Amazon.com Widgets

« Links With Your Coffee - Thursday | Main | Moral Kombat »

The Jenny McCarthy Song

Let's make this one viral. Post it on your own blog. Send it to all your friends and especially those you know who are sympathetic to the anti-vaccinationist crowd.


 

Comments

LOL. That was brilliant.

Well, if you actually listened to Jenny, you'd know that she doesn't advocate no vaccination, just a slower schedule and more research into the link with autism, more care in dosing, more research into how specific vaccines affect kids, as well as less toxins in the vaccines (many of which are there because vaccines are cheaper to make that way). As much as I think vaccines are a great thing, I do KNOW that the pharma industry has a way bigger influence than I'm comfortable with - and I don't think it's a stretch to think they might've pulled some strings to get things out that aren't ready. They've done it before...

Well, if you actually listened to Jenny

This is where all the trouble started...for all sides.

I would share if the song weren't so fucking lame. Our struggle in the reality-based community is hard enough without having to support amateurish shit like this.

Really? I'm confused. I don't understand why a site like this would even want to bother questioning McCarthy's fight. You are questioning it with this vid, right? Her fight is legit - and it's beside the point whether or not vaccines get rid of measles, mumps, etc. This is 2009, it shouldn't be a question regarding whether or not there are alternatives to dealing with these health problems. At the least, aren't vaccines part of the sick corporate problem that is haunting/ruining America today? And, even though I don't agree with all the arguments I heard from McCarthy on her recent Larry King appearance, she does raise a very interesting question: why are so many children being diagnosed with autism? How can that be?

wow was that boring. I really wanted to like it for all the right reasons, but couldn't make it through...needs to be either shorter or better b4 it goes viral methinks.

needs to be either shorter or better b4 it goes viral methinks.

I was thinking "viral" was just a pun. (Measles and mumps are both caused by viral infection, which is why these diseases cannot be treated or cured with antibiotics).

Good post, Norm. I'll be posting this on my Facebook page.

With a hook like "...you thought I was eradicated / just because you were educated", I'm not sure it qualifies as brilliant from an artistic standpoint. Much more interesting and useful (at least to the pot pie-eating hoi polloi of whom I am a proud member) is this one from today's NY Times....

I can't say I've directly read/heard anything that Ms. McCarthy's had to say on the subject of vaccine safety, so I don't know if the autism-MMR thing is the only thing she harps on. I do wonder if our estimate of her effect on people's decisions on vaccinating their kids is a little overblown, though? And really, what's with the focus on her blonde underwear model appearance and her MTV history? Is that somehow relevant? Using what appear to be irrelevant character attacks to belittle people who question the safety of products produced by powerful corporations seems to me like a disturbing and unnecessary path to go down.

Was that pot pie video supposed to be humorous? If not, I don't think it made a point. Maybe that the instructions could be clearer (you probably need to take the temp right after it's done cooking and before letting it rest). If it's true that companies don't want to be responsible for their ingredients' safety, they didn't do much of a good job making their point.

Andyo, I have to hand it to you; only you could draw me into a discussion of pot pie thermodynamics. I think because of the way that microwaves heat food, the pot pie would theoretically be even less safe to eat if you didn't let it rest several minutes first. I believe this is analagous to the process of melting chocolate or butter in the microwave--the proper way to do it is to heat it up, let it rest, heat it up, let it rest, etc. The cooler parts will actually continue to heat up after the microwave is turned off (through heat transfer from the hotter, higher water-content areas) as far as I understand. The same thing happens to turkey/chicken in a conventional oven-- the center will continue to rise 5 degrees or so after the bird is removed from the oven (this is not my own theory). Not to beat the topic to death (if it were still alive), but another parallel is the fact that the hottest part of the summer and coldest part of the winter usually occur several weeks after the longest and shortest days of the year, respectively.

But yeah, I think they were trying to be a little silly while conveying a potentially serious problem. I think anytime you are cooking raw or partially cooked meat in a microwave, you are accepting some amount of risk; it's not really the company's fault-- they're just covering their asses.

I can't say I've directly read/heard anything that Ms. McCarthy's had to say on the subject of vaccine safety

While it's true that the character attacks are irrelevant to the argument she makes that vaccines are the problem, that you take the time to criticize that and indirectly defend Jenny McCarthy while ignoring her history. That you ignore the role she has played in convincing people not to have their children vaccinated and the inevitable deaths and suffering that leads to. It seems to me that your priorities are a little skewed. This is not the first time you've offered a similar arguments, and pleaded ignorance to the facts. Why is that?

Furthermore:

There is nothing fallacious about calling people names or saying ugly things about them. The fallacy is committed when one engages in a personal attack as a means of ignoring, discrediting, or blunting the force of another's argument. (Attacking Faulty Reasoning - Damer)

Norm, I feel sure that someone of your intellect does not want his blog to be an echo chamber. I post pretty often on these topics because it's an area that I know a pretty good bit about, and you're right, I tend to be a bit redundant in my arguments. As someone who works in public health, though, I simply think conversations like the one's opened up by Jenny McCarthy's statements are important ones to have in a level-headed manner. She does, I believe, want the same thing ultimately that pediatricians, vaccine advocates, etc. want-- safe, effective vaccines and healthy kids. I accept that she's said a number of things that do not stand up to the case control studies which have been conducted on the MMR-autism link, and I accept that if there are people who, for some silly reason, base their decision to vaccinate on Ms. McCarthy's wisdom, then Ms. McCarthy is indirectly endangering the health of some kids (though, honestly, I am inclined to place 100% of the blame on these parents in this case). But I will say this again: approaching this discussion with the playboy bunny parody of Jenny McCarthy as ammunition does little, in my view, other than stroke the self righteousness of the people making the argument. This is simply not a topic appropriate for high school-level wit.

Furthermore:
There is nothing fallacious about calling people names or saying ugly things about them. The fallacy is committed when one engages in a personal attack as a means of ignoring, discrediting, or blunting the force of another's argument. (Attacking Faulty Reasoning - Damer)

This seems like a pretty weak crutch to stand on, and it's one I think that you have no need for.

This is not the first time you've offered a similar arguments, and pleaded ignorance to the facts. Why is that?

I believe you're saying that I'm pleading ignorance to these type of facts:

I can't say I've directly read/heard anything that Ms. McCarthy's had to say on the subject of vaccine safety

Yes, in effect I'm saying that I'm taking the words of those disparaging Jenny McCarthy at more or less face value, i.e., I am going on the supposition that they are not drastically skewing wording and intent of McCarthy's statements and thereby giving the author, not McCarthy, the benefit of the doubt. I'm not sure how I'm being disingenuous in doing so. Still, I am going to use a little common sense and assume that Jenny is not prancing around her backyard in her knickers and making silly faces while speaking about her concerns on childhood vaccination.

I'm sorry you feel that I'm giving cover to the anti-vaccine movement; that is not my intent. I simply feel that when, in this discussion, there are dissenting, even misguided and unsubstantiated, viewpoints like McCarthy's, it's important we deconstruct them in a mature way. Otherwise I think, as the adage goes, we are generating a lot more heat than light.

http://www.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,1888718,00.html?iid=fb_share

Your collaborator recommends that parents accept only the haemophilus influenzae type B (HIB) and tetanus vaccine for newborns and then think about the rest. Not polio? What about the polio clusters in unvaccinated communities like the Amish in the U.S.? What about the 2004 outbreak that swept across Africa and Southeast Asia after a single province in northern Nigeria banned vaccines?

I do believe sadly it's going to take some diseases coming back to realize that we need to change and develop vaccines that are safe. If the vaccine companies are not listening to us, it's their fing fault that the diseases are coming back. They're making a product that's s. If you give us a safe vaccine, we'll use it. It shouldn't be polio versus autism.

Jenny's prancing around has now landed her a show on Oprah's network, numerous appearances on news/talk shows, including an hour long love-fest on Larry King Live. No, I don't want an echo chamber, but her arguments have been deconstructed in a "mature" way, and yet her influence continues to increase. Face it mature deconstruction doesn't make compelling TV. I'm sure you will disagree, but I think ridicule is often an effective tool, it gets the attention of the media and an opportunity for the truth to emerge. Do you have a better idea? Something that hasn't been tried. Giving her any credibility considering the platform she has to spew her nonsense seems dangerous to me. People listen to her because she is taken seriously by much of the media. There are those like Larry King, and Oprah who are the true believers, and then there are those like you who rather than point out how dangerous she is, say hey she wants the same thing we all want healthy kids.

I don't believe it is your intent to give cover, but I do believe that your words have that effect.

I accept that if there are people who, for some silly reason, base their decision to vaccinate on Ms. McCarthy's wisdom, then Ms. McCarthy is indirectly endangering the health of some kids (though, honestly, I am inclined to place 100% of the blame on these parents in this case).

But lets not attribute any of the blame to sweet well meaning Jenny, but rather to her victims. I like the way you say that you accept that she has some responsibility and then in the next sentence retract it, 100% of the blame indeed.

I can't believe you're a Republican, so let me guess a libertarian.

zing, zap and pow!

I can't believe you're a Republican, so let me guess a libertarian.

No, I'm quite the democrat from a family of New York democrats. I don't really understand how you gleaned my political views from this posting. Come on, now, really?

I am very much in favor of the refutation of myths regarding vaccines (MMR-autism, etc.); you've been posting things on this topic several times a week, it seems, lately. It's just the ones that go overboard with the look at this dumb blonde bimbo and her silly ideas, oh how cute, she thinks her ideas matter just because she's a mommy-type of motif that I think are counter-productive; specifically I am talking about this video and some of the melodramatic oh-my-god-my-head-hurts-from-this-ocean-of-burning-stupid-in-my-inbox-and-I-haven't-even-had-my-morning-coffee-yet posts by the "respectful insolence" dude. I said nothing about Oprah or Larry King's interviews/endorsements/contracts with McCarthy, did I? Nor did I say, man, I think Jenny's onto something here with this MMR-autism link thing. Or, hmm, maybe we should re-think the practice of vaccinating our kids. I am saying that I think if I were a parent who was a bit suspicious of modern medicine or scared that my kid might be happen to be one of the exceptional cases that suffers some bad reaction, videos like this would do precisely nothing to allay my worries. It would probably just make me feel like a freak or an idiot, and I'm not really sure that those feelings would translate into going ahead with vaccinating my child. I can't imagine that you don't understand where I'm coming from with this point. Would you really prefer that my posting had simply been, holy shit! ROTFLMAO! posting this one on my site ASAP!

I do like discussing this topic, but I seem to manage nothing other than to annoy the shit out of you. Believe it or not, that's not my goal at all.

On the other hand, though, I recognize that this is your blog, that you select things to share with us, and probably don't necessarily appreciate it when someone is always bashing certain posts. So... I'm sorry for any offense.

On the other hand, though, I recognize that this is your blog, that you select things to share with us, and probably don't necessarily appreciate it when someone is always bashing certain posts. So... I'm sorry for any offense.

No offense taken. You're always welcome to make any comment that suits you. Why did I think you're a libertarian. It was your statement:

I accept that if there are people who, for some silly reason, base their decision to vaccinate on Ms. McCarthy's wisdom, then Ms. McCarthy is indirectly endangering the health of some kids (though, honestly, I am inclined to place 100% of the blame on these parents in this case).

I would never have believed the final line in that statement came from a Democrat. Maybe I just don't get out enough. I'd be interested in hearing what others think? If you saw the above statement and had to guess the politics of the speaker what would your guess be?

user-pic

It didn't occur to me, but I see how the parenthetical line encapsulates Libertarian thought. I don't think Clownfish IS a Libertarian - however, I do think we sometimes ADJUST our ideology to fit our conclusion.

I'm not coming down on Clownfish - I'm guilty of this as well.

I do agree with Clownfish's skepticism towards "BigPharm", but Norm is right - there is no better "cure" to wide-spread stupid than biting humor. The point is, if you are at a point where you're shifting the scientific goalposts in the vaccine-autism debate, then you're probably not going to be convinced by kind reason.

First it was Thimerasol: removed - no connection established; then, it was the MMR vaccine: tested - and the courts eventually ruled (16 studies later) - no connection. Now it's the scale of the vaccinations.

Here's the problem: you can only shift the goalposts so many times before the person rebutting realizes that it's a losing cause trying to speak reason.

I'm assuming he's just saying he's inclined to blame the parents who are using Jenny McCarthy's advice to make their medical decisions as being at fault for doing that and I wouldn't disagree with that. She's not a doctor - I don't think she's even played a doctor. Anyway, I don't really get political leanings from that but maybe I'm reading it differently than you are (or even the way clownfish meant it?)

I gotta say, I like that he is not inclined to include her background in bimbo-ness in this argument. I think that's pretty amazing.

user-pic

I have no doubt that character assassination and ridicule is an effective tool, Karl Rove has proven that over and over again. The right has been using it all along. So, if your argument is that the left should do the same, rather than try to elevate the discussion to some meaningful level, I completely see your point, but respectfully disagree.

It's not an either or question.

I actually thought they made their point really well and I thought it was a great warning. I don't think it was that the instructions need to be clearer - it's that, under pretty ordinary circumstances (I think a microwave with a lazy Susan inside that turns while you're cooking would be helpful), you are going to have a hard time cooking a pot pie to a guaranteed level of safety but...it will be your fault if you get sick because you didn't follow their instructions. (Apparently, if it doesn't get hot enough, you're on your own if you do choose to eat it.)

Yeah, but they were purposely making it difficult by not using common sense. Are you supposed to take the temps after letting the thing rest? That's the only thing that messed up everything. Again, might have been the fault of the instructions...

What this told me is that the companies only need to change their instructions to swap #2 and #3.

I know there's a point to be made about them shifting responsibility, but this wasn't a serious test. Did they really not expect their food to get burned? It seemed to me that they were pretending to be clueless idiots in a contrived way. Reminded me of those informercials where people can't seem to be able to use paper towels just to clean up some water.

Or just make your own damn pie and eat it when ready.

Hey, don't look at me. I hate those tasteless things anyway. I can't even imagine how bad English food must be for Americans to make fun of it.

I do eat frozen food, though, but never really worried I might get something. Maybe I should...

I have to agree that the 'song' is not particularly inspiring, but also, in my self-appointed role as 'nitpicker extraordinaire' I must point out that German Measles is called Rubella - only one 'e'.

/hug nitpicker

LMAO!!!

Okay, have you guys ever heard of detox for Austism? Because this is a first for me:

Jenny McCarthy on her son's recovery. (watch from 2:34 to 2:51)

Also, parent anecdotal information is science based information. Just ask Jenny.

Also, Evan has recovered apparently.

This video is the one I might post on facebook. Erick linked to it in this thread in the forum.

As for Jenny's Evan, perhaps he had a neurological problem that isn't autism but mimics the symptoms of autism. However, he still is having seizures and such, and only time will tell as to what his condition really is.

Erick, when you say "Also, Evan has recovered apparently" is that from Jenny's claim on LArry King or from something else you've read?

This was a really interesting video which is a great debunk of the vaccination connection but there is one thing it doesn't address which I wish it would....are there really more cases of autism now than there were before or is it one of those things they didn't formerly recognize and so are now diagnosing more subtle cases so the number of cases has gone up? Without that information, I didn't like the first of the arguments (re: crawling and vocalization) because, if, indeed, it has increased - then you would look for something in the environment of children that has changed - not something that children have always gone through. And, then, when he said autism had gone up slightly (unrelated to vaccination), is this an unusual rise or?

The fact that they find all those cases in unvaccinated communities makes it seem like this is an on-going problem with x percent of the population (outside of the Amish community which has the addition of the genetic problem.)

gypsy sister:

Erick, when you say "Also, Evan has recovered apparently" is that from Jenny's claim on LArry King or from something else you've read?

I said what I did under the assumption that he really does have autism, in which case Jenny is delusional if she thinks detox works.

Also, glad you liked the link.


jillbryant2003:

....are there really more cases of autism now than there were before or is it one of those things they didn't formerly recognize and so are now diagnosing more subtle cases so the number of cases has gone up?

That's a good question. I'll let Bryan (the scientist from the video I linked to in the forum) answer:

    Unfortunately, we don't know the answer to this question - yet. There are several good reasons why this may not be an epidemic:
    1. In many countries, autism must now be reported by law. Meaning that counts today would be more accurate than in the past.

    2. The diagnostic criteria for autism was changed in the mid-1990's, with about a dozen separate diseases grouped together into autism spectrum disorder. This would both increase the number of autism diagnosis (by grouping several diseases into one), as well as make it easier for doctors to diagnose properly.

    3. Increased public knowledge. This tends to increase diagnostic rates because both parents and doctors become familiar with the symptoms.
    The best evidence that a process like the one described above is occurring is that the rates of mental retardation diagnosis - basically a "catch all" category for metal disorders whom doctors cannot identify - has dropped by almost exactly the same amount as autism diagnosis have increased. Which suggests on the surface that the entirety of the increase in autism rates are simply due to better diagnosis. Of course, without being able to go back in time we'll never be able to prove 100% that this is what has occurred.

    At the end of the day the epidemic is not as bad as it appears - at least a portion of the "epidemic" is simply better diagnosis. But whether that accounts for all of the change, or just part of it, remains a mystery.

    "I didn't like the first of the arguments (re: crawling and vocalization) because, if, indeed, it has increased - then you would look for something in the environment of children that has changed - not something that children have always gone through"

    The point of that part of the video is simply that correlation is useless for proving a causative factor. The simple fact that vocalization and crawling correlates strongly with vaccination was used simply to highlight just how useless correlations are.

    Bryan

Thank you very much, Erick. Sounds logical. I like his very straightforward, non-emotional approach. Although, I do understand, if I had an autistic child, I would probably feel very emotional about the topic...

That said, did you see the graph thaddeus linked to? It is intimidating. At some point, if it is just better diagnoses, it should start leveling off, right?

BTW - I understood what he was saying about vocalization and crawling - I just thought it was a poor way to make his point since vaccination is something outside normal human development giving it a stronger sense of cause and effect - it's something introduced into the child's environment. Better off saying extended exposure to television or introduction of large quantities of Happy Meals or whatever has recently started happening in a three-year old's life.

3/5, poor use of images, music sucked.

Seriously, what are the autisim rates in the US? Anyone got a good source for some simple stats?

This topic is getting out of control.

edantsareus said:

I have to agree that the 'song' is not particularly inspiring, but also, in my self-appointed role as 'nitpicker extraordinaire' I must point out that German Measles is called Rubella - only one 'e'.

I'm someone shocked that someone who refers to himself as 'nitpicker extraordinaire' would have left out the comma which rightfully belongs after 'extraordinaire'.

I'm someone shocked that someone who refers to himself as 'nitpicker extraordinaire' would have left out the comma...

I'm shocked that someone who would take the risk of correcting a self-confessed nitpicker would leave the first letter off of his pseudonymous name.

Also the first 'someone' should have been 'somewhat'.. I guess that this will be the last time that I attempt to correct a self-described nitpicker.

Navigation

Support this site

Google Ads


Powered by Movable Type Pro

Copyright © 2002-2017 Norman Jenson

Contact


Commenting Policy

note: non-authenticated comments are moderated, you can avoid the delay by registering.

Random Quotation

Individual Archives

Monthly Archives