Thanks Anti-Vax Loons: The Return Of The Measles And The Backlash Against Jenny McCarthy

from the endangering-us-all dept

For all you people out there still going on about how horrible vaccines are for children, still ultimately relying on a thoroughly debunked fraud of a research paper put forth by a quack paid for his quackery by a law firm planning on suing vaccine-makers, thanks a lot. Measles is back. And it's your fault. What was once limited to some worrying reports in rural areas, often times due to either conspiracy theorists or those practicing an unfortunate brand of theology, measles is now back in populated areas like New York City. Oh, and whooping cough. And mumps.

Measles is spreading in upper Manhattan and the Bronx, according to public health authorities in New York. About 16 cases have turned up, including two that involved contagion in doctors' offices. Outbreaks have also been reported in the Boston area, San Francisco and Los Angeles. Much of the current outbreak is traceable to the Philippines, where the disease is raging and easily spread to unvaccinated travelers. They come home to the U.S., where the virus is finding a surprising welcome. Health experts add these to the tally of the anti-vaccination movement, which is based almost entirely on a long since debunked and withdrawn paper published in Britain in 1998.
Measles, should you not be aware, was at such low levels as to be officially considered obliterated. It was essentially gone, removed from our daily list of dangers thanks to the power of vaccines. Thanks to the unvaccinated in America, however, when foreign pathogens are brought here, they are allowed to find hosts in which they can mutate such that the vaccinations everyone was supposed to have are no longer as effective, or effective at all. Driving the point home, children too young to be vaccinated often find themselves the victims of the spread of these mutated diseases, resulting in sick children... and dead infants.

And, lest anyone attempt to argue that the vaccinations themselves are more harmful than the diseases they control, or for those that argue that our natural immune system is better suited to fighting off these pathogens:
During a similar outbreak last year, the national Centers for Disease Control concluded that 82% of the cases occurred in unvaccinated persons, and of those, 79% said they deliberately shunned vaccination on "philosophical" grounds.
And, from there, the disease mutates and spreads, mutates and spreads, rinse and repeat until we reach the point where we now have outbreaks in major cities. Fortunately, many folks are looking at this as a teaching moment for the portion of the American public that is endangering the rest of us. Chiefly in the cross-hairs has been Jenny McCarthy, who has been the spokesman for the stupid when it comes to the anti-vaccination crowd for a long, long time. Recently, she asked her Twitter followers "What is the most important personality trait you look for in a mate?" The responses were less than kind.
They vaccinate their kids RT @JennyMcCarthy: What is the most important personality trait you look for in a mate? Reply using #JennyAsks

-- Jen (@oneninjen) March 14, 2014

Someone who vaccinates, b/c I'd want our kids to survive. @JennyMcCarthy: Most important trait you look for in mate? Reply w/ #JennyAsks

-- Seth Mnookin (@sethmnookin) March 15, 2014

While I do love getting diseases that were eradicated in the last century, I would say vaccinated is a trait I look for #JennyAsks

-- Jennifer Lott (@JennLott) March 14, 2014
Now, it's worth noting that McCarthy has been relatively quiet on the anti-vax topic the past couple of years, as these long-dead diseases have reemerged. Were I her, I wouldn't want to be spouting off as children get sick either. Maybe she's learned how wrong she was. If she has, she may want to inform her co-celebrities Katie Couric and Kristen Cavallari and Jay Cutler, because they apparently haven't gotten the memo yet.

Look, to be clear, if you don't want to vaccinate your children, you have that free right, but only because I haven't attained enough power in this country yet to have you summarily arrested and to take your children away from you so that they can live with someone with whom they'll be more safe, like, say, a family of rabid wolverines. Vaccinate your damned children. It isn't about you or your kids, it's about all of us.

Filed Under: anti-vaccination, health, jenny mccarthy, measles, public health, vaccinations

Reader Comments

The First Word

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread

  1. identicon
    The Old Man in The Sea, 20 Mar 2014 @ 7:20pm

    What is true and what is untrue


    Standard accepted ideas (such as evolution, big bang, standard model, quantum theory, etc) unfortunately have some very large holes in them that are currently being highlighted by various people who do research in those areas. yet they are being treated with the same contempt as those who are completely off the rails. Political correctness at its best - sorry to say. Now some of these ideas may well be useless, but others do have the beginnings of significant advancement.

    You can roll your eyes as much as you want, but it doesn't change the problems within the various models that are being promulgated as true. It is getting close to forty years of looking at the various fields and what is being promulgated as "the facts" and all I am seeing is the things that are being ignored.

    Just some simple examples.

    Big Bang Theory - if you do not believe that gravitation is the fundamental force controlling the universe, then you are flake, fruitcake, etc. Yet some of the alternative models give better predictive results with less arbitrary additions.

    Standard Model Subatomic Physics - some alternative models have significantly less arbitrary features and give much better predictive values for the binding energy of nuclei. Yet if you look at these then you are an ignorant buffoon.

    Old earth - different dating techniques put millions of years onto the age of rocks that are known to be formed in the last 100 years. Assumptions that dating method use are known to be wrong, but are still accepted as correct. If you raise that the dating methods have problems and give quite different results, you are an idiot for not believing.

    I have some partial papers dealing with a model of sub-atomic physics that was developed by one man in the 1960's. The interesting approach was that instead of following the accepted process which started from a simple model and increased complexity, his development included those additional elements at the start. His resultant model was quite different and included explanations for all the stable sub-atomic particles and fields without having to add in arbitrary entities. His full set of papers are in one of the national archives in Canada. Part of his model was a procedure for calculating the binding energy of any nuclei using a form of geometry. Yes I know - geometry. However, as he states in his document, that this is only a model and must be treated as such, his calculation process was generally less than 1% away from the measured value compared to the techniques used by the standard model (which can be 5, 10, 20, 30% or more of a variation from measured value).

    Whether or not his approach is correct needs investigation, but to do so these days is career suicide.

    I personally accept that climate change is real. However, I have very serious doubts about anthropogenic climate change and I have a simple question that I have asked of the "climate change experts" over the years and not a logical response from any of them.

    One respondent who actually discussed a possible solution (as in for the anthropogenic standpoint) was himself not a climate change expert.

    Anyone is capable of doing science, it is not something for the elite.

    So you response, in itself is moronic. Questioning a prevailing view is not of itself wrong, and not answering the questions in a reasoned manner is not right. If the details of the discussion have been dealt with and documented clearly, then the response should at least be, here is the reference document explaining the prevailing view.

    Rolling your eyes and calling them morons does not win you a friend but just increases the enmity of your opponents.

    If you can demonstrate to an enemy that his viewpoint is wrong while treating him with respect, you are more likely to gain from this than lose.

Add Your Comment

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here

Subscribe to the Techdirt Daily newsletter

Comment Options:

  • Use markdown. Use plain text.
  • Remember name/email/url (set a cookie)

Follow Techdirt
Techdirt Gear
Shop Now: Copying Is Not Theft
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Essential Reading
Techdirt Deals
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Techdirt Insider Chat
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Recent Stories
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads


Email This

This feature is only available to registered users. Register or sign in to use it.