RFK Jr. Is Right: Hg Causes Autism

As people attack RFK Jr.'s new book and say a link between ethylmercury (thimerosal) in vaccines and autism has been disproven, tell them this: the second child ever diagnosed with autism (1943) had a father who was experimenting with ethylmercury...

How Mercury Triggered The Age of Autism

Autism Public Service Announcement

Canary Party Vaccine Court Video

A Glimpse into Autism

Meet Our Advertisers


Olmsted's Original UPI Series

  • The Age of Autism Tag

« Olmsted In Spectrum Magazine: Demon Barbers of Mercury Street | Main | Amanda Peet, How Much Are They Paying You? »

Vote For Jenny. Now.

VotebabyAnother site has pitted Jenny against Amanda. VOTE HERE.   The folks at Science Blogs have mobbed the site - to the point where the site actually calls them out on it:  [Update: Welcome Scienceblogs readers! Your poll mobbing is indeed impressive.] Bump her book up Amazon's chart HERE.

(PS) Ecorazzi is a combo of Eco for Green and Razzi for Paparazzi.  "News and gossip on celebrities and notables in support of the environment and humanitarian causes." Think Perez Hilton wearing Birkenstocks.  Everything that rhymes with Nazi doesn't deserve the name.  There's no reason to go after their site when they say they were "polled mobbed" which means a group comes in and stuffs the ballot box. All's fair in love and autism, friends. Michael, I'm sorry.  KS

TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d8357f3f2969e201053510cec3970b

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Vote For Jenny. Now.:

Comments

Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

It's kind of ironic she is calling us parasites, when she is the one injected her young child with parasites, Hmmmm.

We can't judge her for being uneducated in the subject of vaccines. She is young and obviously oblivious on the subject.

Maybe we should just stop warning everyone and be quiet for awhile and see what happens. Take care, everyone, we know the truth...don't we.

Lise

I guess I have been "feeding the trolls" at this "ecorazzi" site, and my question for Craig or any other AoA readers is what exactly is meant by the term "trolls" in this context? Is this a word that has taken on a specific meaning in relation to blogs, or is it just being used in a general sense to mean big ugly bloggers, so to speak?

I sometimes argue with these folks not in the hope of convincing them, but in the hope of conveying another side of the story to other readers and to the news personnel who manage the blog...

BTW, Jenny's votes went up to 11%. Still much less than she deserves, but a sizable increase anyway.

"And then it *hit me* like a ton of bricks: He's doing the 5,000 mile cross-country trek so he can avoid holding his wife's purse"

ok - just when i thought the purse thing dust had settled, there are 2 purse-holding references on this site today

first it was the man song
http://www.toilette-humor.com/the-man-song.html
now there's the "man bag"
http://www.manbag.com/

I thought that "we, the He-man Woman-haters club promise not to fall for this [purse] business because girls are the bunk."...?

Courage, my non-purse-holding friends...

"which think tank is behind the econazzi site anyway?"

Think Tank? Wow.

And Econazzi? Really? Did you just compare the site to Nazism?

Very sad play on words there, Barbara.

Re-posting Alan C's comment because I think it's very well thought out.

"I wonder why some people on this site are unhappy about people at a Science Blog (and I am one of them) taking part in the poll? After all, how we vote will be determined by what the scientific evidence says, which is why most of us voted for Amanda. If you think the scientific evidence actually supports Jenny then you should welcome the support of people who can be expected to understand that evidence more than the general population.

If we had voted the other way you would no doubt be very happy and use it as evidence that you are right, but when we don't you try to play it down as if it is irrelevant."


If the scientific evidence supported your side you would be welcoming the input of scientists from blogs they frequent.

To all of you Amanda Peet/Paul Offit followers:
Go ahead and vaccinate your kids... no one is telling you not to. Just don't tell me that my daughter is a parasite for withholding further vaccines after one of her children regressed following a single, thimerosal containing flu shot. Oh yeah, the vaccine was given just a week after he received his MMR, which caused him to spike a fever and break out in a measle-like rash! Maybe he would have come through it ok had his immune system not been on overload...who knows. But he changed from that day forward. A year later, the diet, supplements and chelation put him on the road back to us. Prior to his biomedical tratments, Speech, OT, Floor Time Therapy and a special needs pre-school did nothing to help him, developmentally. He was incapable of focusing enough to benefit. Today he is in a regular 1st grade with no supports... highly recovered. I really don't care if he never becomes fully "cured" or not, though I am happy to see that his progress is ongoing. Biomedical treatments healed him from the inside out! Once he began to feel better, his ability to learn, soared.

He will never receive another vaccine. It's up to my daughters whether or not the other children will continue to be vaccinated. But if this turns out to be the case, they have informed me that it will be done cautiously, sparingly and on a modified schedule. A single reaction from any of them, and any future vaccinations will be suspended as well.
See? Not all parents and advocates are anti-vaccine. Just damned cautious!!!! That's what happens when one of your own has been directly affected!!!

To Jenny McCarthy, I say "God Bless You, and don't ever stop advocating for our children!"

And to Amanda Peet... If Dr. Paul Offit, your vaccine advisor, offers to inject your child with the 10,000 vaccines that he claims are safe for an infant to handle, will you take him up on it
offering your child as the test case? I certainly hope not. She certainly deserves better than that. And if she has safely accepted the multiple vaccines given to her thus far, then great...continue to vaccinate her. Congratulations...she's among the majority of children who appear to effectively excrete toxins and possibly benefit from our aggressive vacination program. Just remember that for a subset of children, it's a game of Russian Roulette. Way too many of our kids have been the victim of the spin, my grandson among them.

"Educate before you vaccinate"

I AM amazed at how many dumb people there are on this subject. do some research for pete sake. do you know whats in your babys vaccine? YOU WOULD BE SHOCKED. I WAS. LOOK AT THE POISIONS THEY PUT INTO A NEW BABY WHO IS TRYING TO BUILD UP THEIR IMNUNITY. FOUR HOURS AFTER BIRTH. ANEW BORNED GETS A HEBITITUS B SHOT. TELL ME HOW CRAZY IS THAT? THIS BABY IS GOING RIGHT OUT AND HAVE SEXS.

which think tank is behind the econazzi site anyway?

(Pssst Craig: I was literally thinking about you yesterday wondering where the heck you were.

And then it *hit me* like a ton of bricks: He's doing the 5,000 mile cross-country trek so he can avoid holding his wife's purse.)


Craig, I was wondering what happened to you, glad you popped in. And how tantalizing you post is...can't wait.

Tom, why is it that studies that have ALL be debunked by heh CDC are still being held as truth to people like you? It's a joke. Except that it is not funny. The scientific evidence you speak of was recently debunked in a House of Appropriations Com, by none ote than JULIE GERBERDING herself.
Please, stop spreading useless info as fact!

Hey, Craig W.--

Nice to see you here again--you have been missed!

We're eager to hear about the study and results. . .give details when you can.

And, you're right, of course--don't feed the trolls!

Terri L.

P.S. Stagmom--love that cool head whilst all around you are losing theirs--and giving encouragement/hope/help for others as the nastiness and childish insults fly. Go, Kim :)

Chris, I got hit with comments similar to that on the LA Times site. But they were coming from one of those neurodiversity types who think it's just fine being "autistic" so therefore my child should have to be vaccinated so that she and others with impaired immune systems won't die. Uh, thanks to vaccines, my daughter now has an impaired immune system. Seriously, if any parent knew in advance that their child was going to have autism as a result of a vaccine, would that parent allow the vaccine and say autism is OK, it's not like it will kill you? No way. I'd rip out and donate my own organs for another child before I would knowingly offer up my own child. Her life and well-being are not mine to sacrifice, and had I known what vaccines would do to her she would not have received them.

Michael

“I remain objective to hearing both sides -- especially as a concerned future father with a kid on the way.”

A must read is the Simpsonwood meeting transcript, June 7-8,2000.

When I hear from parents of older kids I want to tell them "It's not too late!" Do you remember the story of the woman at the NAA conference last Fall who put her 40 something year old son on the the GFCF diet and he spoke his first words? Reba McIntyre! It's tragic that these parents did have the benefit of a Jenny in their lives - and so they really believe with their hearts and souls that there was nothing they could have done for their own kids. To learn they were wrong must be a double kick to the gut. Imagine the pain? So we need to help them along. Share our knowledge. Older people with autism did not have a door slam in their faces when they turned 12 or 16 or 18 or 21. There is ALWAYS hope to make life better. Reach out to them. Don't be surprised if many bite your hand. The wounds and guilt are so deep. But if only a handful accept some new ideas and help their adult children that's a very good thing.

Nancy,

You should have the last response patented (trademarked). You are sooooo right. Very well said. And this:

Whenever I read comments by parents whose ASD kids are 25+ years old, invariably they quote mainstream media and skewed CDC statistics that basically project their home situation onto others. Makes me wince, like seeing Grandpa do the Hustle.

...made me laugh out loud!


Thanks

it's high fructose corn syrup that is causing the epidemic. mark my words.

Many of the "no link" writers here are clearly out of the inside game, and are either naive, underinformed, misinformed or pathologically incapable of sympathy.

Whenever I read comments by parents whose ASD kids are 25+ years old, invariably they quote mainstream media and skewed CDC statistics that basically project their home situation onto others. Makes me wince, like seeing Grandpa do the Hustle.

Or other reductionist letters ask for the vaccine/autism issue in a nutshell. But these hit-and-run message boards are not the place where one should decide whether vaccines are injuring some children.

I keep trying to find an analogy that will help people understand how deeply offensive and it is to have the medical history of a vaccine-injured child dismissed as a tall tale. (Not to mention counterproductive.) And to add insult to injury, the latecomers give their SAGE ADVICE.

Having someone advise me to "trust the real scientists and doctors" is so indicative of wishful thinking rather than reality. Who's the judge of "real" -- their trade organization, the AMA & AAP?

And puh-leeeez, stop telling us to love our kids, as if we don't already. How presumptuously offensive.

And good God almighty, if "anecdotal evidence is no evidence," then Jenner would never have invented the smallpox vaccine. Unbelievable what crappy generalizations people will spew.

I don't understand a single argument here in support of vaccination caused autism. Is the claim more or less true because the poll was mobbed? Is the claim more or less true because of the pictures of the non-expert celebrities? Is the claim more or less true because of the vehement attitudes of commenters?

Heck I don't even understand McCarthy's significance within the debate. I mean, I own a dog but that doesn't qualify me to be veterinarian. However, I particularly like the comment about the study that can't be discussed for legal reasons. That's a sure sign of real science- it is predicated on legality. And of course, if it's called a study it CAN'T be wrong!

I wonder why some people on this site are unhappy about people at a Science Blog (and I am one of them) taking part in the poll? After all, how we vote will be determined by what the scientific evidence says, which is why most of us voted for Amanda. If you think the scientific evidence actually supports Jenny then you should welcome the support of people who can be expected to understand that evidence more than the general population.

If we had voted the other way you would no doubt be very happy and use it as evidence that you are right, but when we don't you try to play it down as if it is irrelevant.

Hey all of my friends here at AoA.

Kim and editors, we have been targeted by one of the "ScienceBlogs" and they are attempting to provoke us, something that is completely typical of their childish and idiotic lot. Just thought I would warn all of you not to feed the trolls.

Oh, and a little something about my absense.
I am involved in an independant study that, so far, shows some very surprising results (well, not for some of us). I can't give details at the moment because of legal reasons, but I will say that all of those f-ing assholes on the "ScienceBlog" sites are going to owe all of us a HUGE apology soon. I'll keep all of you posted with details as soon as I am able.

"And for a little balance, perhaps you would like to check out the deeply charming comments by Liz Finn, who hoped the mother of two children with autism who does not hold vaccines responsible would have another child who went on to develop autism.

Is it just me, or is that not vicious?"

Not any more vicious than what I was told once on a parenting message board. I was pretty much told that even if vaccines are causing all this autism and rise in autoimmune diseases, that that is okay

"And for a little balance, perhaps you would like to check out the deeply charming comments by Liz Finn, who hoped the mother of two children with autism who does not hold vaccines responsible would have another child who went on to develop autism.

Is it just me, or is that not vicious?"

Not anymore vicious than the mother who told me a few months back, on a parenting site that I visit, that even if vaccines are causing all this autism and rise in autoimmune disease, that that is okay because its "not like these things kill you" and it is for "the greater good". Wow. Just wow. So even if vaccines did hurt my daughter, her life is a throwaway piece of garbage in the eyes of society because she is still physically alive. So what if she cannot speak, cannot comprehend impulse control, will never get married, have a job, possibly live her whole life in an institution. Hey, she isn't dead.

Quite frankly, if I have to put up with deplorable comments like that from people, I have no problem delivering a few of them myself to that crowd. Tit for tat.

All internet polls on this subject need to be taken with a pound of salt. Once people from Neurodiversity (TM) latch onto something, they will not let go. Those scienceblog ranks are swollen with Neurodiversity members (led by King Orac) so this is no surprise. It's not as if spamming a poll will affect any change anyways. How about you guys go and talk to legislators?

Hey, Tom Carpenter...

Yes. You are.

A good dad, with a wonderful attitude and your son is very very lucky to have two such parents. Well done my friend.

It saddens me that people get so upset over this issue. My heart goes out to all autistic people and their families. My 27 year old autistic son has been both the biggest challenge and the biggest gift in my life. (And I got to keep my day-job - my wife gave up her singing and acting career.) But listen folks - be reasonable and compassionate. Parents are desperately looking for answers and for some hope. It is only natural that they will follow any lead even if it is a thin one. So we need to be gentle with them, and at the same time help them clearly understand that science and medicine are on their side. There is no conflict, there is no adversarial relationship. Don’t manufacture one. We have to get down to the facts and leave the emotions out of it.

Parents: you need to trust the real scientists and doctors. They have the real data, the real scientific evidence. They are working very hard to understand and treat autism. The so-called alternative stuff is mostly junk and some are even harmful. Don’t fall for it. Vaccines are most certainly NOT responsible for autism, besides the mercury-based preservatives have been gone for several years now – so there is absolutely no reason to not vaccinate your children. Parents of autistic kids: there is not much you can do to improve your child’s condition with diet and dietary supplements (herbal medicine). Except for one thing – but this is true for all kids – keep their blood sugar levels even. Don’t give them pop and candy at all; limit the sugar on foods. Don’t give them junk food or “fast” food. Don’t let them get overly hungry either.

What works exceedingly well, is accepting your autistic children as they are – and… lavishing them with love and attention. Be happy and enthusiastic around them, engage them constantly. Pull them into your activities, into the group, but with lots of love and enthusiasm. Don’t ever scold or discipline them – tell them what they are to do (with a calm happy face and voice), not what they are not to do. Join them in their world too – in a very calm and loving way. If they are sitting on the floor rocking, try doing that with them face-to-face. The fist time I tried this (when Ryan was about 5) he looked at me square in the eye for the first time in three years. That’s pretty awesome! By the way, 22 years later, he is a very communicative, happy, content young man, and a very good skier in Special Olympics (and dad gets to be an assistant coach on the team). Yes he’s still autistic and moderately retarded but he loves his job at Goodwill and they all love him, as we do. We are a happy trio.

Bottom line: To all my good buddies on the science blogs (and to other movie stars entering the fray): back off on the rhetoric and be kind. Jenny McCarthy is mistaken but she’s not an idiot. She, like all parents of autistic kids, needs help not criticism. However, all you parents: listen to your doctors and to the real scientists, not the hype from the alternative medicine and pseudo-science realm, and (sorry Jenny) not to famous people who are not experts. Remember these wise words (can’t remember from whom): anecdotal evidence is no evidence. In other words, the real medical scientific community, that does controlled double-blind studies and follows the rules of the scientific method, have all the real answers that are available so far and they will continue to find more real answers.

(BTW: I’m not a medical doctor – just a good dad.)

Having a close family member with autism, I think 1) I qualify to say that I DO know what it's like, 2) I've read numerous publications on the subject of the causes of autism, and 3) I am also familiar with what is put into infant vaccines. In the event you are unfamiliar with how the immune system works and, indeed, how vaccines work, spend a bit of time on Wikipedia, look for the .pdf sources from reputable journals. Read them. If we (biologists) do find a cure for autism, your child has to LIVE long enough to receive it from physicians. Wasting time and money on things that have already been disproven is NOT HELPING. Look at what happened in the UK after the MMR thing. Read up about Wakefield, it was a fraud that caused a panic because someone was paying him to FIND a link for a company that was suing MMR manufacturers. Diagnosing more people with a condition does not mean the condition is more prevalent.

Gatogorra :

"Yeah, it's clear by the photos who the editors of this webrag are on the side of-- they must have gone through thousands of stills to find the one shot where Jenny looked wan. The idiot regulars of this site are obviously voting on the pix, not the issues."

Of course!!! If Ugly Betty was advocating instead of Amanda Peet, I would surely forget everything about rational thinking and the scientific method and vote against vaccination.... Yeah, sure.

To Jim Marshall,

"...deeply opposed to comprehensively debunked pseudoscience putting children at risk..." What, like the _empirical_ science from such esteemed places like Columbia, Northeastern, Johns Hopkins, Univ. of Washington, Arizona State, etc. If you don't find these institutions reputable then you're a few frys short of a happy meal.

So, when AgeOfAutism tells people to vote, it's all fine and great. When ScienceBlog people do it, it's "[mobbing] the site" and they "get [called] out on it" - as if it's suddenly a bad behavior when "they" do it. Uh huh.

re: kat23

"3% for Jenny. I guess that's about right, only those affected........"

Understand the science? First, I don't know if I qualify to comment because I have a nephew who is autistic. Is that good enough? I think the science is pretty clear that any effect of vaccines or thimerasol (sp?) in causing autism is, at best, very small. Second, my nephew has been through some nasty treatment because of all the pseudo cures that have been proffered because of this faulty science.

Re: "poll-mobbing"

I hope you all realise that it simply demonstrates the pointless nature of online polling. Since typically the audience self selects, it bears no resemblance to the actual beliefs of the public.

Polls like this simply shouldn't be posted - they don't provide any meaningful data, though typically the people who post them proceed to use them to advance their position. Poll-mobbing simply points that lesson out - it doesn't establish a right and wrong position, merely the pointless nature of the poll itself.

If you want to look at the issue, the only way is to read the science. Look for double-blind studies, if possible. Look at meta-analysis, which can provide a better picture of a topic by combining the results of several smaller studies. Don't read articles knowing what you want to see, but learn how to read what the science is saying.

Now, it is up to 6% for Jenny.

Hi Michael,

Thanks for your post. I made the comment about the picture. If you look at your selections I think Amanda's picture is flattering and Jenny's is not. I assumed that was the intent. I appreciate the clarification. Though, I still think it makes Jenny look mean and not necessarily "angry" as you say was what you wanted to depict.

Appreciate you stating you are objective on the issue.

If people are 'vicious' as Terri Lewis alleges, you'll find that is because they are deeply opposed to comprehensively debunked pseudoscience putting children at risk. Those of us who oppose McCarthy do so because the facts do not bear out the claims made, not because we support big pharma or other lazy claims.

And for a little balance, perhaps you would like to check out the deeply charming comments by Liz Finn, who hoped the mother of two children with autism who does not hold vaccines responsible would have another child who went on to develop autism.

Is it just me, or is that not vicious?

I see those vile comments by Orac and understand why he hasn't cured breast cancer yet. Tell the factory to keep making those pink ribbons....

Whoa -- hold on there.

I'm the owner of the site, and by no means do I support Peet's position. The photos I chose were meant to convey anger on Jenny's part, not degrade her position.

If you look at our previous reports on this story, you'll see we've been quite supportive of McCarthy's position. I remain objective to hearing both sides -- especially as a concerned future father with a kid on the way.

Thanks to Age of Autism for the link!

It's up to 5% for Jenny now. GO VOTE!

Yeah, it's clear by the photos who the editors of this webrag are on the side of-- they must have gone through thousands of stills to find the one shot where Jenny looked wan. The idiot regulars of this site are obviously voting on the pix, not the issues.

Well, it's 4% for Jenny now.

But I made the mistake of looking at some of the comments.

Whew--those folks are vicious. Absolutely vicious.

Hahaha.... Hilarious. Whose site is that?

97% in favor of Amanda Peet? Oh...ok.

Love the picture of Jenny. The woman is so photogenic and they find probably the one pic where she doesn't look totally glam.

3% for Jenny. I guess that's about right, only those affected........

Verify your Comment

Previewing your Comment

This is only a preview. Your comment has not yet been posted.

Working...
Your comment could not be posted. Error type:
Your comment has been saved. Comments are moderated and will not appear until approved by the author. Post another comment

The letters and numbers you entered did not match the image. Please try again.

As a final step before posting your comment, enter the letters and numbers you see in the image below. This prevents automated programs from posting comments.

Having trouble reading this image? View an alternate.

Working...

Post a comment

Comments are moderated, and will not appear until the author has approved them.

@AgeofAutism Tweets

follow me on Twitter

SPONSORS

  • Health Choice Square
  • Canary final logo
  • active healing
  • VOR logo sidebar
  • Safeminds 2014 Logo
Age of Autism's Facebook Page