Talk:Jenny McCarthy

vaccine bias

Why do you have extensive quotes from vaccine proponents but never once do you list MDs, PhDs, or other researchers who agree with her opinion on vaccine harm? Why do you not cite the Zimmerman quote and testimony that clearly links vaccines to some cases of autism? I thought Wiki was objective but this is so slanted it reads like a NYT article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.168.112.125 (talk) 04:18, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

Because a large majority of doctors and other experts disagree with her, the idea is to explain what the scientific consensus on the issue is, not just to quote the rare scientist here or there who disagrees with this consensus. As for the Zimmerman quote, I don't know who Zimmerman is or what quote you are referring to, so I can't say if it should be in the article or not. Tornado chaser (talk) 05:14, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

And this majority is not just some random occurrence. It exists because there is no evidence for such a link. Andrew Wakefield's original preliminary study with 12 patients was rigged, and studies since then say the link does not exist.

Whoever Zimmerman is or was, science is based on studies and not on quotes anyway. See ipse dixit. --Hob Gadling (talk) 05:28, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

here's the study you are looking for proof: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30395948 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.100.154.230 (talk) 04:15, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

Sounds like Texan sharpshooter fallacy. Why would anyone look at "affiliative interactions" and find significant changes? That only makes sense in the context of also looking at many other parameters, which turned out not to be significant - voila, Texan sharpshooter.

Unless this study left an imprint in secondary sources, we should ignore it. (Wikipedia is based on secondary sources. Didn't you know that?) --Hob Gadling (talk) 08:04, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

Also humans are not sheep. Well, those not involved in cults, anyway. Guy (Help!) 10:28, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

Humans aren’t rats or monkeys either, yet we regularly use animal studies to evaluate something’s effect on a human. CMTBard (talk) 14:16, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

I agree, this page is ridiculously biased as seen by the immediate removal of even the smallest effort to keep the page in accurate, scientifically honest terms. CMTBard (talk) 14:28, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

Vaccine Skeptic vs. Anti-Vaccine activist

The first paragraph calls Jenny McCarthy an anti-vaccine activist but then quotes her as stating "I'm not anti-vaccine." Later the article quotes multiple sources in which she repeats that she does not consider herself to be an anti-vaccine. Maybe we can call her a "vaccine skeptic." — Preceding unsigned comment added by CarlSerafino (talk • contribs) 13:05, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

We call her what the reliable sources call her. Most climate change deniers or holocaust deniers call themselves something else. --Hob Gadling (talk) 08:15, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

I agree with Hob. Just because she does not refer to herself as an anti-vaccine activist doesn't mean she isn't one. TylerDurden8823 (talk) 07:44, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

I added sources that evaluate her claim not to be anti-vaccine. Spoiler: she's anti-vaccine. Guy (Help!) 09:18, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

We need to say what she calls herself, however. "According to her ...., she ...." . But after that, wae can say she was an antivax activist in an earlier year for which there is unquestionably reliable sources. To show she still is, we need such source for a years after her most recent quotation that she isn't. There are three situations to distinguish 1/she was in the past, but no longer is. 2/she was in the past, and still is, but has learned not to say so 3/she is using a different and narrower definition of the term than her critics use. We state the information. We have no business judging what she is, only what she says and what other people say.

We have no business judging what she is, only what she says and what other people say. Very well said. Tornado chaser (talk) 17:24, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

We are not judging, the sources are. They review her claims not to be antivax, and call baloney. Guy (Help!) 23:44, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

Most parents of vaccine-injured kids resent that label, just as parents of children with mental disabilities or developmental delays resent the terms “idiot” or “retard” (though those are still technically correct). Additionally many who are vaccine-hesitant for their own children have no problem with others vaccinating their children, they just have seen first-hand the harm they can cause (which is why we have VAERS and VICP), and how difficult it can be to get their child help, so they want everyone to at least know what possibly can happen from vaccines (ie they want truly informed consent). Who are we to force them to accept an inaccurate and perjorative label? CMTBard (talk) 14:20, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

overkill

It is not necessary to repeat here the details of why anti-vax advocates are considered wrong by all scientists. We have an article on that. In order to provide context, we do need to say somewhere that they are, once, with a good reference but without details. If we do more than just that, we look like we are editorializing. This is regardless of the harm that antivaxers do-- this is a blp, and NPOV always applies. for blps we do not over-emphasise or lkeep repeating negative information, any more than for a murderer we would have a paragraph or two explaining why murder is wrong.

For those who want to say more, and include information about why studies showing that vaccines are harmful are wrong, and so on, I ask: Does it make a stronger case for the scientific truth is we write an article that is completely matter of fact without using opprobrium , or if we write an article oriented to show that she's wrong. Let's say someone came here knowing nothing about the controversy--which would be more convincing? Let's say I read an article about a controversy about something in a country where I know very little, and I see an article explaining repeatedly why one of the sides is wrong. I and most people who have any familiarity with propaganda, will suspect that the argument is likely to be spurious or one-sided. The way to defend science is to present in in a carefully neutral terms. DGG ( talk ) 16:10, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

Except that Jenny McCarthy is probably the single most famous antivaxer on the planet, in terms of name and face recognition (or, as the source puts it, "the nation's most prominent purveyor of anti-vaxxer ideology"). There's an enormous amount of material about her pernicious influence, and far from separating it from her professional life she has consciously exploited her celebrity to promote the anti-vaccine cult. Guy (Help!) 23:42, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not for advocacy, not even for the correct view, and not even when you & I and almost all people with any knowledge in the field agree the incorrect view is dangerous. DGG ( talk ) 00:41, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

Vaccines are not settled and far from “all” scientists agree on it. You are showing your own bias there. CMTBard (talk) 14:13, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

yes they are. Guy (Help!) 22:31, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

Vaccines are settled. There is no debate. TylerDurden8823 (talk) 06:12, 9 August 2019 (UTC)

stop forcing your bias

Stop removing my references and my efforts to make this page more accurate. This is absurd. McCarthy never has said all vaccines cause all autism in all kids. She has said “vaccines can be a part of autism in some kids- such as my own son.” Let’s be accurate. I also wish to clarify why many parents resent the “anti vaccine” label, and added a citation as to why. Stop taking it out. You’re being a bully. CMTBard (talk) 14:27, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia is biased towards reality. This is a feature, not a bug. Guy (Help!) 22:29, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

Your insulting and demeaning responses show your bias. CMTBard (talk) 14:32, 9 August 2019 (UTC)

You make it impossible for anyone to disagree with you, as you remove all references in the article and ignore them in the Talk discussions. You are being narrow-minded and oppressive. CMTBard (talk) 14:33, 9 August 2019 (UTC)

"I'm not anti-vaccine, but..."

We have the usual push to include the fact that McCarthy claims not to be anti-vaccine. I don't actually mind including some commentary on this bogus claim, as long as it is base don reliable independent sources that point out it's not true. A collection of soundbytes presenting her worldview, or a sympathetic interview, don't cut it, because anti-vax is a WP:FRINGE view, and per WP:UNDUE we take care not to present fringe views without the context of reality-based discussion of their fringe nature. Especially when the fringe views kill babies. Guy (Help!) 09:05, 9 August 2019 (UTC)

You need to check your bias.

There have been no deaths due to delaying or spacing any vaccines in the US. That is also not the issue here.

The term “anti-vax” means that someone is against all vaccines. It does not mean that someone is in favor of safer vaccines or some vaccines or spacing vaccines out, or that children should be tested for compatibility with vaccines before they get them.

Your insistance on the use of a label which parents of vaccine-injured children (such as McCarthy) find offensive, and which is by definition inaccurate, is incredible. CMTBard (talk) 14:28, 9 August 2019 (UTC)

making sure we provide her own response to the derogatory & innaccurate term “anti-vaxxer” — this has been done and is no longer an issue. (but side note— if someone was of Indian descent and yet the media insisted on calling them “Black Ghetto”, and they responded repeatedly that they were in fact not African-American nor from a ghetto culture, and that they wanted to be called “of Indian” or “of Asian descent,” we wouldn’t say “well a reputable news source called you Black Ghetto, so not our problem.”. We would strive to use an accurate (and neutral) label, or at the very least give his response.)

Again, this has already been done. CMTBard (talk) 14:41, 9 August 2019 (UTC)

disputed idea not disproven

Go to the study which the CDC itself cites for disproving links between negative outcomes and vaccines- including but not limited to autism. I have included it in the article and you have removed it. The survey of dozens of studies, accepted by the CDC and done by the Institute of Medicine, insists that the links can neither be proven nor disproven as of yet. We cannot accurately call the question “disproven”. We CAN call it “disputed.” This should be a minor change — not a battle. The fact that you cannot cede a simple nuance is telling of your own bias. CMTBard (talk) 14:32, 9 August 2019 (UTC)

The report from IoM (now renamed “National Academy of Medicine”) says they can't come to a conclusion about a causal connection between vaccines and autism or other adverse events. For instance with the Dtap vaccine:

Conclusion 10.6: The evidence is inadequate to accept or reject a causal relationship between diphtheria toxoid–, tetanus toxoid–, or acellular pertussis–containing vaccine and autism.”

And

“The vast majority of causality conclusions in the report are that the evidence was inadequate to accept or reject a causal relationship. Some might interpret that to mean either of the following statements: Because the committee did not find convincing evidence that the vaccine does cause the adverse event, the vaccine is safe. Because the committee did not find convincing evidence that the vaccine does not cause the adverse event, the vaccine is unsafe. Neither of these interpretations is correct. “Inadequate to accept or reject” means just that—inadequate."

This is from the study, accepted by and referenced by the CDC.

(source: nap.edu/read/13164/chapter/2#21) CMTBard (talk) 14:47, 9 August 2019 (UTC)

Change the Summary of her beliefs

The summary of Jenny McCarthy’s beliefs and advocacy position remains inaccurate. It is not and never has been “vaccines cause autism.” It is “vaccines can contribute to autism in some children” or even “vaccines can contribute to autusm in vulnerable children.”

This is a discussion about accurately summarizing someone’s advocacy position/goals — as activist this is crucial to the article on her. I have insisted that her position needs to be stated as

“belief that vaccines can contribute to autism in some children” or, better yet, “belief that vaccines can contribute to autism in vulnerable children”— or at the very least, that “vaccines contributed to autism in her own child.”

NOT “belief that vaccines cause autism”— which is NOT her stated position or belief, as I have provided an extensive quote to support. The article referenced regarding her desire to be called “pro safer vaccine schedule” makes this very clear. Until you can provide a direct quote where she states “vaccines cause autism” or a similar summary, you must accurately summarize her view according to how she has expressed it. CMTBard (talk) 14:39, 9 August 2019 (UTC)