Jenny McCarthy backs away from vaccines

3 Feb

As I blogged recently, Paul Offit was a guest on a US show called The Colbert report. Whilst emailing him about his appearance he mentioned the following:

Of interest, one of the show’s staff said that xe had been called by Jenny McCarthy (which I assumed meant Jenny McCarthy’s handlers), who told xyr not to mention Jenny’s name because *Jenny no longer speaks out against vaccines* . [Jenny’s handler was told] that Colbert wouldn’t mention her name but I was welcome to. The opening came when Colbert said he hadn’t heard about the science. But I didn’t mention McCarthy.

My, my. I wonder if anyone has told the founder members of Generation Rescue this little factoid? And what use to them is a Jenny McCarthy that won;t spout off about vaccines at the drop of an opinion?

Advertisements

56 Responses to “Jenny McCarthy backs away from vaccines”

  1. navi February 3, 2011 at 14:49 #

    she’s made enough money off her son and books about him, think she’s probably now got to focus on her image…. and… ya. lol.

    • Sullivan February 3, 2011 at 16:05 #

      “I know children regress after vaccination because it happened to my own son”

      Jenny McCarthy. January 10, 2011. Huffington post.

      This is backing away from talking about vaccines?

  2. René Najera February 3, 2011 at 15:57 #

    I won’t be comfortable about this until she actually, officially announces this. I’ll take this with a grain of salt, and a chuckle, for now.

  3. MikeMa February 3, 2011 at 16:42 #

    Here’s hoping for one less voice for stupid. I will also wait for her public, unequivocal statement though.

  4. turnipseed February 3, 2011 at 19:22 #

    Just because she’s “not speaking our on vaccines” anymore, doesn’t mean she sees the errors of her ways or has seen reason. But it is a relief not to have to see or hear about her on this issue. I wonder if she’ll continue to write her silly books? The split with Carrey seems to have predicated this–they both stopped “speaking out” after that.

  5. brian February 3, 2011 at 19:36 #

    Oh, man! If McCarthy will no longer be the spokesmodel for “Jenny McCarthy’s Autism Organiszation – Generation Rescue,” does that suggest that it is J.B. Handley who will pose nude to raise money for autism awareness once he gets his organization back?

    http://www.disabilityscoop.com/2010/10/22/mccarthy-playboy/10835/

  6. Stuart Duncan February 3, 2011 at 19:45 #

    I think she’s wanting to focus on her new toy line of “eco-friendly” baby bedding.

    Her latest attempt at being a professional (something other than actress/bunny) and saving children everywhere.

  7. Visitor February 3, 2011 at 20:04 #

    She might have said: “Jenny is not speaking out on vaccines at present”. Meaning that she doesn’t have a book ready, and has been advised to manage her publicity.

    Still, we can hope she has seen the light.

  8. sharon February 3, 2011 at 22:58 #

    I suspect this was an attempt by her ‘handlers/managers’ to avoid being publicly pilloried to such a large audience. Not a true reflection of her personal view. And in this case it worked. She is lucky Paul is a gentleman.

    • Sullivan February 3, 2011 at 23:38 #

      Sharon,

      I’ve noticed a couple of trends in Jenny McCarthy news in the past year. I had a news alert for her because of her autism/vaccine stances.

      1) She is talking a lot less about vaccines. News stories about her have focused on standard tabloid celebrity gossip. “She broke up with Jim Carrey”. “Will she get back with Jim Carrey”. “She’s seen making out in a club with some mystery guy”. “She’s moved in with the mystery guy in Las Vegas”.

      2) When there are stories about her and vaccines, the comments are very negative towards her. And these are not comments from any of the regulars to the blogs, either. Regular people are just plain tired of her stance.

      She rode the story back to some level of prominence. She isn’t riding it back down to obscurity.

  9. sharon February 3, 2011 at 23:57 #

    @ Sullivan, I imagine it’s hard for her and her hangers on to jump off the gravy train. Your second point goes some way to confirming my point. Her ‘people’ are moving into damage control, trying to minimise any further hurt to the McCarthy brand. Perhaps they feel if they take a backseat for a while people will forget all the stupid?

    • Sullivan February 4, 2011 at 00:23 #

      Sharon,

      Jenny McCarthy was/is under consideration for her own show under Oprah’s company. The OWN network debuted and Jenny McCarthy didn’t have a show.

      She recently went on “The View” to plug her new book. This was very interesting because Ms. McCarthy’s last visit to “The View” didn’t go so well. I was somewhat surprised to hear that she would be on again.

      She got challenged by Barbara Walters. Later, Jenny McCarthy then told a TACA picnic that Ms. Walters could put her microphone somewhere. In one of her books, Jenny McCarthy tells of a backstage confrontation with Barbara Walters. Thing is, she told two different stories–one to the press and one in the book. The one in the book put Jenny McCarthy in better light and the press version quickly disappeared from the net. After Barbara Walters’ autobiography came out and it was disclosed that Ms. Walters had a disabled sister, Jenny McCarthy wrote the whole thing off as Barabara Walters being jealous of her because she (JM) was able to recover her kid and Barbara Walters had to live out her life with a disabled sister.

      After all that, I was amazed that “The View” would have Jenny McCarthy on again.

      Guess which host of The View was absent that day? Yep, Barbara Walters.

  10. sharon February 4, 2011 at 00:58 #

    So are you thinking the worm has turned? If so I am a bit behind the times. Would not be the first time though.

  11. Blackheart February 4, 2011 at 13:56 #

    I would imagine that she is taking a very sensible course of action and waiting to see if the new allegations begin to stand up to any scrutiny .. apparently some very large cracks are starting to appear.

    I haven’t seen any sort of overwhelming support from media or medical professionals …

  12. MikeMa February 4, 2011 at 14:57 #

    Blackheart,
    What cracks exactly are appearing in Deer’s allegations or the BMJ report?

  13. Brenda February 4, 2011 at 21:08 #

    It’s probably just a publicity situation to move her image from freaky to mommy with baby line to sell.

  14. Chris February 4, 2011 at 21:46 #

    In an interview, the creator of the Jenny McCarthy Body Count did hear that she was upset with his efforts. I would say she is not upset that people die, but that is now something found when people google her name.

  15. Blackheart February 5, 2011 at 05:10 #

    @MikeMa

    I don’t know where to start … pick a crack any crack ….

  16. Robert Estrada February 5, 2011 at 07:11 #

    @Blackheart
    You claim there are cracks. The onus is on you to show what you claim are cracks and support your claims with credable evidence. If not you are just blowing smoke.
    Robert Estrada

  17. Blackheart February 5, 2011 at 08:58 #

    Apparently making objective observations is not a healthy attitude to have on this forum.

    Perhaps the ‘alleged’ data fraud would be a good place to start. I say it is just wishful thinking on behalf of those enamoured with the pro vaccination arguments.

    • Kev February 5, 2011 at 10:18 #

      Blackheart – making _unsupported_ observations is not a healthy attitude to have. It can make you look like a pointless little troll.

  18. Blackheart February 5, 2011 at 11:38 #

    No trolling here Kev … only robust disagreement. If that’s OK.

    I’ve made my point on the ‘alleged data fraud’ I’m waiting on response to see whether anyone would like to back up those BMJ assertions … with some objective evidence.

  19. Blackheart February 5, 2011 at 11:46 #

    I’ll support my ‘wishful thinking ‘ statement by pointing out

    1. It is not supported by objective / independent or any substantial evidence.

    2. As far as I can ascertain only one person has ever made those allegations of data fraud. Which seems strange as this paper is almost 13 years old.

    3. The data under consideration has been examined not only by the peer review process (apparently twice) but also by the editor of the Lancet Richard Horton.

    4. The data has also been examined at a confidential meeting that included the finest minds of the British Medical establishment including the UK Chief Medical Officer , Sir Michael Rutter, Sir David Hull, Sir John Pattinson , Sir Leslie Turnberg and Professor Andrew Zuckerman of the World Health Organisation.

    They are my arguments and I’m sure you are aware of some others that have been elaborated by Clifford Miller.

  20. Blackheart February 5, 2011 at 12:07 #

    5. The General Medical Council ….

    Sorry I forgot that … just seems to bolster my already robust refutation.

  21. MikeMa February 5, 2011 at 12:56 #

    @Blachheart,
    The data was examined and Wakers was found negligent and stripped of his right to practice medicine.

    He used only 12 children, hand picked, and he still got dates and data wrong about most of them (kindest interpretation) or made data up and lied (currently accepted view). Most of his colleagues saw through it and wouldn’t sign as authors on the 1998 paper.

    You seem to harbor deep conspiracy theories regarding Wakefield and Brian Deer, the hero of this effort to save lives. Deer’s evidence was well researched, well laid out and easily understood without the ‘Wakers is a god’ glasses on.

    Wakefield was a greedy bastard who has cost thousands of children’s health and lives around the world. He deserves far worse than he’s gotten.

    Keep your unvaccinated disease vectors (kids to you) away from me and anyone else who cannot receive vaccine’s protection for medical reasons or for whom vaccination does not elicit a full immunological response. Your stupidity and selfishness contribute to worldwide misery and death.

  22. Blackheart February 5, 2011 at 13:24 #

    @MikeMa

    1. “The data was examined….

    I don’t think you understand what the GMC found Wakefield guilty of … I’m sure someone will fill you in.I believe ethics breaches is a large part as well as something about blood.

    2.He used only 12 children, hand picked …

    You need to provide supporting evidence from an independent objective source.

    3. You seem to harbor deep conspiracy theories regarding Wakefield and Brian Deer, the hero of this effort to save lives…..

    I don’t think that asking for objective , independent supporting evidence is a conspiracy theory.

    4. Wakefield was a greedy bastard…

    Apparently your post is going to continue with the same evidence free angst.

    5. Keep your unvaccinated disease vectors (kids to you) away from me …

    That would probably be wise … considering your somewhat irrational reply to a very ordinary request for objective and independent supporting evidence.

    ps My children are fully vaccintaed

    (now that was a surprise wasn’t it).

  23. MikeMa February 5, 2011 at 14:35 #

    @Blackheart,
    As you do not accept Deer’s investigative report or the BMJ’s judgment as independent, I haven’t a clue where you set the goalposts. Wakefield is a greedy, incompetent, fraud. I have read enough clear evidence to convince me of that. I have no idea what more you could possibly require.

    Do you give any weight to the lawyers who bankrolled Wakefield prior to his 1998 article? Does that not constitute enough of a COI? You complain of pharma shills I’ll bet but what about lawyer shills?

  24. Chris February 5, 2011 at 16:31 #

    Blackheart, you are straying off topic, which is also a troll type of behavior.

  25. Kev February 5, 2011 at 18:57 #

    Blackheart – your refutations are single sentence _observations_ containing nothing but your own opinion. For example:

    5. The General Medical Council ….

    Sorry I forgot that … just seems to bolster my already robust refutation.

    Which probably sounded pretty smart in your head but when read by others is just pointless and annoying. I’m hoping you develop into something more substantial than Wakefield anti-vax talking points.

  26. Blackheart February 5, 2011 at 23:32 #

    @MikeMa

    1 As you do not accept Deer’s investigative report or the BMJ’s judgment as independent

    I think that’s a sensible line to take the goalposts are set for objective , independent evidnce based verification of the allegations made in the BMJ articles.

    2. Do you give any weight to the lawyers who bankrolled

    Obviously by the tone and nature of the words you use you are subject to your own bias. When you say bankrolled I say normal medico litigation.

    3. Does that not constitute enough of a COI?

    No … I can give you legal opinion that it was “normal business practice” in regards to medical litigation.

    4. You complain of pharma shills I’ll bet but what about lawyer shills?

    I don’t think I’ve made any statement in regards to pharmaceutical companies.

    As far as lawyer shills I would remind you that the litigation was undertaken under the auspices of the High Court of England and the Legal Aid Board.

  27. Chris February 5, 2011 at 23:45 #

    What does Wakefield have to do with Jenny McCarthy not wanting to be mentioned on The Colbert Report?

  28. Blackheart February 5, 2011 at 23:50 #

    @Kev

    Blackheart – your refutations are single sentence observations containing nothing but your own opinion.

    You seem to be setting a higher standard of commentary for me than other users but I am happy to elaborate any points I have made.

    5. THE GMC made no finding of data fraud in regards to the Wakefield , Walker-Smith paper.

    My opinion which is actually a strong rebuttal is that this paper has been subject to the most thorough examination of perhaps any medical paper ever submitted. Not one allegation of substantial ‘data fraud’ has ever been made and substantiated.

    This relates exactly to the concerns expressed by Jenny MCCarthy in her blog post (Thanks Chris this is not trolling)

    “For some reason, parents aren’t being told that this “new” information about Dr. Wakefield isn’t a medical report, but merely the allegations of a single British journalist named Brian Deer. Why does one journalist’s accusations against Dr. Wakefield now mean the vaccine-autism debate is over?”

    The date of that commentary was January 10th 2011 it seems that Jenny MCCarthy is still making clear commentary about the vaccine issue.

  29. Prometheus February 7, 2011 at 01:53 #

    A number of people have called Brian Deer’s evidence into question without providing any support other than “I haven’t personally seen the data.” Of course, we didn’t get to see Wakefield’s data, either. But that doesn’t really matter; we knew that the study was a fraud years ago.

    Let me explain.

    A key premise of Wakefield’s 1998 study was that the 12 subjects just happened to walk in the clinic door and that the temporal connection he found between the MMR and “autistic enterocolitis” was real. However, it wasn’t too long after the paper was published that we found that many (or all) of the subjects were referred by a lawyer who was trying to win a lawsuit connecting the MMR vaccine and autism.

    Now, most people (especially the Wakefield apologists) saw this as a “conflict of interest” issue when, in fact, it was all that and scientific fraud. All of the referred patients were referred because their parents (and the lawyers, I assume) felt that the onset of autism was temporally related to the MMR vaccine. As a result, those subjects were pre-selected to have a temporal relationship between the MMR vaccine and autism.

    The lawyers didn’t refer any subjects whose autism had been diagnosed before the MMR vaccine or several months (or even years) after the MMR vaccine. This lawyer-generated pre-selection guaranteed that a temporal relationship would be found. I could find a temporal connection between autism, colic or teething and Lady Gaga if I had someone sending me subjects who already thought that their child’s condition was temporally related to that artist’s music.

    Since Dr. Wakefield knew that the subjects were being pre-selected and was experienced enough to know what that would do, his study was fraudulent on those grounds alone. Anything that Brian Deer found is just flowers on the grave of Wakefield’s reputation.

    So, if there are any problems with Brian Deer’s facts, Wakefield is still guilty of scientific fraud. Either that, or he is a terminally incompetent scientist.

    Prometheus

  30. Blackheart February 7, 2011 at 06:54 #

    @ Prometheus

    “A key premise of Wakefield’s 1998 study was that the 12 subjects just happened to walk in the clinic door and that the temporal connection he found between the MMR and “autistic enterocolitis” was real.”

    Your key premise is incorrect and as the rest of your argument rests on this then the rest should be set aside.

    Here’s an independent legal opinion published in the BMJ.

    “I do not know how Brian Deer thinks that solicitors who are acting for more than one client with a common complaint should obtain medical evidence. The parents had not gone to the Royal Free ‘precisely to blame MMR, wanting (an expert) to help their children and their claims’. Like most clients, they had a theory about how their child’s condition had been adversely affected and so they went to an independent expert in an appropriate field seeking an objective assessment to see if there was a link, because they all felt that the changes in their children’s behavioural changes were associated in time with the MMR vaccination. ”

    Cheers that should clear the board.

  31. sharon February 7, 2011 at 07:17 #

    Blackheart not sure how independent that statement is.

  32. Blackheart February 7, 2011 at 07:38 #

    Sharon

    A sensible question …

    “I have no connection with Dr Wakefield or the solicitors involved in the MMR investigation …”

    regards

  33. sharon February 7, 2011 at 10:12 #

    Thanks for that Blackheart. Dont you find it slightly curious that the person you quote tends to assume he knows the motivation for the parents attending the hospital? Isnt there some question over how these patients came to be under Wakefield’s care/assessment?

  34. Blackheart February 7, 2011 at 10:36 #

    Sharon

    “Don’t you find it slightly curious that the person you quote tends to assume he knows the motivation for the parents attending the hospital?”

    No … not really I would quite rightly base that opinion on the person’s knowledge of overall legal practice , their obvious deep knowledge of medical litigation and their years of expertise and experience in this matter.

    “Isnt there some question over how these patients came to be under Wakefield’s care/assessment?”

    Not that I can see. I think the independent legal opinion makes that quite clear. I suppose the phrase ‘normal business practice’ is a very correct way of viewing it.

    regards

  35. Julian Frost February 7, 2011 at 12:49 #

    Blackheart:

    “A key premise of Wakefield’s 1998 study was that the 12 subjects just happened to walk in the clinic door and that the temporal connection he found between the MMR and “autistic enterocolitis” was real.”

    Your key premise is incorrect and as the rest of your argument rests on this then the rest should be set aside.

    Wakefield never mentioned that the 12 were involved in litigation, and so a reasonable person would assume that the 12 just “happened to walk in the clinic door”.

    they had a theory about how their child’s condition had been adversely affected and so they went to an independent expert in an appropriate field seeking an objective assessment to see if there was a link…

    Wakefield did not give them an objective assessment. He lied and cooked his data to tell the lawyers what they wanted to hear.

  36. MikeMa February 7, 2011 at 13:26 #

    …Those same lawyers who paid him 650,000 pounds. I love the smell of conflict of interest in the morning!

  37. Blackheart February 7, 2011 at 13:36 #

    Julian

    Sometimes things are not as clear as they appear especially to those without a background in the specialised field of medical litigation. And I mean no disrespect, because I was confused until I read this …

    “Like most clients, they had a theory about how their child’s condition had been adversely affected and so they went to an independent expert in an appropriate field seeking an objective assessment.”

    This is why we need independent, objective, testimony to help us understand…. Which addresses this concern.

    and so a reasonable person would assume that the 12 just “happened to walk in the clinic door”.

    As far as this statement

    “Wakefield did not give them an objective assessment. He lied and cooked his data to tell the lawyers what they wanted to hear.”

    There are several arguments already presented that make this extremely implausible as well.

    “There is always value and benefit in compassion.”

    Dalai Lama

    Cheers

  38. Blackheart February 7, 2011 at 13:40 #

    MikeMa

    “…Those same lawyers who paid him 650,000 pounds. I love the smell of conflict of interest in the morning!”

    There a several flaws with this statement I’ll be generous and let you correct them yourself before I comment.

    Cheers

  39. daedalus2u February 7, 2011 at 14:50 #

    Blackheart, the parents who went to the Royal Free have every right to get medical advice. They have every right to legal advice. They don’t have a right for their solicitors and medical experts to commit fraud and put fraudulent crap into the scientific literature (which is what Wakefield did). They don’t have the right to have their advocates lie about what is wrong with them to try and scam the government for money.

    If Wakefield hadn’t misrepresented the children’s health status, if he hadn’t misreported when different things happened, if he hadn’t lied by saying this group of children was not specially selected, there would be no controversy.

    Wakefield lied to people, they believed him, and now some of those people don’t want to admit that they were fooled by Wakefield’s lies.

  40. MikeMa February 7, 2011 at 15:31 #

    Tell you what Breaveheart,
    I’ll ‘correct’ my statement when Wakers corrects the data he used.

  41. Chris February 7, 2011 at 17:16 #

    Blackheart, why don’t you get that Wakefield’s “science” was just wrong? It does not matter the circumstances, they just explain why Wakefield has never been independently replicated with more than a dozen children who have had either the MMR used in the UK before or after 1992.

  42. Dedj February 7, 2011 at 17:33 #

    “Your key premise is incorrect and as the rest of your argument rests on this then the rest should be set aside.”

    You’ve been told off for this before.

    Merely stating a person is wrong does not make them so, you need to explain why you think so, otherwise we’re having to presume your opinion for you.

    Generally speaking, this lack of clarity could be seen as a deliberate attempt to remain non-specific enough in order to dodge or avoid any legitimate opposition to your posts.

    The paper explicitly states the children were “consecutively referred” and Wakefield has stated that “These childen
    have all been seen expressly on the basis that they were referred through normal channels (eg, from general practitioner, child psychiatrist, or community paediatrician) on the merits of their symptoms.”(response to A Rouse, THE LANCET • Vol 351 • May 2, 1998).

    Whereas this may be pedantically true, it suggests that the children were independantly referred without involvement from the research team. That is, there was no, or co-incidental, bias in the selection process and thus the sample could be reasonably assumed to be a representative sample.

    As we now know, this is certainly not the case. It’s not unknown for clinicans to ‘preknow’ thier referrals (you can’t stop people approaching you at conferences, events, mailing you or approaching you through a friend of a friend of an exisitng client) but this is a case where the subjects had a pre-existing bias, where that pre-exisiting bias ‘just happens’ to have produced a piece or work that is in the financial and legal interests of both the principal researcher, the company that employed him as a expert witness, which just happens to be the same company that held the cases of some of the subjects and the company that obtained the legal aid funding for the research.

    Although Prometheus is incorrect to state that the paper implies the children were walk-in patients (the clinic does not appear to do walk-in self-referrals), Wakefield is also incorrect that they were self-referred (he uses the term entirely incorrectly in his defence on Day 66 – if they were referred “from general practitioner, child psychiatrist, or community paediatrician”, they were by definition not self-referred) and he is entirely wrong that it is clear from the paper that the subjects were self-referred in the sense that he means.

    The self-referral bias referred to by Wakefield in his defence implies a self-selection bias that is entirely out of the control of the investigators. As was found out (partly by Wakefields own admission Day 59 and the evidence covered in Day 42, 61 and other) this wasn’t the case at all.

    Sadly, Wakefields rather stretched defence appears to show that he has no conception of what some of the concerns put to him are even about, much less why his behaviour is cause for alarm. As long as he can concieve of a definition that gets him off the hook, the idea that he might be wrong is of no apparent concern to him.

  43. Dedj February 7, 2011 at 17:49 #

    I would like to point out that it may be possible that the only subjects available for a research project may also be clients of the company that funds the research.

    This is not unethical in itself, as it may be possible that the potential subject-base is too small to prevent overlap (as would be the case in my home town of toxic dumping causing birth defects), but this is not a case where the subjects would be in any short supply at all if the previous research and the research hypothesis were true.

  44. SoundTherapy February 10, 2011 at 12:59 #

    I find it really hard to belive she’s still in the public eye at all!
    Former porn actress who had a small part in a mildly amusing film about ten years ago (and that was several years after her ‘previous’ career), she probably just got a bit carried away when she realised she was getting coverage for opening her mouth.

  45. Donna February 24, 2011 at 18:07 #

    Who ever even cared what Jenny McCarthy said about vaccines and autism to begin with? Who would get medical advice from a porn star? Jenny obviously is unstable and has issues. Most normal people don’t feel it is necessary to get naked and show everyone to get some attention. It was obvious that she does things just for publicity even before she even had a son. I would sooner get medical advice from the guy who is dumpster diving behind my office building than from her.

  46. mom2three March 4, 2011 at 23:53 #

    Vaccines have been in question FAR before Wakefield or Jenny McCarthy ever said a word about anything. I really wonder why SO MUCH press/media/attention is focused on these two?

    So many of the media, and Blogs like this one often focus on ‘debunking’ Wakefield or Jenny, and they often pretend that these 2 people actually ERUPTED the concern about Vaccines, and consistantly place the blame on these 2 people for starting and spreading any connection between Vaccines and Autism.

    Its pathetic actually for anyone/any blog/site that would like to be considered to be a real source of information, a reference, a ‘go to’, an expert or even just experienced on an issue or topic, for them to even TRY to place ‘blame’ on anything or anyone. Its a dishonest and completely improper way to present any topic, if you want to be taken seriously.

    If someone wants to really honestly debate, explore, or even be a reference for information and facts, then they should actually present the FACTS, and not pick and choose facts or information that suits their own purpose or agenda.

    For instance, blogs like this one, who consistantly want to place ‘blame’ or present opinions that are stated to look like facts AS facts, about Wakefield or Jenny are NOT even close to being honest and factual.

    IF Wakefield and/or Jenny never existed or never said/did anything in the area of Vaccines/Autism, there would STILL be, and HAS been many concerns prior to either of these people saying or doing anything within this debate. Now WHY arent these things being discussed openly and factually here? These 2 people didnt create this debate, but if you read here at this blog, you would not know that.

    And THAT is the reason the media is continuing to fall down a deep and dark tunnel, by adjusting the news to fit their own agendas.

    Sad.

  47. Tom March 5, 2011 at 00:09 #

    Hey mom2three,

    You might want to read this blog and see how thoroughly it has covered autism research and the lack of science supporting a causal link with vaccines.

  48. Leslie July 8, 2011 at 08:03 #

    In case you haven’t heard. Jenny McCarthy’s son never had autism. He has Landau Kleffner Syndrome. Ooops…looks like she’s going to have to do a lot of diversionary tactics to distance herself from this major blunder. One has to wonder how long she knew…..it’s a scary thought to think publishers are this stupid and reckless. Didn’t they do a background check on her before they published such manipulative lies? Jenny is quite smart, by the way and must have some very savvy agents. They knew Evan turned out not to be really autistic, but kept putting it out as if he were.

    If you look at Jenny’s background with her son you’ll see a very very interesting picture. one that is quite chilling actually, perhaps one of the biggest frauds ever to infiltrate the autism community.

    Jenny first told the world her son was an Indigo child. Then he had seizures. And was brought by ambulance to hospital where they gave him a boatload of ativan and other seizure controlling medications. He then started taking seizures meds. Daily. Notice she RARELY speaks of his seizures. I guess she figured autism label would be a better marketing tool, and she was right.

    As Evan’s seizures came under control, so did his “regression” that she blamed on autism radically improve. Of course she never talks about that fact. After all, how can she after she moved quicker than a volcano into the autism community and started writing books and hitting talk shows and doing magazine and talk show interviews. All within several months of her son’s alleged “cure” from the alleged “autism” she told us he had.

    Nope. He had laundau kleffner syndrome. And she has YET to admit this and tell the public her son does not nor ever had true autism. Meanwhile, she keeps her distance from this subject and is now jumping full swing into a diversionary tactic away from those few years of her obsessive diatribe against vaccines and telling the world she cured her son of autism. That alone should raise some serious red flags for investigative reporters.

    Jenny is a fraud. She knows her son was misdiagnosed. To cover her ass, she has recruited “doctors” to splash the covers of her books, as if that gives her credibility. Nice tactic. Very obvious, but a good try. She has seriously pissed off many in the autism community. She has made a mockery of true, real autism. She needs to be investigated and exposed in a book asap. This woman is just nuts. Her poor son. He is obviously still having episodic seizures which is common with landau kleffner. Jenny, it’s time you came clean. Stop printing your fake books about your son’s fake autism. Enough of this charade. You can’t hide from this reality by writing another book and parading around in a new sexy suit for the photographers to capture, as if this will all distance you from the pathetic and fraudulent case you made of your son’s alleged autsim and his cure. You didn’t cure your precious son Jenny. He was never autistic. Be happy he wasn’t. Quit insulting thousands of parents who live with REAL autistic kids.

    • Sullivan July 8, 2011 at 17:50 #

      “He has Landau Kleffner Syndrome. ”

      This has been proposed, even in a medical journal, but I have not seen proof that her son was given this diagnosis.

      She has been rather creative with the information she lets out.

  49. Chris July 8, 2011 at 19:41 #

    Sullivan:

    This has been proposed, even in a medical journal, but I have not seen proof that her son was given this diagnosis.

    True. Especially since LKS is tricky to diagnose because the seizures occur while the child is asleep, and there are no outward signs of those seizures. My son received a sleep EEG to see if his severe speech disorder could be caused by LKS, since he had had a history of seizures with actual convulsions. They were negative.

    So while LKS is a disorder involving seizures, other kinds of seizures can cause speech disorders and not be LKS. Seizure disorders are complicated because the human brain is complicated.

Trackbacks/Pingbacks

  1. Tweets that mention Autism Blog - Jenny McCarthy backs away from vaccines « Left Brain/Right Brain -- Topsy.com - February 3, 2011

    […] This post was mentioned on Twitter by Kev, Liz Ditz, Cerus, Rene F. Najera, MPH, Robert Goldberg and others. Robert Goldberg said: RT @kevleitch Jenny McCarthy backs away from #vaccines http://bit.ly/fGGfJk #autism #vaxfax #health […]

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 )

Google+ photo

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

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: