No “Sympathy” For Jenny McCarthy
July 17, 2009 by Do'C 
Printer-Friendly Version
The James Randi Educational Foundation’s TAM7 meeting took place in Las Vegas last week. This year’s meeting included a panel discussion entitled, “Anti Anti-Vaccination”. As scienceblogger, and panelist Orac notes in a recent post about “Enablers of the vaccine-autism manufactroversy“:
One of the issues that came up over which there was somewhat of a disagreement is exactly how to deal with prominent antivaccine activists, people such as Jenny McCarthy. The majority opinion seemed to be that being too blunt or hurling insults is ineffectual if we want to change their minds.
Another point to consider
While hurling insults probably is ineffectual, there is an important point underlying something that was brought up.
Following the anti anti-vax panel discussion at TAM7, it was pondered aloud by the emcee/moderator that perhaps Jenny McCarthy’s apparent position merits “sympathy”. This seemed to be supported (albeit, in the form of a question), with the notion that having a child with autism [and possibly likely associated challenges] results in parents “looking for something to blame”.
Jenny McCarthy’s position has been to “blame” childhood vaccinations.
Most rational thinkers are well aware of the state of the science, for which no reliable data of high quality supports the notion in general that childhood vaccines contribute to the etiology of autism. However, it’s possible that not everyone has taken the opportunity to examine some of the detailed implications of suggesting that Jenny McCarthy’s situation warrants some sort of “sympathetic” consideration.
It’s my hope that readers will consider this position carefully, and that perhaps it will impact how autism is seen and discussed among skeptics in the future. My point is not to criticize what was said/asked, rather it is to point out that what was said/asked can remain empathetic and skeptical, without perpetuating desructive sterotypes of autistic people. It’s got to be considered thoughtfully in advance, and consist of clear and well-communicated perspective.
Sympathy or fallacious logic
Jenny McCarthy’s very public statements about vaccines contribute to undermining the public confidence in the vaccination program in the U.S.
To suggest that her situation is “able to be comprehended” is one thing. There is little disagreement that there are many parents of children with autism out there who don’t (or didn’t) do well with the uncertainty such a diagnosis brings (pervasive scientific uncertainty about causation, as well as general uncertainty about future that many parents inevitably face). In the context of a behavioral disorder which is sometimes ill-defined at best, and one that mostly lacks pervasive and clear etiological explanations (so far), it is not difficult to see that many parents probably find it hard to resist easy, yet completely unsupported answers.
But the mere suggestion of “sympathy” for this particular situation, and in the context of anti-vaccination advocates, is dangerously close to very fallacious logic. At best, it can be a simple emotional appeal. While the suggestion may not have been meant in this way, for some who heard the question at TAM7, it may be easy to think there’s a good underlying reason to really “feel sorry” for Jenny McCarthy, or any parents of autistic children for that matter. Besides the fact that this is absolutely irrelevant to the incorrectness of Jenny McCarthy’s many statements about vaccines, it’s a potentially destructive position with respect to autistic people.
If Jenny McCarthy merits any “sympathy”, it is for a very important set of reasons - Jenny McCarthy may not do well with uncertainty, she very likely lacks a sufficient education in basic science, and she demonstrates a prominent absence of critical thinking skills (see her Indigo Child nonsense as well). In a nutshell, she appears to have willingly and easily jumped aboard the anti-vaccination bandwagon. We should feel “sympathetic” that she has been failed by society to acquire the appropriate tools to deal with her situation in a way that is more consistent with reality.
If the potential applicability of “sympathy” for someone like Jenny McCarthy is to be discussed, skeptics should consider making those reasons very clear. To leave them unclear, even if inadvertently, opens the door for the devaluation of autistic kids and people.
The destructive potential of “sympathy”
Other than her own lack of critical thinking, understanding Jenny McCarthy’s situation does not require use of the word “sympathy”, which in terms of families of people with disabilities, conjures images worthy of fear and pity all too often in the eyes of the public. Yes, an autistic child, or a child with any disability, can present a set of challenges that many people find difficult. Those challenges may not be familiar to the public at large. Such is life. If anyone begins to suggest “sympathy” because someone has an autistic or disabled child, the message this communicates to and about that child, and other people who happen to be similar, is quite clear. The autistic child is often seen as the direct source of difficulty and the origin of emotional distress.
Parental difficulty and emotional distress are not things that are intrinsic to any disability (autism or otherwise) or to any one person. They are a product of challenging circumstances, and a person’s (in those circumstances) ability to function within the situation. This is not to say that it is, or should be, “easy”. But it is to say that adaptation to challenging circumstances is not required simply because an offspring is autistic is disabled - adaptation is required because preconceived expectations were not met and because there are differences that benefit from perspectives and approaches that may seem atypical, or may need to be learned and practiced in order to master. In other words, having an autistic child is not inherently problematic, rather delay or impairment in adaptation as parent can have profound consequences.
Even if it’s not really played, to bring out the unqualified “sympathy” card for Jenny McCarthy because words like “autism”, “disability”, and “looking to place blame” arise in a conversation does a potential disservice to autistic people. It can lead to them being portrayed as a problem, something to be pitied, and even something to be feared. One potential consequence of such fear and pity if it’s placed, is to chip away at the value of those persons in society. How often are terms like “disruptive” and “meltdown” used to describe autistic children in a classroom? Any school-age child has great potential “to be disruptive”. But such a stereotype, especially when tagged to an autistic child, is only perpetuated by the public’s uncritical acceptance of any notion that parents of autistic children merit or need “sympathy”. It would seem equally concerning that the consequences of this potential stereotype can carry to employment and the workplace later in life too.
“Having an autistic child may be so difficult, that it really may warrant consideration of some sort of sympathy for the parents when they look for something to blame”.
I’m sure the TAM7 emcee/moderator didn’t intend to convey this, but unclear statements about “sympathy” leave this possiblity out there for those who consider the matter further. If one were to publish such a statement, the anti-vaccination (and anti-autism) advocates would sing their praises. Autistic people would not.
In conclusion
I don’t intend to conclude that the TAM7 moderator had any specific intentions other than to stimulate discussion (perhaps even play “devil’s advocate”). And other than the autism vaccine nonsense, I imagine that in-depth discussion of the implications of discussing autism doesn’t come up too frequently for most skeptics. But, for the thoughtful and scientifically-minded out there, put this in your head for future thought.
If the opportunity to discuss Jenny McCarthy’s anti-vaccine advocacy arises, consider adding clarity for why Jenny McCarthy (or parents in similar situations) really deserve understanding. Perhaps ask questions, distinguishing the connotative meanings of “comprehending Jenny McCarthy’s seeking to place blame”, and “sympathizing with her position of lacking the critical thinking skills necessary to stick with scientific reality”. If you really want to help autistic and other disabled people, explain why “sympathy” for parents is potentially devaluing in the context of having, or *because of* an autistic/disabled child. A parent who is looking to explain or place blame for causation, certainly deserves our understanding of the mechanics of this desire, but “sympathy” is NOT the answer.
17 Comments »
RSS feed for comments on this post.
Important Comment Notes
Installed spam filter plugins may result in your comment being held in a moderation queue. Please consider making a copy of your comment "just in case". You can use many XHTML tags to mark up your comment if desired.
Additional information about comments and other contact can be found here
Comment by Jen — 18 July, 2009 @ 3:33 am
Very well written.
Comment by kathleen — 18 July, 2009 @ 8:36 am
Excellent post..a beautiful counter to AoA’s latest piece by Julie- “a bump in the road” which so very much disturbed me.
No, sympathy is not the answer..but when I look at what Jenny McCarthy says, and genrescue, AoA and the like..I would like to see the word “responsibility” .
[Embedded link added by moderator]
Comment by Prometheus — 18 July, 2009 @ 6:11 pm
I’m generally very sympathetic toward parents of children with autism, but I’ve made an exception for Jenny McCarthy and others of her ilk.
You see, she and the rest of the “Green Our Vaccines”, “Too Many, Too Soon” and “Vaccines Cause Autism” movements are distracting attention from real research into autism. As a result, money, time and scarce research resources will be diverted from potentially fruitful research in order to show - for the umpteenth time - that vaccines don’t cause autism. And worse than that, Jenny and her followers won’t believe a word of it.
As for the best way to deal with Jenny and her co-travelers in fantasy-based autism “research” (Google-based research?), the most effective methods are serious felonies in most Western countries.
Legally sanctioned approaches that I’ve found most effective are asking them to (calmly) explain their position and asking polite - but probing - questions. It generally takes me less than two minutes to get them to back themselves into a mental corner, since their “position” is not well thought out (it is, in fact, not based in “thought” at all).
Another approach I’ve used with some success - with people who are still looking for information (Jenny et al have already found “The Truth” and are no longer taking new information) is to take them through the “vaccines cause autism” catechism and explain its factual, scientific, logical and reality-testing errors. This takes time, however, as the list of errors is longer than the “vaccines cause autism” scripture itself.
Prometheus
Comment by Sharon — 19 July, 2009 @ 12:25 am
Good post. I have struggled for a while with the depiction of autism among some skeptic types. I agree with their aims to use science, logic and to apply critical thinking, but they often have notions of disability that are unexamined. That’s not surprising, most people probably have such ideas until circumstances challenge them to thing about such things. It’s just as you explained in the post, challenging circumstances cause adaptions in thinking.
I’d love to see more people think about whether they are automatically right to think, “of course, living with autism is clearly terrible” and to apply a bit of skepticism to these ideas too.
Comment by Frank — 20 July, 2009 @ 1:20 pm
Can someone please reply with the titles and dates of the research which was used to conclude that the temporal intravenous introduction of numerous chemicals along with live and attenuated viruses into the bodies of rapidly developing young humans was/is warranted? I’ll be waiting.
Comment by Do'C — 20 July, 2009 @ 8:14 pm
Frank,
You’ll be waiting a long time, pal. Assuming you’re referring to vaccines, they aren’t given intravenously.
Also, are you implying that vaccines contain some sort of random chemical assortment? Some purposeful plot to poison babies? Can you figure out some way to be a little less vague than “chemicals”?
Can you make an effort to comment on the actual topic?
I’ll be waiting.
Comment by Frank — 21 July, 2009 @ 6:57 am
Do’C,
Alittle research can find the list of chemicals used to formulate the injections. The best place to start is with the information sheet that the manufacturer publishes for each product.
I don’t see any sort of plot to poison babies. I see the overburdening of developing immune systems with untested (in the intended host) compounds. This seems to be thought harmless until proven otherwise. How many doses do we stop at? 50? 75?
I guess I’m just a skeptic of the honesty displayed by the businesses earning millions. I have no special insight, just some experience with human nature. Sorry to go off topic.
Comment by Chris — 21 July, 2009 @ 8:44 am
So Frank you say a little research can be done with the package inserts, and yet you were asking us to give you research? Wait, what?
Have you heard of PubMed?
Do you honestly think that vaccines make lots of money versus the cost of treating diseases? Actually, that has been researched here is a sample paper:
http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/cgi/reprint/110/4/653
(the “vaccines make millions of dollars” argument has to be on of the more idiotic ones, it is right up there with the assumption that a child could be injured more by a vaccine with very few and weakened antigens than by the actual disease!)
Comment by Do'C — 21 July, 2009 @ 2:15 pm
And you see this “over burdening” of the immune system how?
Read up Frank:
http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/cgi/reprint/112/6/1394
http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/cgi/reprint/109/1/124
No special insight (toxicological, immunological, epidemiological, etc.) was apparent by the way.
Come on back if you change your mind and decide to comment on the actual topic of the post.
Comment by Frank — 22 July, 2009 @ 9:44 am
We find each other’s reasoning to be fundamentally flawed. This sometimes happens. I regret that my first post on your page was bellicose. I wish you and your children the best of luck. Goodbye.
Comment by AutismNewsBeat — 22 July, 2009 @ 12:03 pm
If vaccine makers were purposely hiding their “crime”, why would they post all the ingredients on the package insert for their detractors to find?
Comment by Prometheus — 24 July, 2009 @ 9:20 pm
Frank comments:
Frank makes this sound as though he and Do’C were disagreeing over whether the Cubs were a better baseball team than the Red Sox. Unfortunately, unlike the Cubs/Red Sox “controversy”, there is real data about this issue.
Unfortunately for Frank, these data do not support his position. Thanks for playing, Frank. We have some lovely parting gifts for you…..
I can’t get over how some people - including the person named in the title of this post - don’t seem to understand that there is a real answer to the question of vaccines causing autism.
It doesn’t matter that Jenny McCarthy - ex-minor-league-celebrity - “believes” that autism is caused by vaccines. It doesn’t matter if Bernadine Healy or Barack Obama believe that vaccines cause autism. It doesn’t matter even if a majority of people in the US, or the UK or the world believe that vaccines cause autism.
All that matters is what the data show. And so far, the data show that vaccines don’t cause autism.
Maybe tomorrow someone will publish data showing a connection between vaccines and autism that will overwhelm the current mountain of data that fail to show a connection. If that happens, I will happily change my tune. But not before then.
This isn’t a popularity contest or an election - there is a real answer to this question that doesn’t depend on what people believe.
If you’ve got the data to show that vaccines cause autism, then show it. If not….well, you’re still entitled to your opinion, but we don’t have to believe it.
Prometheus
Comment by brucefett — 28 July, 2009 @ 12:07 pm
As a first-time commenter and a person who has helped raise two teenagers and their autism, I can truthfully say that all expressions of sympathy are unwelcome, useless and annoying.
Empathy, respect, and awe are welcomed, and on occasion, even reciprocated.
The way I deal with the autism wouldn’t change in the least, even if there were any evidence that vaccines caused autism, which there isn’t of course.
I really enjoyed the posted article and the comments from all those trying to keep it scientific.
Comment by melanie — 19 August, 2009 @ 11:24 am
our 3 year old is autistic i agree with jenny mc carthy to a point sarahs autism worsened when she had her jabs none of us are certain of the cause of autism and i think its wrong to shoot another down because of their opinions or is it because she is famous
Comment by m cooper — 22 August, 2009 @ 1:17 pm
Hello there are kids our here who did not recieve immunizations and still they have autism. Who do we blame then? I believe its all enviromental. Do more research please
Comment by Jen — 27 October, 2009 @ 12:19 pm
Can anyone here acknowledge that Autism is indeed a puzzle and that it most likely has a variety of causes including genetics,a toxic environment, viruses, yeast overgrowth and yes, perhaps vaccines…Not all children with Autsim are the same and I would then make the assumption that not all cases of Autism are caused by the same thing. Why is it inappropriate to question big drug companies and their manufacturing of vaccines- if we don’t ask the questions and demand safe vaccinations for our children, what kind of parents are we?
Comment by Prometheus — 3 November, 2009 @ 3:29 pm
Jen,
Short answer - No.
Longer answer - Autism does appear to be more than one disorder and should be expected to have more than one cause. However, there is no more data implicating a “toxic environment” (whatever that might be), viruses, “yeast overgrowth” or vaccines than there is implicating television, rain, cell phones or Miley Cyrus.
I am all for asking for safe vaccines - you show me data indicating that a particular vaccine could be made more safe (and how that could be done) and I’ll push it as hard as I can to make that happen.
On the other hand, if this is just about “too many, too soon” and “green our vaccines”, I can’t get behind that. Vague “concerns” about vaccines without any data to support them are pointless. There are people “concerned” about the effects of cell phones, microwave ovens, “chemtrails” and reptilian aliens replacing world leaders. None of that is worth the effort and expence of a study.
Research time, resources and mony are finite - very finite. To spend any of them chasing down a vague and ill-defined “concern” would be a criminal waste - criminal because, in the zero-sum-game that is research funding, spending resources on one thing means that something else doesn’t get funded.
So, do we divert money from cardiac disease, diabetes, cancer or Altzheimer’s disease to track down and eradicate these vague “concerns” about vaccines and autism?
Vaccines are neither 100% safe nor 100% effective - we know that. Nothing in life is 100% safe and 100% effective. Vaccines - as they are currently formulated and administered - are safer than getting the disease they were developed to prevent. Much, much safer.
If you have data that vaccines cause autism, bring it and then we can talk about how to get a study going.
Prometheus