Jenny McCarthy -- Don't cry for us

Post Reply New Topic

All this talk has been about compassion, understanding, etc... but at the end of the day, it's the solid facts that count.

I'm still waiting.

I really want to hear something from Jenny's son, but I think we may have to wait for that.

What exactly do you mean by 'solid facts?'

Jenny McCarthy seems to have a very negative opinion on autism, probably she doesn't want to know if there are some positive aspects from it, it seems to me, that, and it is just a speculation, that she might be extremely worried about the social aspects, she may want her son to be "normal" at all costs, to have a social life, to have friends, to get married, like every other boring human being.

Their is a fine line between advocacy and pushing a crusade sadly Jenny McCarthy crossed that line a long time ago. She means well we all can see that but she has been a disaster for autism awareness. Would it be legal to duck tape her mouth shut till we get the facts straight???

Meantime, I would be highly interested in an opinion from her son's biological father. Conspicuously silent, isn't he?

He is the smart one, I mean no child should have the media's eyes on them its not healthy. At least one parent is smart enough to see that.

Mini-rant: Today I attended an autism conference. I received an evaluation sheet, which had a section asking which speakers out of a list people would like to see next year. Under the "Parents/Autistic People" section, Jenny was listed as "mother of recovered child." What?! Then why is she chelating him?

No. I am the only person not upset about DAN? Hmmm. Strange.

When you parent an autistic child and you hear someone tell you "Well Jenny cured her son, why isn't your child cured?"

You may understand.

You're kidding, right? Somebody actually said THAT to you? Wow. I'm at a loss for words - barring what I've already said.

Before I first logged onto WrongPlanet, I'd never even heard of DAN.

Me neither. I'm with you on this one, slowmutant... I don't really see what's wrong with it, as long as it's done safely and with the child's best interests at heart (as I'm sure they are 99% of the time). You could say 'oh but it isn't safe', but then given that iatrogenic death is the number one killer in America anyway you could say the same to parents who give their children any other drug anyway...

I'll also add that before I logged onto here I'd never heard of Jenny McCarthy or this whole 'autism rights' thing either, and I'd never come across any reason to either. Maybe I'm just lucky and come from a more accepting place.

The thing is, chelation is not safe, and it doesn't give results. If there were scientific evidence that it worked, and the risks were sufficiently low, I wouldn't mind people doing it. But screwing with your child's body systems for something not proven is stupid and unethical.

Iatrogenic death - 'death by doctoring and drugs' - is the number one killer in the US anyway. If you're going to be up in arms about chelation, you might as well include all the other thousands of drugs that don't work and can kill as well.

(And guess what? Some just happen to be getting results with it. Whatever the reason - placebo or real effect - if it's done safely it should be fine, so why get so worked up about it?)

Please stop putting out this misinformation.

Even according to your hero, Dr. Mercola, iatrogenic death comes third.

That statistic should be treated entirely as per "lies, damned lies and statistics", as it encompasses many deaths which were certain to occur anyway, but for interventions that successfully delayed that death, for a while.

As to "Some just happen to be getting results with it.", you seem to be contradicting yourself. Are you saying that some experimental lethal drug use is fine, provided a fringe quack says it's good for you, and can type up a "Look! It cured me!" testimonial for their website, but that all mainstream, well documented treatments are bad, because they are?