Amanda vs. Jenny
July 11, 2008 by Kristina Chew, PhD
Filed under Health
Amanda “soon to appear in PSA’s for Every Child by Two” Peet vs. Jenny “Green Our Vaccines” McCarthy?
If the subject is vaccines.
Conversations with Paul Offit, M.D., who is chief of infectious diseases at the Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia and a frequent target of the ire of pro-vaccine safety/anti-vaccine-ists, led actress Peet to be “’shocked at the amount of misinformation floating around, particularly in Hollywood.’” Apparently on the trailer of her soon-to-be-in-theaters film, X-Files 2, Peet says “I am not the most popular girl at the FBI, right now” —- I suspect she’s not going to be “the most popular” in some other circles.
But much appreciated in others (here, too).
Thank you very much, Amanda Peet!
Good Job, Paul Offit!
I really wish that people in the entertainment business would stay in that business. This applies to both Jenny and Amanda. Vaccination is not a popularity contest. If there is going to be a debate let it be between people who have earned credentials in the field.
She’s got my support! I’ll show it by going to see the X-files 2, among other ways.
I see the Amanda v. Jenny throwdown all over the web. I’d prefer my public health from pros too, but it’s clear that celebutainment gets the attention. I hope a scene on the red carpet is not in the cards.
Liz Ditz/I Speak of Dreams has a blog post on the topic,
Celebrities Who Support Vaccinations
Well. if there’s going to be a celebrity speaking on this, my vote is for Emma Major, who’s said some things worth quoting about life with her autistic son.
Many readers on a Cookie message board are (as predicted) not happy with Amanda Peet.
The forum over at the Cookie website is obviously not reflecting the majority of parents views, because it’s showing the letters sent by die-hard biomed parents only (informed by their yahoo groups, blogs and the such).
I meant “mostly” and not “only”. Of course the parents who were offended by the “parasites” comment were the ones most motivated to write to the magazine.
I would think she had inkling of what might follow—-interesting she mentioned meeting with Paul Offit.
And now David Kirby weighs in with what I find to be a weirdly titled article,
Amanda Peet vs. The Medical Establishment
Sorry, missed a closed quote.
Amanda Peet vs. The Medical Establishment
I really feel there should be no single individual trying to find the cause of autism whether it is vaccines or other enviornmental,… Thank you Amanda Peet. Anyway, I enjoyed this post since not every celebrity is like Jenny.
He says in that piece that “This week, actress Amanda Peet called parents who don’t vaccinate their kids “parasites,” and then essentially went on to lie when she announced that scientists have concluded there is “no association between autism and vaccines.”
He called what she said a “lie” and then says that there’s plenty to indicate otherwise, which as it turns out, is at least a statement without any scientific basis. Then, a list of “cues” to support his assertion, not a single solitary one of which contains an iota of evidence from peer-reviewed science. In fact, four of the ten citations are from *politicians.* You know you’re in trouble when 40% of your arguments come from politicians.
He brings up the IACC and says that *some members* want a vaccine emphasis. He drags in the red herring of Hannah Poling and mitochondrial disorders.
This reminds me of the woman who tried to convince me how strongly she empathized with me as a parent by telling me she was an educator and *aunt*. When you know your argument is weak, you’ll scrabble for just about anything to support it. Where are the scientific studies to support Kirby’s assertions? Hilariously, he brings up the CDC’s desire to address as their top vaccine-related questions, ‘Are neurodevelopmental disorders, including autism, clinical outcomes of vaccine injury?’ And, ‘Is immunization associated with increased risk for neurological deterioration in children with mitochondrial dysfunction?’ yet has Dr. Bernadine Healy, “former head of the NIH and the American Red Cross and current Health Editor of US News & World Report” telling CBS News that, “‘Officials have been too quick to dismiss the hypothesis as irrational,’” that “‘they don’t want to pursue a hypothesis because that hypothesis could be damaging to the public health community at large by scaring people.’” How can both of these assertions be true? Are vaccines among the “officials” top questions, or do officials “not want to pursue” the hypothesis? I’m guessing the CDC would like to pursue this with the goal of getting it off the freaking table once and for all to avoid endangering children’s lives with fearmongering.
Sitting in my sister’s apartment, I kinda hope I didn’t laugh too hard when reading the Kirby article. But I did at least five times… I don’t know what phrase I can use to describe that. “Intellectually null” seems appropriate.
Cliff
Throwing anything to see if it sticks.
Thanks Emily.