Talk:Jenny McCarthy/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

overkill

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

stop forcing your bias

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

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

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

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

Also you are refusing to link to primary sources where McCarthy’s statements are provided in a neutral environment— instead you insist on linking only to negative articles ABOUT her statements. This is not good journalism. Please return the links to non-biased primary sources such as the pbs article I sourced. CMTBard (talk) 14:52, 9 August 2019 (UTC)

pbs.org/wgbh/frontline/article/jenny-mccarthy-were-not-an-anti-vaccine-movement-were-pro-safe-vaccine/ CMTBard (talk) 14:53, 9 August 2019 (UTC)

Vaccine Skeptic vs. Anti-Vaccine activist

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Most self-described parents of "vaccine-injured kids" are actually not parents of vaccine-injured kids at all. The cases on the Vaxxed bus of bullshit are mainly autism, which is not caused by vaccines. Vaccines injuries are rare. Quackccine injuries ("vaccine injuries" diagnosed by quacks) are common. Guy (Help!) 17:32, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

Change the Summary of her beliefs

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

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

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

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

“Could it be a toxin overload with metals or viruses that triggered this autoimmune response?

In our community we say, “Yeah.” We firmly believe the cause of the epidemic of autism is due to a vaccine injury and/or other environmental exposures — pesticides also.”

“When I began my crusade for autism, one of the first speeches I gave was: “Is it mercury? Is it the schedule? Is there just too many?” My answer to people and what I’ve been telling them is, “It’s all of the above.” We don’t know for sure, which is why we keep saying, “Study it.” But they won’t.

Some parents saw their child only get a flu shot, which has mercury in it, and boom, fall off the wagon — meaning loss of the ability of eye contact, no more babbling. And this is after one shot.

We’ve seen children like Evan, who have this, what I believe, the whole schedule we’re looking at that caused his regression. We get phone calls from farmers who have children who — they just sprayed their fields, and their child regressed into autism.

So is it one thing? No. But what is a common factor? It’s a toxic overload.”

“[They think] we’re saying, “Don’t vaccinate at all.” And we’re saying: “Delay them. Delay them till age 2. Skip some that you might not need.”

“We’re not an anti-vaccine movement. We’re pro-safe-vaccine schedule. Until we have that conversation, people are going to think it’s an anti- and pro- side.”

“I would love for a pediatrician to sit down and take family history and say: “All right, let’s talk about your health. Do you have autoimmune issues? Do you have diabetes? Do you have bipolar disorder?” There’s this whole methylation tree I talk about, which is the depression, bipolar. Then there’s this autoimmune tree of Crohn’s disease, celiac disease.

If you have these traits, I think the pediatrician should then look at that as a little bit of a red flag to say: “This child might be genetically vulnerable to having an autoimmune disorder, might not be able to detox the 36 shots that are coming, so let’s take this into consideration and maybe space out the shots. How does that sound?” To me, that would be a huge breakthrough — taking some family history.” ^^These are statements from McCarthy herself explaining her position. None can be summarized as being “vaccines cause autism.” CMTBard (talk) 15:13, 9 August 2019 (UTC)

Very few antivaxers admit to being anti-vaccine. Most, like McCarthy, claim to be in favour of some "safe" vaccine that meets their own unachievable standards of safety, because vaccines already are safe.

Is it mercury, is it the schedule, is there just to many? It's none of the above. Because vaccines don't cause autism. It's absolutely not mercury that doesn't cause autism, removing thimerosal from vaccines (they never contained scary-mercury in the first place) had precisely zero effect on incidence. It is not the schedule, there's no difference in incidence. It's not "too many", there's no difference in autism incidence between otherwise similar vaccinated and unvaccinated populations, the only difference is that the unvaccinated get more preventable diseases.

McCarthy's claims about thimerosal have not changed despite categorical refutation of that claim. Interesting, isn't it? You claim that she believes vaccines only cause "some" autism, but that's designed solely to insulate her belief from the refutation of vaccines as a cause of autism. Reliable independent sources call her an antivaxer and a purveyor of the vaccine-autism hoax, that is not really our problem. Reports either have her as claiming that vaccines caused her son't autism, or that vaccines cause autism. Few, if any, repeat the belief that vaccines may cause some autism, just in a way that is completely invisible at the population or subgroup level in vast multicenter and multinational studies. We only hear those weasel words when quoted directly from her own lips - and thus we give it the same weight as a Klansman saying he only things some black people are inferior.

Apart fomr anything else, Generation Rescue is hard-line autism biomed antivax kool-aid.

But there is one kernel of validity in there: yes, it's a crusade. McCarthy and her ilk are waging a jihad against vaccines, because they have decided that vaccines caused their child's autism and there is nothing on this Earth that will persuade them they are wrong. Yet wrong they are. Guy (Help!) 16:28, 9 August 2019 (UTC)

To be "pro-safe vaccine", you have to know the difference between a safe vaccine and an unsafe vaccine. That is determined by good scientific studies. Bad scientific studies also have an opinion on the subject, but they are irrelevant, and you need to dismiss them.

So, in order to know whether a vaccine is safe, you have to know how to tell a good study from a bad study. Only then will you be able to say whether doubts about the safety of a vaccine is justified. Judging the quality of studies requires special expertise. McCarthy does not have the expertise, and she obviously does not want it. So she ends up embracing every bad study casting doubt on vaccines. Which makes her anti-vaxx, whatever her intentions are. Therefore the reliable sources call her anti-vaxx. And we follow the reliable sources. --Hob Gadling (talk) 13:05, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

McCarthy and other antivaxers use a mythical never-defined standard of a "safe" vaccine. When pressed they either demand perfect safety (which is clearly impossible, nothing is perfectly safe) or start talking about randmomised controlled trials, as if (a) that would pass an ethics board and (b) it would be a good way of assessing rare adverse events anyway.  Guy (Help!) 20:08, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

The Great Walkback

• [1] Since 2007, McCarthy has spoken out about vaccinations causing autism, based on her experiences with her son Evan, who is now 17 years old, who she said was diagnosed with autism after having the measles vaccination ~ serves as board president of the non-profit organization Generation Rescue, widely considered an anti-vaxx group that links autism to vaccines and promotes medically unproven treatments for autism ~ "We firmly believe the cause of the epidemic of autism is due to a vaccine injury and/or other environmental exposures — pesticides also," McCarthy told FRONTLINE in a 2015 interview
• [2] She gave Jenny McCarthy a platform to promote the discredited idea that vaccines cause autism ~ Ms. Winfrey’s biggest gift to the antivaccine movement came in September 2007 when she invited the actress Jenny McCarthy to appear on her top-rated talk show. Ms. McCarthy proceeded to explain that her son Evan’s autism symptoms appeared only after he received the vaccine for measles, mumps and rubella, known as MMR. That vaccine has long been associated with autism because of a flawed 1998 study. The prestigious journal Lancet eventually retracted the study, and a British government commission determined that its author, Andrew Wakefield, had acted “dishonestly and irresponsibly” in his research. Mr. Wakefield lost his license to practice medicine in the United Kingdom. Yet the safety record of the MMR vaccine, along with details of Mr. Wakefield’s downfall, weren’t mentioned on the show. Instead, Ms. McCarthy made outrageous claims about the vaccine’s dangers while promoting equally ungrounded theories about “cures” for autism, including a diet she found on the internet.
• [3] Jenny McCarthy infamously made the case for years that vaccines had to be exposed as autism-causing agents.
• [4] McCarthy, who has an autistic son, wrote Louder Than Words: A Mother's Journey in Healing Autism, correlating the increase in childhood vaccinations with the rise in autism worldwide.

Backtracking

• In 2016, [5] Actress Jenny McCarthy has been Hollywood's most outspoken anti-vaxxer, despite recently softening her stance to "not anti-vaccine, but pro-safe vaccine". McCarthy told Larry King that “we need to get rid of the toxins, the mercury—which I am so tired of everyone saying it's been removed. It has not been removed from the shots." (spoiler: yes it has, and the fact that autism rates did not change at all as thimerosal was removed convincingly disproves the mercury-autism hypothesis, to the point that antivaxers are now paying a handful of people to produce studies suggesting it's aluminium instead)
• [6] “You are either floridly, loudly, uninformedly anti-vaccine or you are the most grievously misunderstood celebrity of the modern era.”

Here's the thing: the backtracking started right when she was auditioning for The View. Weird how that happens, right? A vehement and unashamed antivaxer suddenly changes to being "not anti-vaccine but" right at the time she's auditioning for a position on a national TV show where being a known crank will be something of a hindrance, given her well-publicised clash with Barbara Walters over exactly that issue on her first visit to the show as a guest. And that I think is why sources are skeptical of her claim to be nt-antivaccination-but. Because everything she does in support of he beliefs - the marches, the fake charity, the whole thing - clearly establishes that she is every bit as anti-vaccination as she was before she started auditioning, and her claims around vaccines only causing "some" autism are absolutely pretextual, to insulate her from the now quite well known refutation of her claims. Guy (Help!) 17:44, 9 August 2019 (UTC)

And here's Time talking about her whitewashing of her antivax history in 2014: https://time.com/60416/jenny-mccarthy-anti-vaccine-whitewash/ Guy (Help!) 20:08, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

None of your responses actually address the issue. See my own “talk” page. Please revert to the changes that I have suggested— take your pick— but something that accurately sums up her current position. This is not about your opinion of her. It’s about her opinion on a current controversy. (Especially in a summary statement!) The end. CMTBard (talk) 22:32, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

But seriously, why are you bringing up Andrew Wakefield? Nothing in that summary statement refers to him at all. CMTBard (talk) 22:35, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

It is more charitable to say that someone is gullible than that someone is a fraud in their own right. – bradv🍁 22:38, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

Wakefield basically invented the vaccine-autism fraud. If you're not aware of his role in the pro-disease movement then I question your competence to edit in this area at all. See the Time; article. Her "real position" is anti-vaccination. She hides that by pretending to be in favour of a mythical unachievable standard of "safety" that presumes her unsupported conclusion that vaccines are not safe, and by using qualifiers that effectively insulate her false conclusion that vaccines cause autism from refutation. She started this right when she was auditioning for a job where being openly anti-vaccine would be disqualifying. The only source for her purported "current views" is her own words. Come back when you have a substantive independent reliable source that analyses her claims and whether her actions are consistent with now accepting that most cases of autism are nto cause by vaccines, and clarifying a reality-based standard on which her demands of safety can be measured. Remember, her expertise in vaccines - and any related subject - does not extend beyond the possession of large and undeniably attractive breasts. Guy (Help!) 22:53, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

disputed idea not disproven

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

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

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

And

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

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

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

And don’t try and tell me that this is a discussion for the “autism and vaccines” page— this is about a word on Jenny McCarthy’s page, and it’s one you insist on reverting to though many have suggested alternatives (“disputed” “contested” “debated” “controversial”) etc CMTBard (talk) 15:01, 9 August 2019 (UTC)

I agree with the other editors here: "disproven" is a more accurate term than "contested" or "debated" as there isn't actually much if any debate about it in the scientific community. It's a non-scientific idea which has no scientific evidence to back it. I don't watch this page and am not going to get into a back-and-forth; this is my final comment/vote until there is ever a comprehensive study supporting the asserted hypothesis that vaccines can cause or contribute to autism. Omnibus (talk) 15:36, 9 August 2019 (UTC)

Disproven is correct. Guy (Help!) 16:43, 9 August 2019 (UTC)

Except there are actual studies that have linked specific vaccines to autism causally— for ex the Dtap and autism (National Academy of Medicine 2012, referenced by the CDC). Other studies have found links to autism and certain populations (such as male African American children). Other studies (many) were unable to rule either way, leaving the question unanswered by them. Specific court cases in the US and abroad have awarded damages to children whose autism was found to be triggered by a vaccine or several vaccines. Lastly, several vaccine reactions (such as encephalitis) can in turn lead to autism. Even a cursory look into any of these leads to the conclusion that th most honest summary is “disputed” rather than “disproven.” (CMTBard (talk) 23:03, 17 August 2019 (UTC))

Do you mean this study from the National Academy of Medicine 2012? The one that specifically states on the first page that the evidence shows that vaccines do not cause several conditions. For example, the MMR vaccine is not associated with autism or childhood diabetes. Also, the DTaP vaccine is not associated with diabetes and the influenza vaccine given as a shot does not exacerbate asthma. – bradv🍁 23:08, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

Other studies have found links to autism and certain populations (such as male African American children).

This is probably a reference to this study, which notes a higher incidence of autism among certain ethnic groups, but never mentions vaccines.

Specific court cases in the US and abroad have awarded damages to children whose autism was found to be triggered by a vaccine or several vaccines.

This is referenced in the article National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program, which notes More than 5,300 parents have filed petitions at the vaccine court. However, the vaccine court has routinely dismissed such suits, failing to recognize a causal effect between the MMR vaccine and autism, referenced to [7].

Lastly, several vaccine reactions (such as encephalitis) can in turn lead to autism.

Yes, there are studies linking encephalitis with autism, like this one, but again, they don't mention vaccines.

Even a cursory look into any of these leads to the conclusion that th most honest summary is “disputed” rather than “disproven.”

No, it's disproven. Categorically and completely. – bradv🍁 23:30, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

The reference to African-American children is the "CDC whistleblower" trope. One subgroup, African-American boys vaccinated between, if memory serves, 18 and 36 months, showed a higher incidence of autism in the CDC study that showed no association between vaccines and autism. therefore, according to antivaxers, Wakefield was right, even though none of his subjects was black, and vaccines cause autism, despite the overall results being resoundingly negative and most parents claiming their autistic child is "vaccine injured" being white, a subgroup in which autism was actually lower in the vaccinated population. Back in the real world, these children were vaccinated as a prerequisite to enrolment in autism support programs - *after* diagnosis. It's an artifact of African-Americans having less access to healthcare so visiting their primary care physician less often. Guy (Help!) 00:14, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

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

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

You need to check your bias.

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

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

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

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

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

My bias is towards the facts as established by vast amounts of study, Yours, and hers, is against vaccines, one of the greatest lifesavers ever invented. Vaccines don't cause autism. Arguing about what part of vaccines causes autism is pointless, because they don't. Guy (Help!) 16:43, 9 August 2019 (UTC)

The claim that delaying or spacing out vaccines hasn't caused deaths is likely untrue. There is also zero benefit in spacing out vaccines, delaying vaccines, or using any "alternative" schedule. TylerDurden8823 (talk) 02:25, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

This article needs to be protected

McCarthy has the right to her controversial opinions. The article as of today claims "McCarthy's anti-vaccine activism has caused an increase in child deaths due to preventable diseases." which is just simply NOT TRUE. There is no, and can be no cause and effect proven between someone's "activism" and a population level change in behavior. The sentence seems to have been inserted by someone with a grudge, and should be removed. Based on the emotional tone in discussing her beliefs, I suggest the page be protected as well. It would seem to me that just pointing out that she has been active in linking autism with vaccines and linking this article to the article on anti-vaxers should be sufficient.40.142.191.32 (talk) 06:38, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

I removed the statement in question. Such an extreme claim needs more sources. That said, the page is already protected. EvergreenFir (talk) 06:57, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

Conspiracy theorist? What do the sources say?

• "More fodder for wacko autism conspiracy theorists (we're looking at you, Jenny McCarthy)" --LA Weekly
• "Though the situation may seem improbable to some, anti-vaccine sentiment has been building for decades, a byproduct of an internet humming with rumor and misinformation; the backlash against Big Pharma; an infatuation with celebrities that gives special credence to the anti-immunization statements from actors like Jenny McCarthy... 'Having the government order them to do something reinforces conspiracy theories,' said Daniel Salmon, director of the Institute for Vaccine Safety at Johns Hopkins. 'And people perceive their risk to be higher when it’s not voluntary'. " --The New York Times
• "For Wakefield and his backers, like McCarthy, it's all a sign of a conspiracy... This week, news leaked that The View, a popular daytime talk show featuring a panel of four women, is considering making Jenny McCarthy one of their hosts. This is a mistake, as it would provide a platform for a dangerous voice... I don't watch The View, but I do watch the world of disability, and I know the price that we pay when dangerous conspiracy theories spread." --The Atlantic
• "Like it or not, people care what celebrities think. So ABC’s decision to hire MTV-star-turned-medical-conspiracy-theorist Jenny McCarthy as a host of 'The View' poses a certain risk. McCarthy backs a fringe theory that purports to link vaccines to autism, and the network is giving her a prominent platform that she could use to spread a harmful superstition." --The Boston Globe
• "Ever notice a certain paranoid strain in American celebrity culture? From moon-landing deniers to 9/11 'inside job' promoters, there’s rarely a shortage of famous folks endorsing conspiracy theories. Just to take one example, the list of celebrity vaccine skeptics gets longer by the day, including Jenny McCarthy, Alicia Silverstone, Robert de Niro, Charlie Sheen, Robert Kennedy Jr. and Jessica Biel." --NBC News
• "The 11 Sexiest Women You Didn't Know Were Conspiracy Theorists: There are plenty of people among us who believe certain knowledge is being withheld from civilians—that certain groups or individuals have colluded to hide important facts from the public. Some of them happen to be very attractive, famous women... Jenny McCarthy: Anti-Vaxxer -- Though she's started to (unsuccessfully) backtrack, Jenny McCarthy has shared for years that she believes vaccinations caused her son's autism." --GQ
• "Mnookin’s reporting depicts McCarthy, a former Playboy playmate and MTV star, as an easy mark for charlatans. After dabbling in New Age crystal spirituality, she fell in with an anti-vaccination group once her son was diagnosed with autism. She soon became a ubiquitous spokeswoman for a dizzying variety of autism nostrums--special diets, supplements, detox, chelation, hyperbaric chambers, etc., none of which has been shown to have any scientific validity--and for doubts about the MMR vaccine. Most disturbingly, Mnookin documents how the news and entertainment industry abetted McCarthy’s dangerous campaign. One of the chief offenders is Oprah Winfrey, who exposed her huge television audience to McCarthy, treating her as an expert on autism because she had 'mommy instinct... She knows what she’s talking about,' Oprah advised her fans. But CNN’s Larry King and Time Inc.'s People Magazine also gave McCarthy star treatment. In our celebrity-obsessed culture in which TV actors are often called to testify before Congress on subjects of concern to their fictional characters, this was powerful stuff. Last year, McCarthy claimed that she had been wrongly painted as 'anti-vaccine.' Her claim was promptly debunked... Nyhan’s own research suggests that the root of anti-vaccine behavior by parents is an unreasoning conviction bordering on fanaticism. His 2013 study showed that anti-vaccine parents remained unswayed by scientific evidence that vaccines were safe--in fact, it sometimes made them more anti-vaccine." --The Los Angeles Times
• "But in recent days, O’Donnell has provided reminders that she has something in common with one of the women she’s replacing: namely, a tendency towards conspiratorial thinking. McCarthy’s poison is myths about medicine that pose real dangers to public health. O’Donnell, it turns out, does not believe that terrorists attacked the World Trade Center on Sept. 11... Both are suspicious of authority. Vaccine deniers see requirements for vaccination as originating in a sinister conspiracy between the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and pharmaceutical companies. Sept. 11 truthers suggest that the attacks were in the interests of either certain people in the federal government or shadowy financial interests who profited from shorting airline stocks." --The Washington Post
• "Recently, Carrey and his girlfriend, Jenny McCarthy, went on CNN's Larry King Live and singled out Offit's vaccine, RotaTeq, as one of many unnecessary vaccines, all administered, they said, for just one reason: 'Greed'. " --Wired
• "Conspiracy theories about vaccines are back in the news. That’s landed Jenny McCarthy right back in the headlines, too, since the actress and model is the most prominent celebrity spokesperson for inaccurate myths about vaccines’ safety." --Think Progress
• "Ms. Winfrey has a penchant for promoting the myth that vaccines are dangerous. While she claims publicly to be pro-vaccine, she has allowed antivaccine megastars a platform to share 'their truths.' Yet those 'truths' aren’t true at all. They are a collection of unsubstantiated and conspiratorial charges linking vaccines to autism—never mind the mountain of evidence to the contrary. Ms. Winfrey’s biggest gift to the antivaccine movement came in September 2007 when she invited the actress Jenny McCarthy to appear on her top-rated talk show... Ms. McCarthy made outrageous claims about the vaccine’s dangers while promoting equally ungrounded theories about 'cures' for autism, including a diet she found on the internet." --The Wall Street Journal
• "McCarthy has displayed a willingness to leap into new belief systems and promote them to people hungry for answers. Her journey through the world of hunch-based parenting has taken a number of twists and turns. In 2006, as recounted by Mnookin, a random woman told McCarthy that her son was a 'Crystal' and McCarthy an 'Indigo.' Suddenly, McCarthy plunged into the new age philosophy of Indigo moms and their Crystal children -- believed to be the next phase of human evolution. That never took off so she dumped it and moved on to the anti-vaccine movement. She landed time with Oprah and Rosie, and wrote multiple books on 'healing autism.' Although her TV and movie career eventually stalled, her popularity among desperate parents, discredited scientists, sellers of snake oil, and conspiracy theorists has apparently propelled her back into the spotlight." --CNN
• "Conspiracy theories about vaccinations range from 'they aren't helpful' and 'there's no proof they work' to 'they cause autism.' They've all been disproven. Decades of research demonstrate the efficacy of vaccines in public health and the myth that they cause autism has long been debunked. Nonetheless, many celebrities continue to believe it, partially because it's a flashpoint in California politics. Robert De Niro, Rob Schneider, Jenny McCarthy, and Bill Maher are all prominent examples." --Insider
• "Although it was later revealed that author Andrew Wakefield had falsified results—subsequent large-scale studies disproved a connection—a seed was planted. Over the past two decades, this seed has grown into a snaking vine, nurtured by a number of vocal conspiracy theorists. For years, the movement’s most famous voice was Jenny McCarthy. " --Fortune
• "The strongest association with anti-vaccination beliefs was the belief in other conspiracy theories (e.g. regarding the assassination of JFK, the death of Princess Diana, the existence of a New World Order, and the US government’s involvement in 9/11). Echoing earlier findings that belief in one conspiracy predicts belief in others,13 this suggests that anti-vaccination beliefs are conspiracy theories themselves. For example, many anti-vaxxers claim that the benefits and risks of vaccines are misrepresented by the likes of vaccine makers working in cahoots with the medical establishment and therefore not to be trusted... In addition, notable celebrities, including Jenny McCarthy and Jim Carrey, Alicia Silverstone, Charlie Sheen, Bill Maher, Robert DeNiro, and current US President Donald Trump have become vocal anti-vaxxers along the way, spreading disinformation in interviews and on platforms such as the Oprah Winfrey Show... Maybe watching Jenny McCarthy on Oprah put just enough doubt in your head as a concerned parent that you opted out of giving the MMR vaccine to your child. " --Psychology Today
• "It didn’t take long for the panic over MMR to cross the Atlantic, where the anti-vaccination cause was taken up by celebrities such as Jenny McCarthy and her then-boyfriend Jim Carrey... And throughout it all, there have been theories alleging a vast international conspiracy to trump up the dangers of the diseases that vaccines, to hide the truth about vaccine side effects, and to ensure profits for Big Pharma and the government." --Salon
• "I've Got Whooping Cough. Thanks a Lot, Jenny McCarthy." --The New Republic

Also see: [8] --Guy Macon (talk) 14:43, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

Seems that "conspiracy theorist" is well-sourced and should be put back in the article. Any objections, User:Meters? --Hob Gadling (talk) 15:14, 23 December 2019 (UTC)