Then I learn about Jenny McCarthy—a mother whose child had intense GI and neurological issues in addition to autism—who used the Defeat Autism Now protocol to “cure” her son’s autism. I read her works, am unimpressed, and move on. Here’s the thing—she fell into the same trap that other moms have fallen into: a doctor comes along and says s/he’s got the answer to your child’s problems and here give me a lot of money and I’ll cure your child. It worked for her. Since she’s a celebrity, she promoted it. Now she has an organization (Generation Rescue) which pays for people who would not otherwise be able to afford it to get into a ridiculously expensive, inadequate, and not very scientifically based protocol which is now considered obsolete (and has actually made many children WORSE). If your child benefits, great—if not, you’re left where you were to begin with.

Not impressed. Doctors who are doing the work necessary to develop sound treatment protocols do not advocate for this kind of thing. We want science—science that makes sense and has predictable outcomes. This is the frustration that the autism community at large has with Jenny McCarthy—even in the biomedical community.

If you want to have a beef with the biomedical community, have a beef with THEM, not HER. She is not part of it. She is the late-night infomercial of biomedical treatment, seriously. It’s like purchasing pro-activ instead of seeing a dermatologist. Going on medi-fast rather than seeing a dietician. I hope this makes sense. However, I do not dislike McCarthy for one reason, which I’ll explain later.

That being said, it is not scientifically sound to say that all vaccines are safe for all people. It’s simply not true. It’s also not true that people are NOT seriously injured or killed by vaccines. I mean, it’s just a fact that these things happen.

If you read the full vaccine inserts you can see that these things are acknowledged as true and are part of the risk of getting vaccines. Combination vaccines are especially dangerous, as even the insert states that they have never been tested for safety. The individual vaccines, yes—combination, no. VAERS gets most of its injury/death reports from the two most common combination vaccines—dTap (Dtap) and the MMR. The third most troublesome vaccine is Gardasil with Cervarix behind it. The VICP tends to award most of its vaccine injury suits to children and people damaged by those vaccines.

As for autism and vaccines, the science linking the two is sparse—I admit it. However, it’s there. When you cannot pinpoint what is causing it, it’s not generally a good idea to push aside what little evidence you DO have connecting a cause. After all, it’s not possible to prove what does not cause disease, only what DOES. When you are facing it yourself, you will take whatever science will give you and follow every lead. This is just part of the process of learning what something is, and how to treat it. Trial and error, based on the best scientific data you have AT THE TIME.

So now we have the anti-vaccine movement. Enough evidence supports that a lot of vaccines at a very young age is detrimental that many first world countries have a vastly different vaccination schedule than the United States. Certain vaccines that are simply ridiculous to give to newborns are not even in the childhood schedule—like the hepatitis B vaccine. While the flu shot is given in other countries, it is generally not given to young children or pregnant women like it is here in the States. These are all good measures for preventing vaccine injury. But what to do with people who do not vaccinate at all?

This leads me to what I DO like about McCarthy. She is not anti-vaccine, she is pro-sane-vax.

You see, manufacturers do not have to use the adjuvants that they use. They use them because they are waste (aluminum, mercury, formaldehyde) and so they are cheap. However, these things are what cause most of the vaccine injuries which occur. I know most people erroneously assume that thimerisol (a type of mercury) is what people are upset about in vaccines. Not true. It’s only ONE thing that causes harm. Removing it from vaccines will not stop neurological damage. If we want vaccines to be safe, all of the harmful adjuvants will need to be replaced.

To avoid injuries and increase compliance we will need to find adjuvants that do not cause harm. There was recently an article about the SV40 virus, which has been found in the guts of autistic individuals, contaminating most vaccines—scientists are now calling for a removal of the SV40 component which has been tied to childhood diabetes and gut disorders. Anti-vaxxers have known about this for over a decade and already have a protocol that kills SV40—but only now does mainstream science acknowledge it. We must learn what vaccines do to us and to our children—and we must strive to find safer alternatives.

Science is the great equalizer. Science supports that vaccines are not safe and cause harm. Science can find safe alternatives—if it’s forced to. After all, medicine is a business and since it polices itself it has no motivation to find these alternatives unless the public refuses to consume it and profits fall.

Of course, vaccines cannot be the only thing that causes autism. After all, unvaccinated individuals do sometimes develop autism. Other possibilities are antibiotic overuse, mercury amalgams (especially in the mother), vaccinated parents (especially mothers given the flu shot while pregnant—which contains mercury), unnatural food sources (like the recent study done on HFCS and autism), and soy/corn allergies (which are in most infant formulas). There is a large genetic component—the MTHFR and FragileX being the two we know the most about. There is also a type of autism caused specifically by the mother having an MTHFR mutation and being unable to convert folic acid to its usable form—which causes slight spinal cord defects in the child like Chiari Malformation and Tethered Spinal Cord. When children get these disorders corrected through surgery, their functionality is significantly improved.

So hopefully you can see why I get ticked when someone says “OMG CELEBRITIES SHOULD NOT ADVISE PEOPLE ABOUT VACCINES!” Look, have more faith in humanity. Not only are most people who choose not to vaccinate or selectively vaccinate not doing it because a celebrity told them to, but the celebrity you’re bashing is not actually anti-vaccine.

So my apologies for cursing. But as you can see, there is so much more to it. So much more. To get a good, accurate view on what’s really going on in the sane-vax community, you should actually do the research. Jenny McCarthy does not represent us, and she does not represent me.

SCIENCE represents me.

Rarely a truer word spoken when it comes to vaccines.

I’m angry when people announce that they won’t get vaccinated, as though they have the power to choose not to pass on a disease they’ve caught.

That’s very good advice. I’m going to the doctor next week, and I had been on the fence about whether to get a flu shot, as I never get the flu anyway. Not that I’m leery of vaccines in the slightest, but it’s still a pain in the ass (er, arm). But, as you say, it’s not just about me. I’ll be getting that jab now, not because I’m personally worried about the flu, but out of civic duty. You’ve edumacated me

Yeah, death or mortality rates are expressed either as a percentage or perhaps more often as “X deaths per 1000 people” in the population. It is very difficult to know how many people have contracted an infectious disease. I could have been infected but not show up when you test me because I’ve already fought off the disease by the time you test me. When it comes to things like breast cancer, a prognosis is often given as a “five-year survival rate” for people with the same condition.

PS – I didn’t take anything negative from your comment. I was just trying to clarify (for all readers) that I wasn’t making the claim personally, simply quoting those professionals far more educated and familiar with the diseases than I am. I try to write for the infinite (in time) audience that the internet presents. I was also speaking in the “royal you” if you will. It’s also my responsibility to make sure I am not a vector to infect my mother who has a diminished immune system. It is very important that I get vaccinated every year, I treat it as if her life depends on it, because it very well may.

Influenza is still pretty nasty, though. Depending on the strain of virus circulating, how well-matched the vaccine is, and the rate of vaccine uptake, influenza deaths range from, IIRC, around 12,000-40,000 every year in the U.S., usually due to secondary pneumonia infections and mostly among the elderly, immunocompromised or very, very young. Not sure what the actual case count is, but for comparison, measles has a risk of death of around 1 per 2,000 cases.

On a side note, a study published back in January (caveat: it was in mice, so, grain of salt), researchers found that concurrent or very recent infection with pertussis increased the risk of severity of influenza.

@Unsettled Scientist: I know they weren’t your words, I just thought you might be able to clarify ‘em for me. And don’t misunderstand me, I’m not trying to argue against any sort of vaccination.

Yes. Look up how many people died of those diseases last year, and then look up how many people died from influenza in the same time period. BTW, those words were in quotes, from the IU School of Medicine and were not mine. Here’s another quote on the enormous death rate of influenza in today’s society from a well respected medical professional.

Dr. Sonnenberg, PAFP President-elect, on getting the flu shot: “Inflenza is the 8th leading cause of death in the United States. More common than breast cancer. Unfortunately, we don’t have a vaccine for breast cancer.”

Your parents got you vaccinated against polio, etc. As an adult, it is you who is responsible for stopping the spread of influenza to those who will die of it this year.

I think what they mean is that there are more deaths each year due to flu and for any of the other diseases we vaccinate against, at least in the U.S. While that is technically true, that’s only because we have such good vaccines and broad coverage for those other diseases. If all vaccine efficacy and uptake rates were equal across the board, I don’t think the statement would hold up.