By Liskula Cohen (with
Matthew Rozsa*)
I've never met Jenny
McCarthy, but I'm certainly familiar with her crusade against vaccines. For
better or worse, we live in a society where celebrities can develop large
followings and convince millions of people to make major life decisions based
on their advice. When they use that influence to spread credible information
about important issues, they perform a valuable public service. On the other
hand, when they push positions that have been discredited by the scientific
community, they aren't just wasting an opportunity to do good, but are being
dangerously irresponsible.
Like many expectant
mothers, I felt quite vulnerable when I was pregnant. Consequently, when a
friend who'd had triplets told me that she blamed vaccines for causing one of
her daughters to became autistic while her two sisters did not, I became
afraid. Because I didn't have any reliable statistics of my own, I began
reading blog posts - too many, as it turned out. By the time my child was born
and due to be vaccinated, I was scared stiff. While McCarthy herself hadn't
made me feel this way, the anti-vaccination agenda that had been largely
popularized (although she has recently stopped calling it “anti-vaccine,” which
I’ll address later) through her campaign had reached me through someone I
trusted.
Then I did something I
wish all anti-vaccination advocates would do; I looked at the science.
For one
thing, I found that the entire anti-vaccine movement began with a paper published by a scientist named Andrew Wakefield in 1998. It
is worth noting that a year earlier, Wakefield had filed a patent for a new measles vaccine that he hoped would replace the
existing one. Despite this obvious conflict of interest, Wakefield's article
presented a study that alleged a link between the MMR vaccine and various
gastrointestinal and developmental disorders (including autism). His argument
has since then been completely discredited: One scholar found that
Wakefield had manipulated
the data used in his study; ten of the
thirteen scientists who contributed to Wakefield's paper have withdrawn their work; the journal which first published the article
has since then retracted it; and an investigation launched by the UK's General Medical Panel determined that
Wakefield had not only reached his conclusions "dishonestly and
irresponsibly," but had performed tests on children that weren't in their
best clinical interest and showed "callous disregard for the distress and
pain" they would suffer.
As if that
hadn't been persuasive enough, I found that the established scientific
community overwhelmingly agrees that immunizations have not been linked to
autism, from studies published in Public
Library of Science One and The
Journal of Pediatrics to the positions asserted by the Centers for
Disease Control and Prevention and the Division of
Infectious Diseases in the
Children's Hospital of Philadelphia. Unfortunately, many parents are
predisposed to be suspicious of the scientific establishment, allowing McCarthy to
continue spreading Wakefield's erroneous message. As
a result, more than 130,000 preventable illnesses
have been spread since 2007, with almost 1,400 of them resulting in deaths.
Parents are
encouraged to use the regular vaccine schedule, which has been approved by the
CDC, American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP), and the American Academy of Family
Physicians. Although it has not been studied or approved by public health
groups, another alternative is the Dr. Sears alternative vaccine schedule,
which Sears explains is meant to alleviate the fears of parents still somewhat
swayed by McCarthy's rhetoric by spreading shots over a longer period of time.
"If some of the theoretical problems with vaccines are real, this schedule
circumvents most of them." Sears writes. "If the problems aren’t
real, then the only drawback is the extra time, effort, and cost for the
additional doctor’s office visits." After talking with my daughter's
pediatrician, I chose the Sears slow schedule (which she had used for her own
four children), happy that I had combined my own judgment and instincts with
the opinion of a qualified medical professional.
Indeed, I
am hardly a shill for Big Pharm. I’m an Attachment Parent, exclusively breast
fed my daughter for a year, still baby wear, and co-slept for a year. In
addition to traditional medicine, I also use natural medicinal and homeopathic
practices. When it comes to my daughter’s body, I rely on good common sense as
much as possible. That’s why, even though I’m still somewhat nervous about
vaccines, I remember that the thought of losing my daughter scares me far more.
I am not writing any
of this to attack McCarthy personally. Recently she has made efforts to
rehabilitate her image, such as a Chicago
Sun-Times op-ed last month in which she declared that she is “in fact,
‘pro-vaccine’,” is “wrongly branded as ‘anti-vaccine’,” and - per a Time Magazine quote of hers from 2009 - is
simply “demanding safe vaccines. We want to reduce the schedule and reduce the
toxins.” Of course, she omitted the next line of the quote from that interview,
in which she declared that “If you ask a parent of an autistic child if they
want the measles or the autism, we will stand in line for the fucking measles.”
Even though she is admitting that vaccines are important, she has yet to retract
her longstanding assertion that there is a link between certain vaccines and
autism… one that, it cannot be repeated enough, has not been scientifically
proved.
In short, I don't
doubt that McCarthy only wants what she believes is best not only for her own
children, but for children everywhere. The problem is that the science shows
her inaccuracies are a public health risk. Already lives have been damaged,
even lost, because of that pseudo-scientific campaign. I can't imagine how
terribly she will feel if an outbreak occurs because of people who protest,
"But Jenny McCarthy said I was doing the right thing!"
* - Matthew Rozsa, the co-author of this piece, has autism and has written about it extensively.
