Jenny McCarthy Continues Killing Kids

Sunday, July 8th, 2012

With Jenny McCarthy in the news for appearing on the cover of this month’s Playboy and hosting a dopey reality show on NBC, I thought now was a good time to remind people that she is responsible for the death of hundreds of children as a result of her scientifically bogus anti-vaccination rhetoric.

After McCarthy’s son was diagnosed with autism in 2005, she became the unofficial spokesperson for the notion that certain vaccines caused autism.  Even though it was discovered that the study that linked vaccines to autism was invented after lawyers bribed the study’s author to write the report in hopes that they could strike gold by bringing lawsuits against drug companies, and even though McCarthy found out that her son was misdiagnosed and never actually had autism, she continues to preach against vaccinating children.

While McCarthy’s anti-vaccination campaign has never prevented a single case of autism, it has successfully caused hundreds of thousands of children to become ill and hundreds more to die from diseases that had been functionally eradicated for decades. Measles, mumps, rubella and whooping cough are all making a comeback thanks, almost exclusively, to McCarthy.

The website Jenny McCarthy Body Count continues to do outstanding work tracking the lives damaged and lost due to McCarthy’s continuous spewing of unscientific bullshit.

Read more in the editorial that I wrote in today’s Chattanooga Times Free Press.

And please, take the advice of doctors rather than the advice of a nude model when it comes to the health of your children.

- Drew Johnson

Digg it |  reddit |  del.icio.us |  Fark

92 Responses to “Jenny McCarthy Continues Killing Kids”

  1. #1 |  Adam W. | 

    Fuck this bitch.
    And wait, her kid was misdiagnosed? Hadn’t heard that.

  2. #2 |  Dave Krueger | 

    Bullshit. Jenny McCarthy does not kill kids.

    As much as I disagree with her position on vaccinations, I think she should be able to speak without being accused of murder. People raise their children the best they can and they make mistakes in judgement that result in death. That doesn’t make them murderers and it doesn’t make Jenny McCarthy a kid killer and it certainly doesn’t place at her doorstep the death of every kid who wasn’t vaccinated. McCarthy has no power to prevent vaccinations. Parents make that decision along with thousands of other decisions that affect their kids’ lives.

    I’m not a big fan of trying to shut down an argument with hysterical hyperbole and irrelevant personal attacks. The Jenny McCarthy Body Count website is an excellent example of low grade sleaziness that easily does more to harm the case against her than help it.

    “She is most well known for posing nude as a Playboy Playmate, for picking her nose on the MTV show Singled Out…”

    Yeah, that’s exactly the kind of high class relevant information I look for in a credible argument against someone. I wouldn’t touch that website with a stick, much less associate my name with it by praising it’s outstanding work.

    After you get past the giant body counters at the top of the page and scroll down into the fine print, you get this little disclaimer:

    “Is Jenny McCarthy directly responsible for every vaccine preventable illness and every vaccine preventable death listed here? No.

    Sorry folks. This is just another emotion-fueled lynch mob. Count me out.

  3. #3 |  Wesley | 

    I don’t think Drew was accusing McCarthy of murder. And I don’t think it’s fair to attribute these deaths “almost exclusively” to McCarthy. But there is a moral responsibility to have at least a basic knowledge of what the fuck you’re talking about before you go publicizing medical advice, especially about children. McCarthy and those like her spreading anti-vaccination bullshit are monsters who certainly do have a hand in the increasing health threat to children as a result of lower vaccination numbers.

    McCarthy hasn’t murdered anyone, and she has the constitutional right to speak her own (clearly wrong) opinion in public. But she absolutely does play a part in the resulting uptick in illness and death. She, like Andrew Wakefield and any others who profit off of harming children, deserves nothing but scorn.

  4. #4 |  Wesley | 

    Also, I agree fully that parents who buy into the anti-vax propaganda are not killers. I have a lot of sympathy for the parents who, after receiving horrible news about their little child that will dramatically alter the rest of their lives, easily fall into the anti-vaxxers’ lies about the evil bogeyman that caused it all. The parents are at a very vulnerable moment, and I imagine it’s very comforting to be able to angrily point the finger at something and yell “THAT caused my little baby harm,” instead of a cruel twist of chance. If they don’t vaccinate a future child based on those lies, I can only feel sorry for the child as well.

    That vulnerability and lack of knowledge of the parents only makes the leaders of the anti-vax movement all the more appalling.

  5. #5 |  Ghost | 

    The only ones responsible for their unvaccinated dead children are the parents who took the advice of a nude model over medical science.

    That being said, having a living autistic child is much more preferable to a dead measles-riddled child. Even if they proved their bullshit 1 in 110 claim, I would take that risk every damn time to save my child’s life.

    Penn and Teller did a Bullshit episode about this. Bottom line: even if vaccines DID cause autism, it’s still worth the risk. I’ve got an autistic nephew. Next time I see him, I’ll ask him if he’d rather be dead from whooping cough.

  6. #6 |  Scott Lazarowitz | 

    I’m sure that most readers of Radley’s blog are open-minded and not hysterical, and would consider these articles:

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/david-kirby/autism-vaccine-_b_817879.html

    http://foodfreedomgroup.com/2012/05/05/unspeakable-outrages/

    http://foodfreedomgroup.com/2012/04/26/major-new-issues-with-vaccines-are-surfacing/

    http://endoftheamericandream.com/archives/vaccines-and-autism-the-secret-that-you-are-not-supposed-to-know

    http://www.hslda.org/hs/state/pa/201203270.asp

    If people really value science and facts, then it would be better to consider those things and try not to respond to issues too emotionally. That’s just my opinion on that.

  7. #7 |  Chris in AL | 

    Anybody that listens to anything that some Hollywood bimbo preaches and makes decisions about their kid’s health by that information is actually dumber than the bimbo. She should have the right to say it, they should have the right to think she is right, and while it is sad we can take some solace in the fact that there is a little corner of the gene pool that is getting a little cleansing.

  8. #8 |  Dave | 

    I don’t even know who Jenny McCarthy is, but I have heard of Dr. Russell Blaylock. Dr. Blaylock is a neurosurgeon, who raises some very good questions on the issue. I do question the wisdom of giving infants so many vaccines, in particular the hepatitis B at birth. The real important issue is the ability of parents to choose whether vaccines are safe and effective.

  9. #9 |  (B)oscoH, Yogurt Eater | 

    Well yeah, but she is phenomenally hot.

  10. #10 |  damaged justice | 

    Dr. Andrew Wakefield had his career destroyed, apparently not for being an anti-vaccine kneejerker (the popular version), but for having the audacity to state that perhaps it was not a good idea to administer the 3 components of the MMR vaccine all at the same time, and that perhaps it would be safer to do so individually. It would appear that the state’s reaction was to professionally destroy him, and the vaccine makers to remove the individual components from the market so that parents could no longer choose that option.

    The state is not your friend, and not all scientists are honest.

  11. #11 |  Bill Poser | 

    People like Jenny McCarthy deserve criticism because they exploit their celebrity status to exert disproportionate influence on issues which they do not understand. Having large breasts and being willing to be photographed nude did not give her any understanding of the causation of autism. It’s the flip side of the ad hominem argument, and just as illegitimate.

  12. #12 |  Lefty | 

    If I incite someone to do something and that action (or inaction) directly leads to death then the I would, at lease in part, be responsible for those deaths.

  13. #13 |  Matthew Bilder | 

    Re: #9. Wakefield was professionally discredited not because he suggested changing vaccination schedules. It was because he knowingly published fraudulent data (he lied), forming the basis for flawed and intentionally misreported results, while on the (undisclosed) take from a personal injury attorney who (get this) provided the kids for Wakefield’s study. They were his plaintiffs!

    The state is not always your friend, but in this case the state acted against Wakefield relatively late in the game; the Lancet and his colleagues were the fisrt to catch on.

  14. #14 |  el serracho | 

    nope.

    this nitwit is not responsible for a single death (that i know of). the idiot parents to look to washed up celebs for medical advice are.

    this is a dumb dumb dumb argument; i thought libertarians were the party of personal responsibility.

  15. #15 |  Leo | 

    Can people stop talking about McCarthy’s nude modeling? It doesn’t give her any expertise on autism and vaccinations (or anything else besides nude modeling), but it also doesn’t disqualify her from speaking about this issue (even if she’s wrong). The whole “doctors versus nude model” thing is really dumb.

  16. #16 |  Krishan Bhattacharya | 

    Well, this piece and the Body Count are a bit over top. McCarthy is not *personally* responsible for those deaths, as much the parents who fail to vaccinate are.

    But I agree that her campaign is morally irresponsible. Still not as bad as the Vatican’s lies about vaccines in Africa, which has caused polio to spread back across the continent. THAT campaign has lead to literally millions of deaths.

  17. #17 |  Les | 

    #9, the popular version isn’t that Dr. Andrew Wakefield had his career destroyed for being an anti-vaccine kneejerker. The popular, and objectively true version is that Dr. Andrew Wakefield had his career destroyed because it was demonstrated that he committed fraud.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andrew_Wakefield#Fraud_and_conflict_of_interest_allegations

    And even if he hadn’t committed fraud, his claims that the MMR vaccine was dangerously administered have been demonstrated to be false.

    Just because “the state is not your friend,” it doesn’t mean that we should ignore objective evidence in favor of baseless conspiracy theories. The government does so many terrible things that are true that there’s really no need to make stuff up.

  18. #18 |  cjp | 

    @damaged justice:

    Wakefield did not have his medical license revoked for asking that the MMR vaccine be administered in 3 separate doses. He had it revoked for the outrageous scientific fraud he committed in his paper concluding that vaccines can cause autism, for subjecting autistic children to unnecessary invasive medical procedures, and for acting unethically and without approval of an IRB. This has all been investigated and documented to death. The guy is the opposite of a martyr.

  19. #19 |  John David Galt | 

    @cjp: It certainly was that phony study which cost Wakefield his license to practice medicine.

    But what I want to know is why the process of justice stopped there. We know that British solicitor (lawyer) Richard Barr *hired* Wakefield to smear MMR vaccine and paid him £435,000 to do it — so why does Barr still have his license to practice law?

    My source is the reporter who broke the story: http://briandeer.com/mmr/lancet-summary.htm

  20. #20 |  Fremdfirma | 

    People have a right to an opinion – as already said here, this smacks of lynch mob mentality which does not belong here in Mr Balkos baliwick, and I though this place above that sort of thing.

    And while maybe not much of it, there’s some cause for concern for a number of factors not limited to preservatives and/or adjuvants, like the vaccine induced polio outbreaks in africa – this amongst a population already skeptical of vaccines due to suspicion of experimentation and whatnot, leading to a really bad situation since without any significant level of trust (or cause for it) in those trying to vaccinate down there, it’s just not going to happen.

    There’s also things like the Gardasil fiasco, and Baxter mailing live virus mislabelled as vaccine, in spite of BSL3/4 precautions which should have precluded that by accident – and some folk voiced the suspicion it might not have been.

    Tamiflu and Rumsfeld, that’s another one, which also goes back the 1976 swine flu panic, Rumsfeld again mind you, and a vaccine that killed more people than the swine flu did.

    So there is cause for skepticism, but mainly folk should be allowed to evaulate the risk versus benefit for themselves, without knee-jerk lynch mobbing people who QUESTION the establishment.

    Finally, I give you this – what was the incident which sparked the downhill slide which lead to Maryanne Godboldo firing that fateful shot into the ceiling and starting a standoff with the cops, something that in the end was not only completely justified, but also exposed the State and it’s agents to be absolutely out of line ?

    Anyhows, folks have a right to their opinion, and to voice it, whether we like it or not, and the moment we try to take it from them, we become the very thing we claim to stand against.

    And I thought we were better than that, here.

  21. #21 |  Other Sean | 

    This is one story that nobody ever gets right.

    The real scandal is not in the antics of a useful idiot like Jenny McCarthy, really not even in the fraud of Andrew Wakefield.

    What got everyone panicking about autism in the first place was an explosion in the rate at which it was reported – an explosion that had nothing to do with any change in its rate of incidence.

    Even in the good old days, diagnostic criteria for autism were loose and deeply unscientific (though hardly more so than all the other unscientific criteria in the DSM). But for who knows what reason, autism got picked to be a big winner in the late 1990s, and it became a puncture-proof disease bubble for the modern mental health industry.

    Here’s how much of a boom it was: if you could somehow have bought stock directly in the rate of autism back in 1997, you would have earned a five-fold return on your money by 2008.

    Perhaps that explains part of its appeal for the medical community. But the temptation for parents is even easier to understand. Under today’s protocols, there are millions of children who would have been diagnosed with mild mental retardation if they were born 20 years ago, but who are now more politely and encouragingly classified as autistic.

    And what parent wouldn’t prefer that, given the horrible choice?

    So the real scandal isn’t the anti-scientific fraud perpetrated by Jenny McCarthy as a public health blowhard, it’s the pseudo-scientific fraud perpetrated against her as the parent of child misdiagnosed with autism.

    (And apart from the fact this particular nude model is dead wrong, I’ve got no general objection to taking medical advice from nude models.)

  22. #22 |  Stephen | 

    I blame the parents. Have they missed out on all the blonde jokes? Why would they listen to this idiot?

  23. #23 |  C. S. P. Schofield | 

    1) People have the right to their opinions, however stupid.

    2) People have the right to express their opinions, however stupid, unless they are asserting as fact that which is provably wrong and even then I am leery of censoring them in most cases.

    3) People who hold opinions based on fear-mongering, conspiracy theorizing, and Superstition, and who spread them broadcast based on their personal fame, have the right to have their monumental stupidity trumpeted from the rooftops, and the consequences of their nitwittery stuck to them with epoxy.

    By leveraging her Fame, which is based on a combination of excellent genes and no modesty, to spread a message she was not qualified to understand or judge McCarthy has contributed to many unnecessary and preventable deaths. For this she deserves to be pilloried and made fun of. She has a right to express her (moronic) opinion and we have a right to call her the Platonic Ideal of a Dumb Blonde for doing so.

    Pity that so little progress has been made in applying the same standard to, say, Rachel Carson. Who, by spreading junk science about DDT, has at least partial responsibility for something like 500,000 to 2,000,000 excess malaria deaths world wide every year since 1973; a death toll that puts her on a level with mass murderer superstars like Stalin and Mao.

    And, no, I am not kidding.

  24. #24 |  Felix | 

    So I guess Stalin, Hitler, Mao, and a lot of others didn’t really kill millions of people. Huh. Learn something new every day.

  25. #25 |  Felix | 

    And I guess it’s ok for Jenny McCarthy to use her reputation and Playboy nudity fame to authenticate her message, but not for anyone else to use her reputation and Playboy nudity fame to repudiate her message. I’m going to have to get up to date on this here tubes netiquette ethics thing.

  26. #26 |  LivingPre911Still | 

    This is all a reach… my brother believes the same B.S. and don’t get him started on flouride in the water… but Jenny has more redeeming qualities… meanwhile back to the real world… Why are so many kids being born Autistic??? What is it 1 in 50??? This is epedemic…

  27. #27 |  Dave Krueger | 

    #22 Felix

    So I guess Stalin, Hitler, Mao, and a lot of others didn’t really kill millions of people. Huh. Learn something new every day.

    The difference between Stalin/Hitler/Mao et al, and McCarthy is that the former had the power to send people to their deaths and they used it. McCarthy is simply speaking out and people are believing her. Such are the hazards of a free country. Would you rather have it some other way?

    #23 Felix

    And I guess it’s ok for Jenny McCarthy to use her reputation and Playboy nudity fame to authenticate her message, but not for anyone else to use her reputation and Playboy nudity fame to repudiate her message.

    Don’t be silly. Of course it’s ok. I personally just don’t want to join you and her in that particular gutter.

  28. #28 |  (B)oscoH, Yogurt Eater | 

    Other Sean nails it: Under today’s protocols, there are millions of children who would have been diagnosed with mild mental retardation if they were born 20 years ago, but who are now more politely and encouragingly classified as autistic.

    I can attest to the fact that a generation ago, millions of kids were mildly retarded. I went to public schools with many of them. Today, many have successful careers as meter readers, IT guys, traffic cops, and politicians. So it’s not nearly as bad a diagnosis as it might seem.

  29. #29 |  Leon Wolfeson | 

    @19 – “Mildly retarded” was a death-knell for any kind of academic career.

    High-Functioning autism or Aspergers (or in some cases dyslexia, depending) diagnoses don’t do that, they’re treated and compensated for, behavioral therapy has great success with marginal cases.

    You keep on fighting science, especially mental health science. Gotta keep those nasty disabled down!

  30. #30 |  C. S. P. Schofield | 

    Felix,

    Stalin and Mao killed or had killed tens of millions of people. The ‘ban’ on DDT, plus the pressure on third world countries not actually part of the ban to NOT use it are estimated to have killed between half a million and two million people PER YEAR since 1973. 2012-1973= 39 years. 39 times half a million is 19.5 million. 39 times two million is 78 million. So between 19.5 million and 78 million people died for junk science driven by Rachel Carson and her SILENT SPRING.

    To my mind that put Carson on the same revolting level as Stalin and Mao, and surpassing a certain Austrian Corporal whose obsession with junk science only slaughtered 10 million.

    How you got “So I guess Stalin, Hitler, Mao, and a lot of others didn’t really kill millions of people. ” out of my initial post baffles me.

  31. #31 |  C. S. P. Schofield | 

    Leon Wolfeson,

    Since my father was a Professor, I lived in and around academia for the first twenty or so years of my life. If mild retardation is the death-knell of an academic career, there are scores of Provosts, Deans, and Department Heads to whom this will come as something of a shock.

    Of course they may have had some kind of mandatory lobotomy upon going into administration…..

  32. #32 |  Chris Mallory | 

    Why not mention the number of children who have died from reactions to vaccines? Some sources put it at 2000 for the past 6 years.

    As for the various diseases making a comeback, you might look at the role our open borders have in bringing disease to America. Diversity kills in many ways, disease is just one of them.

  33. #33 |  C. S. P. Schofield | 

    Chris Mallory,

    And here we get into a discussion of pre-vaccine disease rates and the benefits of herd immunity. I’m not really qualified, but if you are I will read.

    I do know that back in the early 1980′s I moved into an apartment in Columbia MD, and the local advertising-plus-a-little-news paper had evidently been hosting a long running letter-debate on the side effects of polio vaccines. That debate came to a screeching halt with a sulphurous letter from a Doctor who was old enough to remember the waves of polio cases that once swept across the country every summer. His position was essentially that before he would face that again he would sacrifice the same number of children who suffered adverse reactions Aztec style with a stone knife. There followed a cowed silence in the letter column (at least on the subject of vaccines).

  34. #34 |  Dave | 

    Why not mention the number of children who have died from reactions to vaccines? Some sources put it at 2000 for the past 6 years.

    Be a champ and site those sources, would you?

  35. #35 |  Felix | 

    Dave Krueger — if we blame Stalin, Hitler, and Mao because they ordered the killings, but not Jenny McCarthy because people have a choice, is “just following orders” now a valid excuse? Does that excuse the crowd yelling “jump!” to the guy on the window ledge? There’s certainly a difference between them, but to deny any blame on Jenny McCarthy is as ridiculous as assigning all blame to Stalin, Hitler, and Mao.

    C.S.P. — how you thought my comment was directed at you is beyond me, especially as you seem to agree except for wanting to put Rachel Carson in the Hall of Fame above Hitler.

  36. #36 |  Fascist Nation | 

    Drew, Drew, Drew. Tsk, tsk. I agree with you but you really kicked over the ant hill with this crowd. Besides she has better tits than you.

  37. #37 |  Omri | 

    “Dr. Andrew Wakefield had his career destroyed, apparently not for being an anti-vaccine kneejerker (the popular version), but for having the audacity to state that perhaps it was not a good idea to administer the 3 components of the MMR vaccine all at the same time, and that perhaps it would be safer to do so individually. ”

    No, he had his career destroyed for shoving a painful probe up the ass of each of several autistic kids, without proper oversight from an institutional review board, then sending the samples he got from the probes to a lab that mishandled the samples causing a false-positive result on a test for measles DNA, and not reporting that last all important detail.

    Wakefield is a fraud. He is living proof that as you say, not all scientists are honest.

  38. #38 |  Other Sean | 

    Leon #28,

    This time you’ve really gone full autism on me. Never go full autism.

    What limits a child’s scholastic potential isn’t being classified as mildly retarded, it’s, you know, actually being mildly retarded.

    When doctors started reclassifying a few million children each year as autistic just because it sounded better, they created the illusion of a fresh epidemic. People demanded an explanation, and since no one was about to tell them the truth, they were left with no choice but to invent a few bad explanations.

    That’s how you end up with people taking medical advice from a clown like Jenny McCarthy.

  39. #39 |  Omri | 

    “Dr. Andrew Wakefield had his career destroyed, apparently not for being an anti-vaccine kneejerker (the popular version), but for having the audacity to state that perhaps it was not a good idea to administer the 3 components of the MMR vaccine all at the same time, and that perhaps it would be safer to do so individually. ”

    No, he had his career destroyed for shoving a painful probe up the ass of each of several autistic kids, without proper oversight from an institutional review board, then sending the samples he got from the probes to a lab that mishandled the samples causing a false-positive result on a test for measles DNA, and not reporting that last all important detail.

    Wakefield is a fraud. He is living proof that as you say, not all scientists are honest.

  40. #40 |  Omri | 

    “Dr. Andrew Wakefield had his career destroyed, apparently not for being an anti-vaccine kneejerker (the popular version), but for having the audacity to state that perhaps it was not a good idea to administer the 3 components of the MMR vaccine all at the same time, and that perhaps it would be safer to do so individually. ”

    No, he had his career destroyed for shoving a painful probe up the ass of each of several autistic kids, without proper oversight from an institutional review board, then sending the samples he got from the probes to a lab that mishandled the samples causing a false-positive result on a test for measles DNA, and not reporting that last all important detail.

    Wakefield is a fraud. He is living proof that as you say, not all scientists are honest.

  41. #41 |  Omri | 

    “Dr. Andrew Wakefield had his career destroyed, apparently not for being an anti-vaccine kneejerker (the popular version), but for having the audacity to state that perhaps it was not a good idea to administer the 3 components of the MMR vaccine all at the same time, and that perhaps it would be safer to do so individually. ”

    No, he had his career destroyed for shoving a painful probe up the ass of each of several autistic kids, without proper oversight from an institutional review board, then sending the samples he got from the probes to a lab that mishandled the samples causing a false-positive result on a test for measles DNA, and not reporting that last all important detail.

    Wakefield is a fraud. He is living proof that as you say, not all scientists are honest.

  42. #42 |  Omri | 

    “Stalin and Mao killed or had killed tens of millions of people. The ‘ban’ on DDT, plus the pressure on third world countries not actually part of the ban to NOT use it are estimated to have killed between half a million and two million people PER YEAR since 1973. 2012-1973= 39 years. 39 times half a million is 19.5 million. 39 times two million is 78 million. So between 19.5 million and 78 million people died for junk science driven by Rachel Carson and her SILENT SPRING.”

    You clearly have not read her book.

    It does not call for a DDT ban.

    What it does say is that DDT should not be used for field spraying, and should be reserved only for anti-mosquito spraying, so that there would not be resistance for ming against it.

    To my mind that put Carson on the same revolting level as Stalin and Mao, and surpassing a certain Austrian Corporal whose obsession with junk science only slaughtered 10 million.

  43. #43 |  Leon Wolfeson | 

    @36 – Ah yes, keep up the slurs. “Full Autism”. You evidently hate disabled people, and it shows. Keep on classifying people as “retarded” so you can justify your bigotry against them!

    (AMG, scientists actually worked out what was wrong with people, and ways to deal with that. Can’t be allowed for the 99%!)

  44. #44 |  Dave Krueger | 

    Ok, so now that we’ve established that exercising one’s right to free speech is no different than ordering the killing of millions of people, what’s next on the discussion agenda?

  45. #45 |  Resistance | 

    .Gov would never lie and say something that is inherently unsafe is “safe” now would they?
    http://www.bolenreport.com/Mark%20Geier/foiasuit6.htm

  46. #46 |  Fremdfirma | 

    Just as an aside – what concerns me about all this, most of all, is that Big Pharma and Politicians HAVE exploited and demeaned this branch of medicine, and folks without any medical training being allowed to make medical decisions (in the same way as schools forcing drugs on kids, etc).

    I’ve no issue with vaccination itself beyond the notion of making it as safe and reliable as possible, aiming for zero casualty rather than acceptance of collateral damage – cause that term is especially harsh when you’re related to one of the collaterals, right ?

    No, what concerns me is that the gamesmanship, exploitation, profiteering and fearmongering is going to destroy public confidence to the point where if there ever *IS* a real, valid pandemic (as opposed to constant booga-booga) the well-deserved skepticism is going to turn right around and bite us on the tail pretty hard.

    THAT is what concerns me, ergo the focus should be on making these things above reproach instead of allowing Politicians and Big Pharma to keep doing things to justify that skepticism, yes ?

    Plus, I am also a bit put out by seeing an actual hit-piece (cause that’s what this is once you strip away the excuses) on this blog – you do not defend freedom by putting torch to it, and H.L. Mencken had some words about “defending scoundrels” one would do well to heed.

    Or would you rather tell me that none of you ever held an opinion that was at one time or another very unpopular and in opposition to so-called conventional wisdom, then ?

    When we defend the rights of fools and scoundrels, we also defend our own.

  47. #47 |  Other Sean | 

    Leon,

    Oh, I never really meant to suggest you were in possession of anything less than the fullest mental capacity. Stubborn, sho’, retarded, no!

    And for the record I don’t hate disabled people. I would, mind you, but I’m so busy putting children to work in coal mines, tearing health insurance cards from the arthritic hands of war widows, using capital to squeeze labor (and not metaphorically: I mean actually putting workers beneath heavy machines), plus a whole lot of mustache twirling and tying of young damsels to unregulated railroad tracks.

    It isn’t easy, but the pitiful dreams of the 99% won’t just crush themselves, now will they? I simply don’t have time to spare hating the disabled.

  48. #48 |  Jeff | 

    Pity that so little progress has been made in applying the same standard to, say, Rachel Carson. Who, by spreading junk science about DDT, has at least partial responsibility for something like 500,000 to 2,000,000 excess malaria deaths world wide every year since 1973;

    The push to eradicate malaria fell apart several years before bans on the agricultural use of DDT started showing up. And given the rise of DDT-resistant mosquitoes before the first ban, those bans are probably the reason anti-malaria uses of DDT have been so effective for so long (with India being the poster child on that front).

    I’m certain that stopping agricultural uses of DDT resulted in human deaths, but I’m equally certain that keeping DDT effective for use against malaria has saved lives. I don’t think it’s possible to put numbers on either of those.

  49. #49 |  daveG | 

    Aren’t more of you guys Lew Rockwell fans. He had Wakefield on his radio show recently, and certainly supported the man. Anytime you give a child a vaccine there is a possibility it will cause harm. Road to hell paved with good intentions, leave well enough alone, and don’t snip shorty’s pecker either.

  50. #50 |  Aaron | 

    So.. what are we to believe then? The studies paid for by the pharma companies that make and sell the vaccines (and now under litigation with one paying billions in fines and others being investigated for fraud) or studies that have been debunked by mainstream “science” (also supported by said pharma corps)?

    Oh, and read those studies involving the MMR “outbreaks” you’re citing, Drew. Most of the kids getting sick WERE VACCINATED.

    This story has no place on The Agitator and is pure hype meant to get website hits. Thanks for ignoring facts and reporting blatantly biased and unsubstantiated opinion, Drew and Radley.

  51. #51 |  Robert Newton | 

    This article is a disgrace to this usually very good website. The author give the impression of being on a very drunken rant determined to not let facts get in the way of his diatribe.

    Shame for publishing such garbage.

  52. #52 |  Omri | 

    “Aren’t more of you guys Lew Rockwell fans. He had Wakefield on his radio show recently, and certainly supported the man.”

    I did DNA tests (Southern blots, to be specific) in college at the same time Wakefield was doing his study.

    So I know first hand that what he did would have had me flunking out of school. He is a fraud, pure and simple.

  53. #53 |  Nickp | 

    CSP Schofield:
    Omri’s point about field spraying is critical. Like any other pesticide, mosquitoes evolve resistance to DDT, and DDT resistant populations of mosquitoes were observed as early as early as the mid 1950s. Banning of agricultural field spraying of DDT extended the usefulness of the pesticide in mosquito control. In the absence of the agricultural ban, DDT would almost certainly be completely useless now.

    So, unless your death calculation includes the declining effectiveness of the pesticide as resistance increases and the affects of agricultural spraying on malaria control, it isn’t worth the pixels it’s displayed on.

  54. #54 |  Cynical in New York | 

    #48

    Yes I’m pretty plenty of us here read Lew Rockwell.com (myself included) but that doesn’t mean we all agree with everything Rockwell has to say or has on his website. Yes it’s known that his site has put up articles in support of the anti-vaccine movement but also some of his writers argue that vaccinations should be ultimately up to the parents and not be forced onto them by the state. I myself support vaccinations but I can at least agree that it should be a parental decision vs being forced by the state.

    In addition Rockwell frequently has articles by Paleocons Pat Buchanan and Paul Gottfried. As I’ve said many time I openly hate Paleocons and view their anti-war and anti-patriot act views as a means to an end as they support statism in other ways. I view Buchanan’s latching on Ron Paul’s movement as attempting to remain relevant after his failed presidential campaigns. Buchanan never got the amount support Ron Paul did and he never will.

  55. #55 |  albatross | 

    Frem:

    Tradeoffs are a part of reality, and there are no choices wrt vaccination that don’t involve collateral damage. If nobody gets vaccinated against contagious diseases, then nobody will have a bad reaction to a vaccine, there will never be anyone made sick by a contaminated batch of vaccines, etc., but then a whole lot more people will get sick from measles or chicken pox or polio or whatever. If you vaccinate people against those things, a few will have some bad reaction to the vaccine, occasionally someone wil screw up somehow and kids will get sick from it, but a far fewer people will get measles, chicken pox, polio, etc. This is the same as the situation with any other kind of medicine–lots of peoples’ lives have been saved by antibiotics, but some people die from allergic reactions to their antibiotics, or have their healthy gut flora nuked and end up with awful problems.

    Wanting a no-tradeoffs world is a common thing, but it’s not the world we live in, and the idea of a no-tradeoffs world is commonly used to sell people snake oil, both individually and as companies and governments.

    What we want, ultimately, is some reason to believe that the tradeoffs being made make sense, both for the whole society and for us as individuals. Most people have no hope of evaluating medical or other scientific evidence on their own, for lack of time, training, interest, and intelligence. Even people who can evaluate that evidence can’t evaluate it all–there are only 24 hours in a day, and smart people usually have other work we’re being paid to do, and other interests like spouses and kids and hobbies.

    This is one place where the manifest unreliability of elite institutions (like universities, government agencies, and big media organizations) really bites us in the ass. A lot of those institutions have spent their credibility on short-term political or social goals of their owners/managers. Listening to those institutions in the last few years, you came to understand that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction and was an imminent threat to the US, that what the US did to prisoners was harsh questioning or enhanced interrogation, but never torture (even when it was torture when someone else did it), that no civilians have died in drone strikes in several years, that the tea party movement was basically all crazy racists with guns playing at being revolutionaries, that the occupy movement was basically all unemployable drugged up rich kids playing at being hippies, etc. You learned that the Duke Lacrosse team was all rapists, and that this big white guy (who turned out to be a rather small hispanic guy) shot a little black kid (who turned out to be a pretty big black kid), and any number of other bits of spin and BS optimized to spin reporting toward a desired worldview.

    And when all that stuff turned out to be BS, you may have remembered that. And then, when all the respected sources of information in your society told you (correctly) that vaccines as used in the US are actually quite safe and much safer than not being vaccinated, it was easy to assume that was BS, too. Why not? The New York Times and the EPA and the local police demonstrably will lie to you when they are ordered to by their management or it’s in their interests.

    Credibility, once spent, is very hard to get back. This is a lesson we are going to be learning (and paying for) for a long time.

  56. #56 |  Mykeru | 

    @#22 C. S. P. Schofield

    “1) People have the right to their opinions, however stupid.”

    No, actually, they don’t, even if you adopt the most liberal and woolly definition of whatever constitutes “an opinion”. Of course, the looser you make an opinion, the less compelling it would be. In which case it’s like saying “Everyone is entitled to their own delusional bullshit”.

    When people claim everyone has a right to “their opinion”, what they are trying to sneak in the door is the idea that people either have a right to their own fact-free beliefs, or, even worse, their own facts and fraudulent evidence based on those fraudulent facts.

    Horseshit. There is rules for evidence both legally and philosophically, both of which are in the scope of epistemology where lines of delineation are drawn for justification for beliefs: Empiricism, induction, deduction, internal consistency, adherence to the body of established fact. C.G. Hempel’s freaking hypothetico-deductive notion of confirmation. That kind of thing.

    When someone claims axiomatically that “everyone is entitled to their opinion (evidence, facts, whatever)”, I guess the person making that claim thinks that ends the argument.

    Actually, that’s just the beginning.

    My next question would be “Really? Where did you get that fucking stupid idea?”

  57. #57 |  Factless, Emotional Tirade Against Anti-Vaccine People » Scott Lazarowitz's Blog | 

    [...] comment on this post by Drew Johnson on the Radley Balko blog didn’t get approved, probably because I included [...]

  58. #58 |  Jeff | 

    Well said, albatross, all the way through.

  59. #59 |  Difranco | 

    The Autism link is getting stronger as scientists look into the issue:
    University of Pittsburgh
    http://www.naturalnews.com/035787_vaccines_autism_monkeys.html

    Italian Court finds that MMR vaccine caused autism, and remember the legal standard here used was “beyond a reasonable degree of doubt”
    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2160054/MMR-A-mothers-victory-The-vast-majority-doctors-say-link-triple-jab-autism-Italian-court-case-reignite-controversial-debate.html

    And the Doctor behind the CDC’s position on autism is a shameless embezzler, which is not providing any confidence in the validity of his work http://www.huffingtonpost.com/robert-f-kennedy-jr/central-figure-in-cdc-vac_b_494303.html

    Let’s not forget that Merck, a manufacturer of MMR vaccine has been engaging in fraud regarding the efficacy rate of it’s vaccine:
    http://www.vaccinationcouncil.org/2012/06/25/scientists-sue-merck-allege-fraud-mislabeling-and-false-certificaion-of-mmr-vaccine-suzanne-humphries-md/

  60. #60 |  Leon Wolfeson | 

    @47 – I’ll take you at your literal word, given the Tories here are fully in line with your program. (Including refusing war widows citizenship after 40 years living here and demanding they pay for NHS treatment)

  61. #61 |  albatross | 

    Cynical:

    Yep. In fact, if you seldom or never read or listen to people with whom you have major disagreements, you are blinding yourself.

    I read and learn a lot from all sorts of people with whom I have major, fundamental disagreements: Noam Chomsky, Charles Murray, David Friedman, Tyler Cowan, Steve Sailer, Andrew Sullivan, Ta-Nahesi Coates, Juan Cole, Jerry Pournelle, etc.

    One reason this is so important is that a lot of the people who get megaphones from the respectable media are rabble rousers who are much better at being entertaining than thinking clearly about anything, or paid shills who say what their employer wants said. That makes it easy to find people who disagree with you and are obvious idiots or tools, and then use that to discount huge swaths of possible disagreement. After all, I’ve heard Rush Limbaugh’s reason for opposing X, and that’s a steaming pile of crap, so X must be a good idea. Right?

    The internet makes it easy to live in a bubble of people who think like you and will never challenge your assumptions or ideas. It’s less comfortable to leave that bubble, but you will never learn anything new living there.

  62. #62 |  Anonymous | 

    Radley will occasionally write an uninformed blog post (May Day, Bradley Manning posts come to mind) but this one should have been saved for April 1st. It’s just silly.

    I can link you to a CNN article that informs readers that no civilians have been killed by US drone strikes in 2012 but then this comment would be moderated and Drew Johnson would start blogging about how “no civilians have been killed by US drone strikes in 2012″.

  63. #63 |  Jim | 

    Wow. Red meat for all the pseudo-libertarian closet statists. Question authority, challenge the establishment, expose the lies – unless it’s the CDC-AMA-FDA-BigPharma cartel, then it’s Holy Writ from On High, and heretics will be burned at the stake. I expected better on this site. Pitiful.

  64. #64 |  Mykeru | 

    @#62 Jim

    Dude, don’t flame with a straw-man unless you are sure all emergency exits are clearly marked.

  65. #65 |  MH | 

    Mykero writes, “When people claim everyone has a right to “their opinion”, what they are trying to sneak in the door is the idea that people either have a right to their own fact-free beliefs [...]”

    I think you’re missing that some people here are defending free speech principles, not advocating an epistemological relativism. One can consistently say McCarthy has a right to her opinion (on grounds of free speech/freedom of conscience) and that her opinion is rubbish, harmful, and that she should be scorned or ostracized because of it.

  66. #66 |  Rogier | 

    I hate it when Radley leaves the store unattended. What a pitiful post.

  67. #67 |  Jeff | 

    @58, I’m not familiar with the rest of that list, but I am familiar with the first one. The number of monkeys was 13 vaccinated, 3 unvaccinated; Wakefield was involved in the research; and the lead researcher has an autistic child, had filed with the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program in 2003, and now works for Thoughtful House.

    So while I’d be happy to see more research done on this subject, that study doesn’t get me too excited.

  68. #68 |  VVhat is truth | 

    Awesome stuff. Make sure you all get your shots. Then look up the incidence of autism for the general public versus the Amish people.
    You make call if you have any guts.

  69. #69 |  James | 

    Really? Whooping cough is “making a comeback thanks, almost exclusively, to McCarthy”?

    First, I spend plenty of time reading all sides of the vaccine debate and the only time I ever hear of anything Jenny McCarthy says is when I read a blog post like this.

    Second, how is McCarthy responsible for whooping cough “making a comeback” when, from the data we have, the vast majority of the new whooping cough cases are in vaccinated children. From a study of California’s outbreak

    An investigation by California doctors has revealed that the state’s latest outbreak of whooping cough centered around children who had already received the whooping cough vaccine, Reuters reports.

    The study, led by infectious disease specialist Dr. David Witt, was initiated after an unusually large number of whooping cough cases were admitted to Kaiser Permanente Hospital in San Rafael, California in 2010.

    After examining the records of juvenile whooping cough patients over an 8-month period, the doctors discovered that 81 percent of patients had received the full series of whooping cough shots, and 11 percent had received only some of the shots. The remaining 8 percent had not received any immunizations for whooping cough.

    We also learned that, as with many vaccines, the manufacturers didn’t bother with long-term studies…

    Unfortunately, drug maker Glaxo Smith Kline (GSK), the manufacturer of the whooping cough vaccine, did not bother to perform long-term studies of its effectiveness. A company spokesperson confirmed this disturbing fact in an email to Reuters, stating that GSK never studied the duration of the vaccine’s protection after the shot was given to four- to six-year-olds.

    If Mr. Johnson is going to say that a lack of whooping cough vaccinations is responsible for whooping cough “making a comeback”, he needs to back up this claim. If he can’t, then it seems he is guilty of the same thing he accuses McCarthy of (presenting his opinion as fact). Good news though…. “drew_the_pot” is available on twitter.

  70. #70 |  Other Sean | 

    Hey #68,

    The Amish have remarkably low rates of autism. Also low rates of alcoholism, compulsive gambling, and bi-polar disorder. There are very few cases of clinical depression in Amish communities, and schizophrenia is practically unheard of among them. Why, they even have a vanishingly low rate of divorce.

    In fact, the Amish have low rates of just about every problem that THEY REFUSE TO DISCUSS, REPORT, OR ACKNOWLEDGE! Amazing how that works.

  71. #71 |  The Agitator: Jenny McCarthy Continues Kid Killing - INGunOwners | 

    [...] body count website. Definitely worth a read if you have even heard her tripe in passing. Jenny McCarthy Continues Killing Kids | The Agitator __________________ If I had a son, he would look like Brian [...]

  72. #72 |  VVhat is truth | 

    Those who choose to character assassinate Jenny rather than debate the topic at hand are cowards at heart. Pity, I am no fan of the prototypical Hollywood bimbo yet I respect those that have the guts to think for themselves.

    If your argument relies on judgmental character assassination, Do you really have an argument? What is it like to have balls smaller than Miss McCarthy?

  73. #73 |  Other Sean | 

    VVhat,

    Exactly how much courage does it take for an independently wealthy celebrity to denounce unpopular pharmaceutical companies to a constituency of anxious and emotionally vulnerable parents?

  74. #74 |  Jeff | 

    Make sure you all get your shots. Then look up the incidence of autism for the general public versus the Amish people.

    Autism is caused by pasteurized milk?

  75. #75 |  Leon Wolfeson | 

    @68 – Founder Effect AND high rates of inbreeding.

    Far higher than usual rates of Cohen Syndrome, Ellis-van Creveld syndrome and so on, and far lower rates of other genetic diseases – including autism.

    No more, no less. You’re chasing a chimera.

    @70 – As usual…rot. There are other communities, such as the Jewish one, which also have very low levels of alcoholism and gambling abuse. Those are at least in part societal.

    (I’d be willing to bet that the Amish have generally lower stress levels as well, which would go a long way to explaining lower depression rates!)

  76. #76 |  Omri | 

    “(I’d be willing to bet that the Amish have generally lower stress levels as well, which would go a long way to explaining lower depression rates!)”

    Also, milder cases of autism are no impediment to living a normal Amish life, and so go undiagnosed and unremarked.

  77. #77 |  Other Sean | 

    Omri,

    In the Amish community, everything that we would call a mental illness goes undiagnosed and unremarked.

    The idea (pay attention here Leon) that one can compare rates of disease between a community of modernity refuseniks like the Amish and any other group is totally ridiculous.

    I mean, no one would say: “among Christian Scientists, the incidence of carpal tunnel syndrome is zero.” Christian scientists are not allowed to go to a doctor and have the concept of “my hand hurts” translated into the language of “you have an orthopedic disorder known as carpal tunnel syndrome.” In that sense, Christian Scientists never have carpal tunnel syndrome.

    And in exactly the same sense, the Amish never have mental illness. They just don’t go to the kind of doctor who would translate the concept “Elijah is spastic and a bit slow” into the concept “Elijah suffers from autism”.

  78. #78 |  Nickp | 

    Other Sean @77,

    Your claim that the Amish are unwilling to avail themselves of modern medicine for mental illness, genetic or otherwise, is incorrect.

    For example: http://www.clinicforspecialchildren.org/CSC/Home.html

    Many of the genetic diseases treated by the Clinic for Special Children include neurological effects.

  79. #79 |  Leon Wolfeson | 

    @77 – Ah yes, your anti-science, anti-history crusade continues. There are plenty of populations with a founder effect, including mine (Tay-Sachs Disease), but including the Amish, Mormons, Quebecois, Icelanders and other Island populations like Pitcarn, Tristan da Cunha and Marth’s Vineyard.

    It’s WELL documented.

    You are, literally, denying cause and effect unless you can see it with your own eyes.

  80. #80 |  Other Sean | 

    Nickp,

    That would be fine and good if there was a genetic test for autism. The phenotype for a disease like autism is poorly defined and the clinical definition of said phenotype has in fact changed substantially in recent years.

    Leon is correct that diseases like Tay-Sachs can be tracked, and indeed a big part of genetic research is looking for insular populations like the Amish and Ashkenazi Jews to track such diseases. It just so happens that autism isn’t a disease that can be tracked that way.

    There are family-based studies in these populations for other poorly defined disease phenotypes, such as schizophrenia, where scientists are attempting to identify the genetic factors that contribute to disease. I’m not sure if such studies exist specifically for autism. However, there is, as yet, neither a known causative genetic trait nor a diagnostic test that can detect the presence/absence of such conditions.

    Besides, there is a world of difference between an insular population agreeing to give blood samples to a researcher and that same population consenting to treatment for members of its community.

  81. #81 |  Mykeru | 

    @ #65 MH

    “I think you’re missing that some people here are defending free speech principles, not advocating an epistemological relativism. One can consistently say McCarthy has a right to her opinion (on grounds of free speech/freedom of conscience) and that her opinion is rubbish, harmful, and that she should be scorned or ostracized because of it.”

    Supporting that people have a right to voice a (stupid, immoral, wrong, fact-free or recalcitrant in the face of facts) opinion is a different thing than saying that people have the right to an opinion.

    The second one is almost exclusively used to give a free pass to someone who would otherwise be rightfully scorned and ostracized for disseminating bullshit, but very often continuing to disseminate bullshit on a Wednesday when they were proved to be completely wrong on the previous Monday.

    In which case they are not only wrong but also either hell-bent on deceiving others, or just deceiving themselves.

    I have no problem with people having a right to spout bullshit. However, the bullshit itself has no special epistemological status merely because it’s categorized as “an opinion”.

    Especially when people tend not to keep their bullshit opinions to themselves, but also act on them in a way that may damage others.

  82. #82 |  Leon Wolfeson | 

    @80 – Among other things, austism isn’t entirely genetic. There are cases of identical twins where one develops it and one doesn’t, although there’s a high concordance rate.

    This isn’t rare in genetic diseases, of course. Schizophrenia is another.

    In both cases, this is something under active study.

    I’d also point out that there are often ways to avoid disease states without active treatment, for inherited disease – for example, programs which warn people, fairly early in dating, that they are both carriers of something like Tay-Sachs (a significant chance of a kid with an infant-onset, fatal disease).

    (Incidentally, Tay-Sachs is also an issue among the Cajun and French Canadian community, both via founder effect again)

  83. #83 |  Other Sean | 

    Leon,

    I cannot stress this enough, but when a phenotype isn’t clearly defined, even the best researchers working with the best tools and technology will be unable to track a disease. If you can’t say what a disease is within fairly narrow limits of specificity, then you can’t say who has that disease and who does not. If you can’t say that, you can’t even do a simple pedigree.

    These days, the only thing that defines autism is…the incredible elasticity of its definition. Every time the diagnostic net loosens, it becomes that much harder to search for or find real answers.

  84. #84 |  Leon Wolfeson | 

    So basically you’re denying not only a vast number of very real physical illnesses, but the entire field of mental illness. Nice.

    Genetics is merely one factor to consider.

  85. #85 |  Other Sean | 

    Leon,

    You’ve got me wrong. Take alcoholism as an example.

    I don’t “deny” that there are people who drink to excess and sometimes even ruin their lives doing it. I don’t deny that, whatever may be happening to such people, it seems to be something other than a question of ordinary willpower. If you want to call it a disease colloquially speaking, I wouldn’t deny you that usage.

    But, I do deny that science has so far done anything of the following things:

    a) clearly defined the phenotype
    b) developed a detection test
    c) developed an exclusion test
    d) identified a cause or causes
    e) developed an effective treatment

    I’d say the exact same for what is called “autism”, without denying that there are children who suffer from a pattern of symptoms that deserve the fullest scientific attention.

    Please try to put aside your past disagreement with me for a moment. Is there any point among those listed a) through e) where you would dispute me?

  86. #86 |  Leon Wolfeson | 

    I completely disagree on every point.

    There are standard clinical parameters used for testing autism. Now, they’re still being updated as we learn more about it, but once more you’re insisting on perfectly knowledge before we’re allowed to use it.

    We don’t NEED to know why something works before we use it (although sure, it’s useful) – to this day, we do not have a clear picture, for example, of why general anesthetics work (!). There have been theories for over a century, but none of them currently can explain their action.

    Moreover, there most certainly ARE effective treatments. As a disorder which appears to have a complex range of genetic and environmental triggers, the correct approach for treatment varies between individuals.

    You’re challenging the entire basis of mental health diagnosis and treatment, your comment about “mildly retarded” comes up again…you want to throw away decades of evidence and go back to stereotypes!

  87. #87 |  Hamilton | 

    The title of this post is absurd. You’re just as bad as those you’re critical of.

  88. #88 |  Other Sean | 

    Leon,

    If you completely disagree on every point, then back it up. Don’t even worry about the whole list, just answer two of my five points. Give me a) and d). Tell me what is the phenotype for autism, and show me where the causes of autism have been identified.

  89. #89 |  Leon Wolfeson | 

    Exactly, your crusade continues. You refuse to admit you’re wrong in any aspect, ever.

    Keep campaigning against general anesthetics!

  90. #90 |  Other Sean | 

    That was not an answer.

  91. #91 |  Leon Wolfeson | 

    @90 – Of course it’s a answer. It’s not the capitulation you’re looking for, but that’s not my problem.

  92. #92 |  Jennifer Swanson | 

    I have not checked the statistics to see if those diseases are up. But if it is true, I would not make Jenny McCarthy the only variable for this.

    We legally allow immigration of 900,000 people a year, not to mention illegals. Disease seem to be more prevalent in countries that do not have clean water supplies and un-sanitary living conditions. Allowing people in from these countries you are bound to have more diseases.

    My son is autistic and had a severe reaction (high fever and sick for several days) each time he was vaccinated. When I brought this up to his doctor, she said it had nothing to do with the vaccine, and I told her how could it not when he in not normally sick and he gets sick immediately after he gets vaccinated.

    At the 2 year vaccination he once a again had a high fever and a seisure and he then lost all eye contact and social skills.

    I thought my son had an allergic reation. I felt it may be heriditary, so I did not have my other son vaccinated. I was told by the doctor that it was impossible for my other son to be allergic. I do not agree with the doctor. My neighbors son is severly allergic to strawberrys. Another friend allergic to the sun. I was allergic to wool. You can have an allergic reaction to anything.

Leave a Reply