Jenny McCarthy is an actress, celebrity, author and activist. Her 7-year-old son, Evan, was diagnosed with autism when he was 2 1/2, following a series of vaccinations. The author of three books on autism, McCarthy helped organize a movement of parents concerned about a vaccine-autism link. This is the edited transcript of an interview conducted on Jan. 8, 2010. It was originally published on April 27, 2010.
share"Evan, was diagnosed with autism when he was 2 1/2, following a series of vaccinations."
Uhm...
Pretty sure he also ate bread before he was diagnosed with Autism. Maybe bread causes autism?
Just as likely as vaccines.......
It doesn't help people on the right who aren't vaccinated against Covid to lose that ugly stigma when retards like her say shit like that.
There you go, making sense again. How dare you!!!
Protip: it's Really difficult to win an argument w/a smart person. . .but it's IMPOSSIBLE to win an argument w/an idiot. They'll just drag you down to their level, & beat you w/experience. Shrug.
[deleted]
In retrospect she was right to call into question the COVID vaccines
shareWhy?
shareCOVID vaccines expedited trials, everything was very rushed, there is nothing wrong in questioning an experimental technology (mRNA vacchines).
shareThe animals in the trial run were all dying, so they rushed it to the public.
The mRNA injection is no longer considered a vaccine, but a "gene therapy" or "bio weapon."
I don't think you understand what mRNA or mRNA vaccines are. mRNA as I understand is a blueprint of making protein, mRNA vaccine is the instructions for body to make antibodies for COVID virus (it is not going to change your DNA), unlike more traditional inactivated virus vaccines.
They are stronger and more direct, but less research on their effects. If you bypass or directly manipulate body's immunity what is going to happen to your immune system?
The drug companies could have made traditional vaccines but they did not. I think they were using the opportunity to push the untested technology.
I think I was 48 at the time of taking the first vaccine shot, and I took booster shot about every 9 months instead of government recommended every 3 ~ 6 months, still I developed eczema and hip joint pain the past few years, both are autoimmune diseases, could be COVID vaccine related.
But even they conduct research now to say that is not a vaccine issue, but would they test the early batches?
I was near the high risk group, taking vaccine is better than death, but still I question it's safety.
Taking that vaccine is death. A slow death for some and injuries to others.
An injection that does not prevent the spread or infection is by definition "not a vaccine."
That is another thing about the COVID vaccines, that it won't stop infection or transmission (I checked), so it is inescapable, you will get infected, that is why you have to get vaccinated.
At least in the beginning when the early virus variants were a lot more deadly. Now I think it is about as strong as flu.
If it doesn't stop infection or transmission, than there's no point in taking something that causes any number of 1200+ adverse effects including death. It's insane.
Covid was nothing more than a variant of the flu, relabeled.
What you're saying is very sensible: this is a technology that can be useful but should not be worshipped.
I'm glad there's somebody out there who isn't just waving the flag of vaccines nor trying to burn it all down.
Also nice that you know more about what it actually does and how it works.
So, with all of this research, knowledge, and reasoned conclusions, what are you doing on a message board?
I retired about 10 years ago, at the age of 41, due mostly to fundamental laziness.
So I have lots and lots of free time.
Where do you get your information from?
It was not rushed compared to other vaccines. Many people in the scientific community was surprised on how long it took given how much resources and how many people participated.
A lot of right wing radio hosts ended up dying in the U.S because they believe what your are believing. I would say that they were very wrong to question something that is not experimental by anything related to risk.
There is healthy skepticism and then there is the the-whole-scientific-world-is-conspiring-against us skepticism.
Which in this case was of course also influenced by the myth that MANY people believe in: that natural is always better than non-natural. It is not, and people die everyday because of that belief.
The temporary authorisations of the Pfizer/BioNTech, Oxford/AstraZeneca and Moderna vaccines was done through an expedited rolling review. A ‘rolling review’ can be used to complete the assessment of a promising medicine or vaccine during a public health emergency in the shortest time possible.
And? You know what a rolling review is?
A rolling review is a tool used to speed up the assessment of data, but not by lowering the volume of data.
finding official texts that uses words that are synonymous with quick,fast does not mean anything important was skipped.
unless you mean rushed to do exactly what they should do, It was not rushed.
What about the information about Expedited COVID-19 vaccine trials I posted below? Nothing to say?
You know you are quite pathetic, you and your argument both.
The evidence is crystal clear that everything was rushed, yet here you are, speaking as shamelessly as a politician.
But I guess most pharmaceutical lobbies are shameless and disgusting.
You expect serious people to react on anything that is thrown at them no matter how far away from being relevant it is?
I have seen at least 1000 different claims/theories from covid-vaccine sceptics on this forum. Many of them was based on official stuff.
I would use 5% of my free time if I was to correct every thing covid related that looks fishy to some people on this forum.
The reason I replied to your rolling review-confusion is because it shows exactly how little it takes to mislead people who seek to be misled. I thought maybe you could see it for yourself, so that next time you read words like shorter time from a official source you do not automatically think important things skipped.
Expedited COVID-19 vaccine trials: a rat-race with challenges and ethical issues: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7490130/
shareShe has a right to use her celebrity as a platform to spread unfounded claims, sure. However, there is currently no link between Autism and COVID vaccinations.
Furthermore, she hasn't produced evidence that her son became autistic because of childhood vaccinations that have NOTHING to do with COVID.
[deleted]
McCarthy helped organize a movement of parents concerned about a vaccine-autism link.
Though the studies were only conducted in 2012, 2 years after her book on it: https://www.cdc.gov/vaccinesafety/concerns/autism.html
She could not have known at the time. If the researches were done because of her, then maybe it was not a waste of time.
She could not have known at the time.
We could express our opinions and suspicion, couldn't we? In the absence of actual research. That is how hypotheses and theories were formed, created genuine science.
It helped creating researches on the subject, which means those were not conducted before.
Is free speech not your thing? Or only when speaking against big pharma?
There were of course uninformed voices, which made evident in this thread, but there were genuine concerns.
It is not science if we could not question it.
This absolute 'for or against', I think we see ignorance on the both sides.
The difference is that she used her celebrity and not a whiff of any scientific training to scare the bejeezus out of millions of women who then didn't vaccinate their kids.
If she had scientific training and was simply wrong, I would not hold it against her, but she made an idiotic connection and was so sure about it she went public with it. People claim the right of "free speech" to defend against all kinds of damaging or hateful things.
Is free speech not your thing? Or only when speaking against big pharma?
You can't make claims like it is a fact without evidence, that is the basic scientific approach.
I doubt she directly claimed that, her questioning it however was legitimate enough for genuine researches to be conducted.
Your claim of her so far you did not show any evidence.
If you do not question what you are told, then you are not any better than any flat earther.
Other than bias and stubbornness, so you haven't shown any ability of critical thinking.
Anyway if that is all you can do, then this is the end of this conversation for me.
What a silly reply. There is ZERO evidence to support McCarthy's idiotic claims and there *never* was.
This is what she said: "They’re making a product that’s sh*t. If you give us a safe vaccine, we’ll use it. It shouldn’t be polio versus autism."
and
"We are demanding safe vaccines. We want to reduce the schedule and reduce the toxins. If you ask a parent of an autistic child if they want the measles or the autism, we will stand in line for the f*cking measles."
The facts are these:
McCarthy has zero knowledge of biology
McCarthy made a wholly unscientific "flat earth" type claim with no evidence whatsoever.
No, I don't see she made any direct claim, not from that language.
The language was not great, but that does not mean she believed the vaccine directly caused autism in her child, otherwise she would have sued the company. She was making general statements, like angry parents do.
If it were a direct claim then pharmas could have sued her.
I think she could have been coached by lawyers, probably from her publisher.
In absence of a law suit, it means she did not claim it or prove it, it was only a suspicion.
Then again you can't stop people ignorant enough to believe what she was saying was a fact, instead of an accusation, then again people like that are always going to be ignorant and lied to.
That is why politicians and media keep lying and misleading people on daily basis.
No, I don't see she made any direct claim, not from that language.
"They’re making a product that’s sh*t. If you give us a safe vaccine, we’ll use it. It shouldn’t be polio versus autism."
"We are demanding safe vaccines. We want to reduce the schedule and reduce the toxins. If you ask a parent of an autistic child if they want the measles or the autism, we will stand in line for the f*cking measles."
Yet, she was not sued.
Like I said before you don't look so different from flat earthers.
Yeah, she was not sued.
Do you really think pharmaceutical companies would let go if she made an unsubstantiated statement, not suing for reputational damage? Even just to shut her up.
Every anti-vaxxer costs them money.
You sounded more and more ignorant.
We all now know that the Covid vaccine is a death sentence! The jab kills.
shareNo study with any links to big pharma can be trusted. Trillions in profits are at stake.
Guess who collects and submits 100% of the data when seeking FDA approval on a new “treatment”?
If you answered: “the pharmaceutical company seeking the approval”, you would be correct.
Now let’s try hard lemmings, what might be the problem with the way this system is set up. Sit down and breath slowly, surely you can come up with a correct answer.
Now let’s try hard lemmings, what might be the problem with the way this system is set up.
It is not about sytem being "perfect". It is about there is nothing there.
FDA does not conduct their own tests on drugs, they let pharmas submit their own test data, and a lot of time those data were picked and parsed to manipulate the results, and because of the "revolving door" politics, FDA simply turned a blind eye.
Perfect? How about they just do something? Like conducting independent testing? Or force pharmaceutical companies to have their drugs tested at a third party organisation?
And you wonder why people became anti-vaxxers.
When was the last time the FDA didn't approve a drug?
Yeah, I retracted that statement because they do reject drugs based on the test data submitted by pharmaceutical companies, though I have never seen independent testing happening.
shareLike everyday
My brother was banking on a slew of new cancer drugs that were undergoing FDA approval. If any of them get approved, they'll be too late for him.
Is that what you are trying to say?
You just sound more and more like a pharmaceutical lobby.
That would make a lot of sense base on what you were saying.
Now let’s try hard lemmings, what might be the problem with the way this system is set up. Sit down and breath slowly, surely you can come up with a correct answer.
We should apply this same system to the justice department.
Judge: “do ya do it?”
Defendant: “your honor, I cannot tell a lie, no I did not”
Judge: “not guilty! Next!”
a liberal anti-vaxxer? I am sure she will be cancelled soon.
shareI wonder if she took the Covid shot and multiple boosters?
share