The pro-vaccine fanatics LOVE to portray themselves as victims. Aw. So tough to side with big corporations and big government. Takes a HUGE amount of courage and chutzpah!

The cartoon, or the-thing-that-wouldn't-die, is five years old at this point and took all of twenty-five minutes to do. A little satire on "increased recognition" rhetoric. People interpreted it however they wanted, but the message was pretty clear (course, crude, obvious, not dry or overcooked). For instance, 40 years ago or 140 years ago, no one would have noticed a large population of individuals so disabled that they can't speak, suffer from massively elevated rates of seizures, gut disorders, early mortality or who tragically die in drowning accidents at a rate of one a week in the warm seasons. Back in the day, no one would have drawn any dark or offensive meaning from this-- like the idea that there might be an epidemic going on. They thought it was "normal" in the free-love Victorian era but at last we recognize the condition.

Just like those stupid old-timey people wouldn't have noticed, say, a live, sleeping baby in a bowl in the middle of a holiday buffet. Things like that used to blend right in and drew no dark or terrible interpretations. The blender wasn't invented until the 1920's after all. That's progress for ya.

More of Offit's lies and misrepresentations exposed:

http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2014/02/06/supplements-safety-issues.aspx

Thank you, Katie!

I went to the original 2009 article, and am regretting it. It's one VERY long piece of propaganda, with an ode to High Priest Offit. It's extremely shoddy journalism, no matter what gender she is. There are factual errors everywhere, and a total lack of critical thinking.

One of many ironies: " 'The intention is ‘Shut up!’ and it has a chilling effect,' says Joanna Pearlstein, deputy managing editor at Wired."

Which was exactly what Amy Wallace's original article meant to do to those who question and criticize vaccines.

I finally found an internet link to Amy Wallace's NY Times editorial. I found it an appalling piece of journalism. Judge for yourselves:-
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/01/20/opinion/life-as-a-female-journalist-hot-or-not.html?_r=0

Wow, what a victim! Is Amy living in the real world? Has she seen the way virtually anyone with any visibility can be ruthlessly attacked in both words and pictures?

She should go onto some of the local New Jersey web sites and read what people say about Chris Christie! And Obama surely gets more hate than love in most comment sections. Re crude and demeaning talk about female body parts and sexuality, no one has been on the receiving end of more of that than Jenny McCarthy!

Anyway, this isn't the real topic she's getting at. She's again trying to paint people that question vaccine or GMO safety as crude, unsophisticated and yes, dangerous.

I see this as a desperate tactic. The walls are closing in on industry. Progressive places like Colorado and Oregon have declining vax rates and increasingly powerful activists demanding labeling for GMOs. Colorado has boldly legalized marijuana, in essence flipping off the federal government. People are taking back their health and challenging governmental and medical decision-makers, no longer trusting the "experts".

The Science Blog shills have taken to calling me mentally ill every time we meet. They have evidently met to discuss the best way to deal with my comments on vaccine damage and my daughter. They know I have graduate degrees and am both sincere and passionate in what I say, so they decided that the best strategy would be to show "compassion" for me, I am delusional, and completely mistaken in my beliefs. There are such good mental health professionals where I live, they beg me to go there to get the help I need. I am not angry, only amused that that's the best ammo they can come up with.

Thank u everyone.
Right Jenny McCarthy is targeted by so many bitter and ill informed medical professional and vaccine groups. It is one thing to be criticized for what you do say, that is fair game. But Jenny seems to be only criticized for beliefs that were never hers in the first place!

I always ask these people to show me 1 quote in which Jenny says she is "anti-vaccine," or the quote in which McCarthy tells people not to vaccinate. They cannot find one such quote. And I know they looked- and looked hard! Or the ridiculous accusation that Jenny is talking about autism and vaccine safety for publicity. She was relentlessly bashed for telling her child's story, no one wants that publicity. In fact it probably cost her jobs but she never complains.

Yes Jenny advocates for safer vaccines. So if the AAP or vaccine companies have a problem with that go ahead and say so. Say that you or your company do NOT want safer vaccines. Disagree with what she really said instead instead of libeling Jenny. They will not do this because they know that Jenny's real and public positions are common sense and reasonable, so vaccine makers create fake quotes and attribute them to Jenny.

Amy Wallace, on the other hard, is criticized for the poor quality of her reporting. She is NOT criticized because of her physical appearance. Oh my God, what projection, what a neat way of refusing t take responsibility for one's work.

Amy Wallace can eat it. The mainstream media is dying. They have made moves to close comments sections, insisting on facebook usage etc. and chosen to take industry stance on health matters. They have willfully ignored any news that contradicts the party line. Even The NYT has come under scrutiny even by its own journalists lately-
http://observer.com/2014/02/the-tyranny-and-lethargy-of-the-times-editorial-page/#ixzz2sRfL1Buu
Amy Wallace has chosen to be a pawn in their little corporate sponsor game and now she complains about it?
Funny you mention it but Jenny McCarthy or Dr. Wakefield, who have been publicly bashed and lied about have been nothing but class. In fact I hope they do seek legal options where needed.

The conversation about autism is often harsh and while that is not good, it is understandable.

People often have to shout when they are not being listened to.

Our opponents deny virtually every aspect of our experience and often resort to ridicule and abusive language to do so. In denying the increase in autism they have given those in authority the room and comfort to do nothing to prepare for coming humanitarian crisis. This is done for the single purpose of preventing a public conversation about WHY the autism epidemic is happening.

Wallace and Offit may be charming, sophisticated people. However, the fact is that they are involved in a course of conduct in which character assault, supression of meaningful investigation (Offit cheered the cancellation of the Congressional hearings on the VICP) and silencing debate are tools to protect their interests.

They have prevailed in the past but we will win the future.