Vote For Jenny. Now.

Another 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

Comments

[Chris]

"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.

[ND=science?]

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?

[Flonkbob]

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.

[Tom Carpenter]

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.)

[Jared]

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.

[BdN]

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.

[ObjectiveAutismDad]

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.

[BC]

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.

[Jim]

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.

[Epinephrine]

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.

[Gayle]

Now, it is up to 6% for Jenny.

[Andrea for Michael]

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.

[Jim Marshall]

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?

[nhokkanen]

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....

[Michael]

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!

[ObjectiveAutismDad]

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

[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.

[Terri Lewis]

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.

[Andrea]

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.

[kat23]

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