that to them seem valid, and I hope that these well intentioned folks can muddle through the maze, and end up with the realization that the benefits outweigh the risks.But that insidious verbiage that bill babishoff used :”I don’t like innoculations as they only delay disease reality. In the long run they make us weaker. Having ALL of our children survive and be semi-healthy doesn’t seem to benefit the race to me.” Wow! Despicable doesn’t begin to describe it. I think that most of the parents that I characterized above would strongly disassociate themselves from such sentiments. Maybe bill babishoff will as well.

  44. HCN says:

    The CDC Pink Book Main Page:
    http://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/pubs/pinkbook/default.htm

    It does not require a subscription, and the appendices and slide sets have some very interesting bits of information.

  45. Dan DeLappe says:

    I saw this book at the local Borders. Reading the insert on the book cover pissed me off enough to leave the store. I work with Autistic adults. Every time a crackpot like this shows up I have to help the parents understand this is all and excuse my language BULLSHIT. This idiocy is not funny. Think about it though-If you are taking any advice from this no talent tiresome walking pare of fake knockers you have a problem. Why does the doctor who helped her with this book even have a medical license. These doctors should be forced to see the damage they do to parents.

  46. “Think about it though-If you are taking any advice from this no talent tiresome walking pare of fake knockers……”

    Not to go all PC, but I think the proper term is alternative knockers.

  47. Dan DeLappe says:

    LOL Devil’s advocate you are right. My head in now hung in shame.

  48. LKL says:

    @ HCN:
    was the listserv you left by any chance an ‘autism speaks’ site? Sounds like their sort of behavior.

  49. HCN says:

    No.

    A listserv is not a “site”, it is email based (I joined in the mid to late 1990s). And it wasn’t even on autism, it was about a fairly rare neurological based speech disorder, but was taken over by some of the autism folks, including one woman who worked for Jeffrey Bradstreet (they try to sell their supplements to parents in various disability networks, you’ll find them pushing their crap on cerebral palsy places, epilepsy, Down Syndrome and others).

  50. LKL says:

    Ok, I should have asked, “was it hosted from/accessed through an ‘autism speaks’ site?” to be more accurate. I’ve betrayed my background: I don’t care a great deal about computers, computer terminology, or the internet (except to the extent that they are all helpful to me), but call a frog a toad and I’ll be all over you.

    Have you found that anti-vaxers are also claiming that cerebral palsy, epilepsy, and Down syndrome are caused by vaccines?! Or just that they’re hijacking the site {excuse me again, the listservs/chatboards/whatever} for spamming about their panacea?

  51. HCN says:

    I have actually had someone tell me that cerebral palsy is caused by vaccines. Jenny McCarthy actually believes the MMR caused her son’s seizures (my son’s seizures were when he was a newborn before he even had a PKU blood test!).

    And yes, the supplement hawkers do go to other disability groups. If you want to explore this, familiarize yourself with groups.google. Before Google I used deja-news, and found through searching something other discussions, which is where I encountered the bit.listserv.down.syn (if you look it up you have to go back a few years, it like most of Usenet has been hit heavily with spam). I found that there was people pushing the same oil supplements, and even the intensive physical therapy regime that cropped up on the listserv I was on (I vaguely remember a particularly funny posting on the down-syn listserv about tuna fish supplement sushi burgers that I pointed the listserv I was on to).

    Oh, about that “intensive physical therapy”, that is “patterning” which was championed by Glenn Doman decades ago. This is also how I first encountered Dr. Novella. In 1996 he wrote an article detailing the limitations of the Doman-Delacato method titled: “Psychomotor Patterning: A Critical Look”. I found it when it was being brought up in the listserv I was on during the late 1990s (I remember because we were still on dial-up… and the way I know that is because the computer was temporarily upstairs while we repainted the den/office, and the room it is in still only has a phone line, we switched to a cable modem early in 2000).

    Which leads into a good short book that beautifully illustrates what parents of disabled children go through when trying to do their best: “No Time for Jello” by Berneen Bratt. It is a great read, and what is important to note are all the various types of kids who were supposed to improve with this therapy, and more importantly how if the therapy did not work it was all the parents’ fault!

    As I said, I have been dealing with this for a long time, starting with our Compuserve dial-up service we got at around 1995. I found their disability forums early on, and then ventured out on to Usenet by using the AltaVista search engine on an early version of Netscape. I can’t find my first Usenet posting because I cannot remember my weird totally numeric Compuserve username! I can tell you that this is how I first “met” Orac of Respectful Insolence.