Jim Carrey Jenny McCarthy Definitely not anti-vaccine

6 Feb

In the recent statement released by Jim Carrey and Jenny McCarthy regarding Andrew Wakefield, the twosome made a number of references that clear up once and for all how they feel about vaccines. Because as we all know they’re not anti-vaccine.

Dr. Andrew Wakefield is being discredited to prevent an historic study from being published that for the first time looks at vaccinated versus unvaccinated primates and compares health outcomes, with potentially devastating consequences for vaccine makers…

Dr. Wakefield and parents of children with autism around the world are being subjected to a remarkable media campaign engineered by vaccine manufacturers…

The retraction from The Lancet was a response to a ruling from England’s General Medical Council, a kangaroo court where public health officials in the pocket of vaccine makers…

The fallout from the study for vaccine makers and public health officials could be severe. Having denied the
possibility of the vaccine-autism connection for so long while profiting immensely from a recent boom in vaccine sales around the world, it’s no surprise that they would seek to repress this important work.

No, definitely not anti-vaccine.

11 Responses to “Jim Carrey Jenny McCarthy Definitely not anti-vaccine”

  1. lilandtedsmum February 6, 2010 at 12:13 #

    Oh yes, the UK’s GMC – that well known “Kangaroo Court”!!??? It’s pitiful and desperate. If it wasn’t so damaging it would be amusing.

    I for one am not amused and wish they would shut up and go away.

  2. storkdok February 6, 2010 at 14:13 #

    I’m wondering about how they got ethical approval for the study on primates. They will never get it published in a reputable journal.

    • james m June 11, 2014 at 01:37 #

      Has ethical approval every really bothered Andrew Wakefield?

      • james m June 11, 2014 at 01:38 #


  3. Joeymom February 6, 2010 at 15:19 #

    I was thinking the same thing about the ethical approval. Anybody have information about the approval process and the status of this particular study in that process? If these folks are trying to get this kind of stuff investigated, they are going to have to put their money into someone other than Wakefield, if they want they study to have any credibility at all.

  4. Science Mom February 6, 2010 at 16:27 #

    Here is their statement of IUCAC approval from the Hep B study:

    Animal assurances
    All procedures used in this research followed the guidelines of the Animal Welfare Act and the Guide for Care and Use of Laboratory Animals of the National Research Council. Research protocols were approved by the University of Pittsburgh/MWRI&F Institutional Animal Care and Use Committees (IACUCs).

    The authors were in clear violation of their Conflicts of interest statements, more information on that can be viewed here:
    http://justthevax.blogspot.com/2009/10/20-monkeys.html and here: http://photoninthedarkness.com/?p=178 with links to other blogposts. Additionally, Dr. Hewitson, the lead author on that study is listed as researcher for Thoughtful House: http://www.thoughtfulhouse.org/staff/laura-hewitson.php something she failed to mention on her COI statement.

    They clearly intend to torture their data to produce multiple publications as evidenced from their IMFAR abstracts. So one can only hope that these latest Wakefield developments will cause the referees and editorial staff to scrutinise any subsequent submissions by them.

  5. Joseph February 6, 2010 at 22:47 #

    The monkey study is nonsense a priori for one simple reason. If you’re trying to investigate an uncommon effect of vaccines (and keep in mind that not even hardcore anti-vaxers will claim that all cases of autism are due to vaccines) you’re never going to detect that effect by vaccinating only 13 monkeys. It would be impossible statistically. It comes to reason that whatever Wakefield found is either mistaken or fraudulent.

  6. David N. Brown February 7, 2010 at 02:18 #

    “They will never get it published in a reputable journal.”
    Unfortunately, they did, more or less. See “Duty to Censor Wakefield”. In my view, Neurotoxicology should be boycotted out of existence if the paper is not retractedand at least one member of the editorial staff isn’t fired for accepting it.

  7. Sullivan February 7, 2010 at 07:03 #

    If the GMC is a kangaroo court, why did Wakefield insist on having his case heard there?

  8. David N. Brown February 7, 2010 at 07:11 #

    And why did it take more than two years to convict him??
    AND why has Wakefield directed a complaint about witnesses at the trial to the same organization???

  9. Elliott April 7, 2014 at 21:54 #

    Every weekend i used to go to see this web page, because i want enjoyment, since this this web site conations
    actually pleasant funny stuff too.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

%d bloggers like this: