Wednesday, July 17, 2013

McCarthy's current positions on vaccines - from Rosie

I was asked to come up with McCarthy's most recent clear statement about vaccines. This is from 2011, but is the best response I could find in terms of her position on vaccines today. Anyone have anything directly from her (not her organization) that's more recent?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kt170kLc29U

Transcript:



JM: “Some children can’t handle all those shots. We’re talking about those kids. We’re an intelligent group of parents that know that we need a vaccine schedule. But, we think it’s overloaded. In 1983, the shot schedule was 10. Now we’re up to 38. Do we need Hepatitis B on the first day in life? No! What we’re saying is let’s move it. Let’s test the kids who can’t these types of assaults so early in life. We need a Plan B schedule. Slow it down.”
Rosie: Because so often kids on the spectrum have compromised immune systems, they have problems gasto-intestanally, right?
JM: “There’s a lot of kids who can’t methylate, which is detox, which is what everyone figures that a body can do. So what winds up happening is they become, their immune systems become overloaded. And they develop seizures, like Evan did. So we’re protected those kids who can’t handle them.”
Rosie: And I think that that’s a very valid statement to make.
JM: Me too!
Rosie: But you see people getting really crazy! Black and white!
JM: That’s it, and they can’t differentiate, and it screws up what we’re really trying to do here, protect these kids.


One note to Rosie: If kids on the spectrum have compromised immune systems, then they need everyone else to get vaccinated.
 



5 comments:

Anonymous said...

David,
Please interview my sister-in-law about how her immunization shots affected her as a child, and read her pathology report, or speak with her doctor. She was born a healthy child until her immune shots caused a bad reaction in her brain, now she is in a vegetative state. Medicine is run through private business, run by executives with the sole responsibility of maximizing shareholders wealth. There are "acceptable casualty percentages" within their matrix. As such, JM has a right to feel passionately about protecting her child. I am sure she annoys you when she speaks, as she can be a bit much, however, you can at least appreciate her good looks while she does it. Respect.

David Perry said...

Well, I can't interview your sister-in-law, talk to her doctors, or read the pathology reports, as you're anonymous.

There is no question that periodic severe reactions to vaccines do occur. What people like you need is to keep McCarthy out of the conversation, so we can have a rational, data-driven, conversation about it, rather than engaging in unexamined intuition-based conversations about what we "believe."

I'm very sorry to hear about your sister-in-law. She is exactly why JM is a problem, as it makes it harder for people like you to bring attention to real problems, rather than invented ones.

Gregomus said...

David, I just didn't want to leave a trail for hate mail. I am not hiding and would be happy to show you my face or personally communicate.

So you can agree that the pharma companies have an "acceptable amount of casualties"? Meaning; it costs less to pay off the victims of their product, or insure their risk of loss, than to recall their product? Or they at least throw it out there and see what happens, and when it costs more to pay for the loss(or after they loose in litigation), they recall their product. (not just a "Fight Club", insurance reference)

Guess who will waste my resources for "defamation" or become a "spectacle" when calling out the big pharma companies for not being honest or ethical about the hazards in their products? I am like the farmer defending themselves against Monsanto, and just like him, pockets are not deep enough to stand my ground.

Why does our government protect businesses like these, when other nations convict, fine and ban them? Ie, Gatorade in Germany, Monsanto in Europe, etc etc etc...

Ask yourself an honest question; does a corporation make decisions for what is best for our society or are they self serving? Isn't their only duty to maximize their shareholders return? When the laws inhibit the maximization of their profits, do they not break out the checkbook, go to Washington, and change the laws to specifically suit their needs? Why is a corporation considered an individual? What makes a rainbow, or a 67 Plymouth posi-track work? I don't know, it just does, man... But seriously? Why do I now sound like a conspiracy theorist or Marxist? I hate thinking I do, but I am a call-it-like-I-see-it kind of guy.

JM has a voice just like anyone else does, just like you have a voice to mock her for speaking passionately for what she believes in. Can't a mother have passion, and a voice to protect her child, obnoxious or inconvenient as it may be? Like it or not, we have a right to voice and protect ourselves in this country, period. No duty to remain silent or retreat, no duty to suffer at the hands of an aggressor.

Our representatives are supposed to be serving the interests of the people, not the interests of business, business is self serving, and must be kept in check(through commerce or the courts), or else they run a muck. But who cares? as long as cable is still on, the game tips off on schedule, and the pizza is still delivered...

I just want to see American citizens accept responsibility for their actions, stop blaming others for their bad decisions, stop the culture of entitlement, and businesses take ethics more seriously(or be severely punished for not).

Respectfully,
Greg
Business owner and confident we can improve our society.


David Perry said...

Greg,

I am not a fan of Big Pharma. I am not a fan of American corporate culture. But I am a believer in science. After Wakefield's claims, for example, many scientific organizations did extensive, large sample-size, testing, and demonstrated no positive correlation between vaccines and autism. Until there's better data, that's what I'm going with.

McCarthy has a voice. She has freedom of speech. She does not have freedom from the consequences of her speech. One consequence is to have people like me point out the damage she does, to suggest that when people hire her to promote her speech, they are now responsible for that damage.

As for vaccines - there's no question that some people have varying degrees of bad reactions. There's also no question that companies are working to make them safer. We could do more to isolate the FDA from corporate influence (and Congress, even more so).

But here's what I can you tell: The incidences of vaccine-related trouble are an order of magnitude (literally. Look it up!) smaller than the consequences of having these diseases run amuck in our population.

Finally - if you want to work for safer vaccines, the first thing you have to do is distance yourself from conspiracy theorists like McCarthy, as they gave sensible people trying to make vaccines safer a bad name.

Thanks for reading and commenting.

Gregomus said...

I think the jury is still out on science...