Jenny McCarthy talks to CNN on how she cured her sons Autism: Larry King also

reply to post by bitsforbytes


Well I am not saying its the drugs but they cant be discounted either especially with ecstasy not so much the MDMA I thing but the things that were added to the pills for effect. Designer drugs are the great unknowns in this age completely untested. They even have synthetic "snip" that's being sold in convenience stores and I have seen people who smoke it. That stuff is bound to cause some serious health problems down the line.

Anyway my real point is that our environment is full of chemicals the air is full of benzine our bathing and grooming products are full of known toxins its probably not one single thing that's causing a change but a combination of them.

reply to post by Grimpachi


I have only one thing that causes my skin to break out in places. I can deal with battery acid on it without burning. I can deal with pvc pipe cleaner. But if I use shampoo or any product that has propylene glycol in it it makes me break out. I don't have a clue why, I have not been to a doctor for this. I tested it several times and got the same result. So why do I need a doctor's verification to avoid it, I know I am allergic to this, using testing procedures that are equivalent to the tests doctors do. I listed the allergy on my medical list at the doctors, if it is there and they give me medicine that contains it and I get a reaction, it is on their heads.

You do not need medical proof to list something you are allergic to on the sheet you fill out. Just put it there if you are sure. My mother was allergic to sulfa drugs and told the doctors she was on every visit yet they were giving her two drugs containing sulfa on a regular basis. No wonder she always had rashes. No wonder she never healed better from her stroke. I see they kept her sick with a water pill and a diabetic drug. It may not have made her normal again, but it sure would have made her life easier if they would have changed her meds.

I see a lot of this when I talk to people. They voice true concerns and are ignored or given another med to cover up the symptoms. Some doctors are good, others are good pill pushers.

reply to post by ThichHeaded


48 shots by 5? Only about 18 are required. The rest are a choice (pneumonia shot; influenza; varacilla).

The ones you need are MMR - 3 series; HIB - 4 series; DTAP - 5 of these; HEP B - 3 series, and 3 polio.

That is a whole lot of shots without throwing in the ones the "highly recommend with a look of your a bad parent if you don't do it now".

I did the varicella on my children only because of shingles later in life. I do not do the pneumonia nor flue shots. I also don't do the hep A nor any of the new ones they come out with from time to time. Although they do have one for warts? Supposed to protect against cervical cancer. For my son I was told they also protect boys from cancer. I'm not sure how they know this. Maybe a longitudinal study somewhere.

I got them for my kids and we fared fine. However, I've seen it first hand with those who get them and their cognition changes within a week. There are just some children who should not be getting these and they need to figure out what it is about them that makes it dangerous instead of being so defensive. I believe the MMR was once required at 9 months but was bumped to after a year for the reason of safety.

I'm glad these guys were able to help their child. Autism is a lonely place to be so if his quality of life has been saved I say it is worth listening to.

Grimpachi
Jenny is a beauty but of course I wouldn't consider her a great mind. I wonder what she will say if someday the medical field says shampoos and cosmetics carry harmful substances....oh wait that's already happened considering all the crap she has probably absorbed through the years and I did see some photo shoots of her when she was pregnant... well anyway you get what I am saying. She wants to blame something but nothing that may lead back to herself.

Propylene Glycol
Propylene glycol, better known as the antifreeze in your car, is also a common ingredient in shampoos and other personal care products for similar purposes--to keep the product from freezing during shipping and storage. It can irritate skin, causing allergic reactions, and alters skin structure allowing other harmful chemicals to more easily reach the bloodstream, reports Northwestern Health Sciences University. It breaks down protein and cell structures, and is so toxic that U.S. Environmental Protection Agency regulations require workers handling this chemical to wear protective gloves, masks and goggles, according to the State of Connecticut Department of Children and Families. Carefully read shampoo labels and seek out natural shampoos that do not contain this harmful chemical.

DEA, MEA and TEA
The chemicals diethanolamine (DEA), momoethanolamine (MEA) and triethanolamine (TEA) are added to shampoos and other personal care products like bubble bath and facial cleansers to create the sensation of a rich foamy lather. These chemicals are often listed on labels as Cocomide DEA or Lauramide DEA. After repeated use, these chemicals are absorbed through the skin where they form cancer-causing nitrates and nitrosamines, according to both the Northwestern Health Sciences University and the State of Connecticut Department of Children and Families. Both of these groups recommend avoiding shampoos containing these chemicals. Read labels carefully, as most commercial shampoos contain DEA. Health food stores and medical supply outlets do carry DEA-free shampoos.

I am not saying her shampoo is to blame but what the hell there is just as much evidence for it as vaccines. Whatever we do lets not make a connection to how she previously abused drugs, including Ecstasy and Vicodin. Sure must be those vaccines.

The whole point about the vaccine debate for me comes down to what was the autism rate before 1989 when only 8 to 10 shots were required or given to babies and children before the age of 5... After 1989 the shots have increased to 48.. Seems pretty simple when you have parents saying their babies were fine until they got the shots. Someone will come along and say it is all about parents wanting to file a lawsuit or something (money) because their child's messed up and will need care for the rest of their lives. Instead of that line of thought maybe it is all about big farma pushing vaccinations (for money not health) on those who can not say "no" for themselves and now the parents are being brow beaten into a shot schedule that common sense to many says are to much to soon..

For the past couple of decades rates of autism seem to have risen dramatically but now a US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has pin-pointed a sudden jump in cases since 1988 and suspects yet to be identified environmental triggers are a likely explanation

Yea Buddy They got it figured out... B.S. anything but.... for goodness sake don't mention the vaccine schedule for our children !! That will piss someone important off !

I think it's sadly ironic that she's trying to increase the incidence of preventable disease by claiming injected vaccines are bad but that she regularly has botox injected straight into her face.

What I think isn't ironic but incredibly sad is that there are people who would believe her over medical professionals.


Oh yes, her son who she "cured of autism" probably didn't have autism in the first place.
His symptoms fit the bill of having Landau–Kleffner syndrome rather than autism.
So if she doesn't even know what was wrong with her child then how can you accept anything else she says about health?
She's clueless.


www.jennymccarthybodycount.com...

reply to post by Asktheanimals


I would have thought that being a mod here would make you immune from making weak straw man arguments.

No, no one injects tuna, but plenty of pregnant women and children eat tuna and other fish, why can't the mercury in fish be a cause for autism?

The relationship is just as casual as vaccines causing it, with the possibilities of getting a higher dosage much greater too

But no, anti vaccine fear mongering doesn't allow for such a thought.

reply to post by AlphaHawk

No, no one injects tuna, but plenty of pregnant women and children eat tuna and other fish, why can't the mercury in fish be a cause for autism?

If you eat a poisonous spider you will generally be fine as long as you don't have any open wounds in your mouth, but if that same spider bites you and injects its venom directly into your blood stream you could easily die. I think the point Asktheanimals was trying to make is something along those lines.

Why are people still going on about mercury and autism?
How have autism rates continued to climb whilst there hasn't been any mercury in childhood vaccines for over a decade?
Even McCarthy's puppet-masters at Generation Rescue are changing their tune about mercury.

Talk about 2+2=potato...

Jenny Mccarthy is a certified loon, and I wouldn't trust a word she says.

MUCH work has been done, and I'm talking a stack of medical papers as high as me, that shows autism is present at BIRTH and most of them can be spotted as abnormal by six months.

ASD is a wide ranging cluster of conditions, so attributing one cause to them all is ludicrous. Some ASD's have a well know cause- specific conditions like Rett's, and are genetic in origin and we know the genes responsible. Twin studies also show autismis stongly hereitable, and if just one twin has autism, it's the smaller one. This and the fact fraternal twins are more likely than normal siblings to have autism tells us that something has gone wrong in the womb. ASD's can have hundreds of causes, genetic and in utero environmental. There are a multitude of ways a brain, the most complex object we know, can malfunction.

Things known to statistically affect the chances of a child being autistic; the mother having an autoimmune condition, older parents, exposure to antidepressants and a maternal high fever in utero, heavy metal exposure, being a twin. And yet antivaxxers keep insisting 'autism is caused by vaccines'. NOT ONE study has been funded by an antivax group to show unvaccinated kids have a lower rate of autism.

I should also point out that the rate of autism in the older population when examined again, is the same as in kids. THERE HAS BEEN NO INCREASE. We have more kids diaagnosed with autism due to greater awareness and a wider definition of what autism is. I have a mild ASD (Aspergers). Not diagnosed unitl my forties. During my childhood kids were 'odd', now they are autistic not odd. I dug up 18 different studies that show no change in the frequency of autism over the decades. I'll PM them to anyone who wants a look.

And we need to vaccinate. Mortality from easles about 1/250 with young kids, 1/200 for pertussis infants, diptheria 1/10, and so on.Tens of thousands of kids would die in the rich countries alone from these illnesses if we stopped vaccinating.

Mortality rate for measles from European outbreaks, for pertussis from a New Zealand outbreak.

reply to post by Pardon?

His symptoms fit the bill of having Landau–Kleffner syndrome rather than autism

Hmm.. googling.. why, so they do!

So this woman caused all that grief and her kid probably wasn't even autistic to start with. Oy.

reply to post by 727Sky

The whole point about the vaccine debate for me comes down to what was the autism rate before 1989 when only 8 to 10 shots were required or given to babies and children before the age of 5... After 1989 the shots have increased to 48.. Seems pretty simple when you have parents saying their babies were fine until they got the shots. Someone will come along and say it is all about parents wanting to file a lawsuit or something (money) because their child's messed up and will need care for the rest of their lives. Instead of that line of thought maybe it is all about big farma pushing vaccinations (for money not health) on those who can not say "no" for themselves and now the parents are being brow beaten into a shot schedule that common sense to many says are to much to soon..

I dug up EIGHTEEN different studies that showed the rate of autism didn't increase, and that the apparent increase was due to a change in the diagnostic criteria and better awareness and from moving kids from learning difficulty categories into autistic ones. Put simply there are now fewer retarded kids, but more autistic ones. All down to cahnging definitions.

Only one Californian study disagreed.

reply to post by Grimpachi


It was my failed attempt to "inject" some humor in the conversation.
My strangest posts are usually made 2 -3 AM. but no alcohol to blame sadly.