Oprah, Jenny, Jimmy, Swine, Austism, False Prophets, and Reality

With the Swine Flu on every one's mind, one would think the Oprah, Jenny and her ilk would pause to speak. Pause to think. Pause to consider. The attachment to a belief system is dangerous when it becomes so entangled in emotion. When belief allows zero room for evidence, refutes consensus, or when belief disregards the greater good not because of observation or any particular understanding, but because of rigid belief. Throughout history individuals who cling to rigid positions have demonstrated how dangerous they can be. Indeed, when you have someone committed to an idea, you cannot convince them of an alternative based on logic or reason. You cannot suggest examples. You cannot ask for evidence. However, that does not mean a reasonable person is compelled to provide an audience.

Case in point from Slate:

Her boyfriend, actor Jim Carrey, is even more clueless. At the rally last year, I asked Carrey to give an example of a childhood vaccine we could dispense with. Tetanus, he said. That answer did not reflect a strong—or any, really—grasp of infectious diseases. Children who get tetanus—fortunately, it has been extremely rare in the United States since tetanus vaccination began in the 1920s—suffer horrendous pain, arch their backs, and go into terrible spasms before dying. It's a very natural disease, to be sure, because the germ causing tetanus lives in dirt. It's a germ that will be with us forever, and the only way to prevent it is through vaccination.

Slate, goes on to offer a healthy dose of reason:

McCarthy's popularity has created a lot of anger and disbelief in that tiny sliver of society that believes in evidence-based medicine. One person who's feeling particularly frustrated is David T. Tayloe, president of the 60,000-member American Academy of Pediatricians. (Remember them? A pediatrician is a person with a medical degree who takes care of children. Some of them are said to trust science more than celebrities when it comes to health care.)"I think show business crosses the line when they give contracts to people like Jenny McCarthy," Tayloe says. "If you give her a bully pulpit, McCarthy is going to make people hesitate to vaccinate their children. She has no medical or scientific credentials. It disturbs us that she's given all these opportunities to make her pitch about vaccines on Oprah or Larry King or U.S. News or whatever. We have to scramble to get equal time—and who wants to see a gray-haired pediatrician talking about a serious topic like childhood vaccines when she's out there blasting the academy and blasting the federal government?"

Hurrah! for the dumbing down of America. Oh, and thanks Oprah for giving a platform to ignorance.


http://www.slate.com/id/2217798/

McCarthyism Strikes Again

I have always been fascinated by those in entertainment industry who become so enamored with themselves they start to believe their own nonsense. Often, because of nothing more than celebrity experience, this somehow provides credibility and translates to expertise far beyond what their claimed profession would suggest. Consider Jenny McCarthy.

You may heard her suggestions and attempts link vaccinations to autism. Her belief and statements which would lend you believe that there is evidence linking vaccinations to autism. Never mind that the diagnosis rate for autism has increased despite the absence of "horrible ingredients" contained within them. She does not stop to ask questions publicly such as are we better at diagnosing autism or is there something else contributing to this situation? She found her demon. To make sensational claims without any particular facts or data to support such ideas is irresponsible and can cause real harm to society. Children have died in the US needlessly because of misplaced fear in parents to measles outbreaks. A virus which kills 1 child every 27 hours world wide. Should a child contract measles, the chance of death is 1 in 1000.

She found the cure though for her son. Eating right, nutritional supplements, and behavior therapy discovered or rather uncovered by doing her own research because she was all alone until someone finally found the issue. She does not leave any room or possibility for other causes. Her mind is set. She believes she can even diagnose autism. When asked about Jett Travolta, Jenny says:

“I have no idea if Jett had autism,” she clarified. “I didn’t see, you know, enough footage, or ever meet Jett to give a diagnosis of my own.”

That is a pretty strong statement. But Jenny does something quite amazing still. She manages to say something completely at odds with what she should believe. Either she did not do enough research or she is selective about results. Quite possibly, she would make a good doctor or behavior therapist, but she is not one. Based upon her own experiences, frustrations, and trials she found something that works her son. But what does her son require that any other child does not? I cannot help but think had not the nutritional and behavioral 'cures' been in place prior to a diagnosis, would there have been a need for one?

But let's consider that she is saying that mercury based thimerosal is the second deadliest nerve toxin known to mankind. Guess what the first one is? It is completely natural. It's Botulism.

Fans of irony listen up!

I think plastic surgery is fun if it makes you feel good. I'm all for looking better, so I plan on doing whatever I want when the time comes. I love Botox, I absolutely love it. I get it minimally, so I can still move my face. But I really do think it's a savior.

So folks, according to Jenny the non existence of the second most deadliest nerve toxin in vaccinations causes autism and use of the first most toxic substance is fun. How does one reconcile this? Is it possible? One would think celebrities would learn from each other, but somehow they become impervious. It would be one thing if she kept her beliefs to herself, but she does not. It just goes to my point that celebrity does not give you any special insight. In fact, it may do just the opposite and provide insulation from reality.

Why?

1) She looks good.
2) She is famous.
3) She must know what she is talking about.
4) She did the research.
5) Other research and data is invalid.
6) The experts were wrong until she found the one who agreed with her.

When people cling to a conspiracy theory, they have no choice but to interpret all data which is unsupportive of their theory as suspect. At the same time, any anecdotal evidence, such as swelling of brain from an allergic reaction is intentionally misinterpreted and used to mislead.

Unfortunately, it will require holding such celebrity responsible for the direction they provide as it is unreasonable to expect a sense of responsibility or contemplative thought to arise. The consequences of overcoming ignorance may be painful lesson for many and increase our health risks. Sadly, all based on personal belief being provided a platform without the requirements or challenges of scrutiny. Her tactics though, are quite intellectually dishonest. Maybe even criminal. After all, you cannot yell fire in a crowded movie theartre if this is not a fire.

Maybe we need to hold celebrity to little bit higher standard than we do if they cannot themselves, or at least hold them accountable.