A Dangerous "View"

Friday, July 19, 2013


This week, ABC announced that model, comedian, and anti-vaccine activist Jenny McCarthy would be joining the hit daytime talk show The View. Bob looks at the controversy surrounding her hiring and at the media's description of McCarthy's "controversial" views. 

Hosted by:

Bob Garfield

Comments [120]


I am appalled by the comments here supporting dangerous "alternative medicine." All this stuff has one thing in common - it's either vague and unprovable, or it's been proven not to work. This autism-vaccine conspiracy is no different. The purported link between them is a pernicious hoax, part of a long history of scams perpetrated against people who feel hopeless about autism and feel they have nowhere else to turn. It's on the same level as Scientology as far as I'm concerned.

Both the left AND the right have a history of catering to wackos like this! Good for Bob Garfield for calling it like it is with this brave and incisive commentary!

for more info:

Jan. 14 2015 12:46 PM
Steven BDSM Hadley

Wonderful article. Good that you have confronted pseudo science advocates.


Sep. 23 2014 12:58 AM
Jim Lahey from Sunnyvale Trailer Park

Jack do you have an idea beyond the one you keep repeating.

Wouldn't a different view make the program more interesting?

Aug. 12 2014 06:18 PM
Jack from 49507

Jenny is the worst thing The View could ever do. I will never watch The View again. She totally ruins it.

Sep. 28 2013 09:37 PM
Jack from 49507

Jenny is the worst thing The View could ever do. I will never watch The View again. She totally ruins it.

Sep. 28 2013 09:37 PM
Jack from 49507

Jenny is the worst thing The View could ever do. I will never watch The View again. She totally ruins it.

Sep. 28 2013 09:37 PM
Jack from 49507

Jenny is the worst thing The View could ever do. I will never watch The View again. She totally ruins it.

Sep. 28 2013 09:37 PM
Jack from 49507

Jenny is the worst thing The View could ever do. I will never watch The View again. She totally ruins it.

Sep. 28 2013 09:37 PM

Jenny is the worst thing The View could ever do. I will never watch The View again. She totally ruins it.

Sep. 28 2013 09:37 PM

Jenny is the worst thing The View could ever do. I will never watch The View again. She totally ruins it.

Sep. 28 2013 09:37 PM

Jenny is the worst thing The View could ever do. I will never watch The View again. She totally ruins it.

Sep. 28 2013 09:37 PM

Jenny is the worst thing The View could ever do. I will never watch The View again. She totally ruins it.

Sep. 28 2013 09:37 PM

Jenny is the worst thing The View could ever do. I will never watch The View again. She totally ruins it.

Sep. 28 2013 09:37 PM

Jenny is the worst thing The View could ever do. I will never watch The View again. She totally ruins it.

Sep. 28 2013 09:37 PM

Something else to ponder here from 2 voices in recent years.

As a retired physician, I can honestly say that unless you are in a serious accident, YOUR BEST CHANCE OF LIVING TO A RIPE OLD AGE IS TO AVOID DOCTORS AND HOSPITALS AND LEARN NUTRITION, HERBAL MEDICINE AND OTHER FORMS OF NATURAL MEDICINE [i.e. PREVENTION]. Almost all drugs are toxic and are designed only to treat symptoms and not to cure anyone. Most surgery is unnecessary. In short, our mainstream medical system is hopelessly inept and/or corrupt. THE TREATMENT OF CANCER AND DEGENERATIVE DISEASES IS A NATIONAL SCANDAL. The sooner you learn this, the better off you will be. Dr. Allan Greenberg on 12/24/2002"

All appointments to the FDA are carefully screened to be certain that the appointee will be controlled by the drug companies. An FDA memo admitted that they would never permit an independent researcher to come up with a cure for cancer that it would have to come through a drug company. Many cancer cures have come and gone since 1906. None has received any publicity in the national media. Curing cancer is far removed from the plans of the drug companies as the sale of chemotherapy drugs is so
lucrative." --Dr. James Howenstine

Aug. 30 2013 10:02 AM

I have to commend Jenny McCarthy and her views on vaccination as I do of many of those who commented here against vaccinations.
I personally am against it.
I found many years ago that diet and nutrition has much to do with maintaining good health.
Relying on the slop that Big Food offers the public and then running off to Big Pharma for some "treatment" is foolish and deadly.
Where else in Nature do ANY creature jab themselves or their kin with some needle or device for some "artificial immunity". I have worked in several tropical jungles over the years and have yet to see it in that environment. I don't see it anywhere except with humans.
Another point is that of all the creatures on earth, its man who "cooks" his food whereas all others eat their fare in its RAW STATE.
Why is it that humans are the sickest creatures on earth? Could it be their unnatural diet of cooked, processed, chemicalized, fragmented, devitalized, GMO ladened, dead and stale material which passes for food.
Why not maintain your natural immunity through a living diet?
It has worked for me and my family for decades.

I applaud those here who took the time to do the research on vaccinations.
Expecting to get the "truth" via the mainstream media and their interests in catchy sound bytes is not my way to get the whole story.
Big Medicine which is only second to the military-industrial complex in size and thrives on the need for the ill, ailing and dying for business. There is no money in healthy people.
This is capitalism where the system depends on the masses. They despise free thinkers.

The only thing "dangerous" here is that those who are anti-vaccination are dangerous to the economic interests of Big Pharma, Big Food, Big Medicine. Big Oil, etc.

Aug. 30 2013 09:56 AM

Thank you, Bob. This piece was amazing. It is refreshing to hear quacktivism and idiocy being called out. Thank you so much.

Aug. 06 2013 09:19 PM
ASH from Ohio

Even if you believe vaccines are safe, Dissolving Illusions should make it crystal clear that they are not necessary. If they are not necessary, why do our children receive more than four dozen by the time they go to school?

There are only so many possible explanations. I suppose some doctors still believe in them. After all, they’ve been indoctrinated since they first set foot in medical school. Big Pharma is a powerful—not to mention rich—force. And I guess it’s possible that the FDA, CDC, and other agencies believe the “studies” they see quoted. After all, the statistics are skewed to say whatever the authors want them to say. It’s also possible that some doctors don’t believe in vaccines and don’t vaccinate their own children but keep quiet.

How many times have you heard your doctor say, “Vaccines prevent horrible diseases and sometimes death?” I know that, until my grandson Jake regressed into autism from rabies vaccines, I believed wholeheartedly in vaccines. I believed everything I read about all those horrible, deadly diseases and dutifully took my daughters for their vaccines when they were little. I couldn’t wait to get my flu shot every fall. I accepted it all without question. I never had a reason to question it. Until my family suffered the indescribable agony of watching Jake disappear into a black hole.

Don’t let your child developing autism or suffering any injury after a vaccine be your reason to question the safety of the vaccine program. Do it now. Read Dissolving Illusions. If you don’t do anything else, look at the graphs. (You can see these on the web site, www.dissolvingillusions.com.) Consider the history. The science. Not someone’s opinion, but the facts. This book is the result of 20 years of research. It presents the truth.

Remember this: There is no evidence to support the theory that vaccines are necessary, and “safety” studies are absent or flawed. Doctors have pushed vaccines since the 1700s, but they have yet to study vaccinated versus unvaccinated children. If they are so sure their vaccines are effective and necessary and safe, why haven’t they done this study to put parents’ minds to rest? The answer is simple. They don’t need to do the study. They already know the truth. They don’t want us to know it.

Draw your own conclusions. And be willing to accept the fact that what you’ve been told all your life and believed without question just might not be true. Your child’s health and life depends on it. He depends on you to make informed, healthy, safe decisions. He can’t do it himself.

Do your child a favor. Read Dissolving Illusions.

- See more at: http://vactruth.com/2013/08/02/dissolving-illusions/?utm_source=The+Vaccine+Truth+Newsletter&utm_campaign=897a66d25f-08_02_2013_illusions&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_ce7860ee83-897a66d25f-408214113#sthash.FZ2y3yWb.dpuf

Aug. 02 2013 01:15 PM
ASH from Ohio

The Centers for Disease Control recently published valuable information about polio vaccines on their site, but afterwards retracted the information. Why has that information been taken down? Regardless, a Google snapshot of this information as it appeared on July 11, 2013 is cached here:


The saved CDC information comes right out and admits that more than 98 million Americans during a span of eight years were injected with a cancer-causing polyomavirus called SV40.

This fact alone should serve as a testament to anyone: always question medical professionals who say that you or your child needs a certain vaccine or prescription. So much "medicine" today is actually poison. Professionals are often duped into believing in the safety of a vaccine or prescription, when all along it may be laced with cancer-causing, health ravaging virus, heavy metals, fungus, formaldehyde, or neurotoxins.

With the CDC coming out and admitting that millions of Americans were exposed to cancer causing SV40 viruses in the polio vaccines between 1955 and 1963, there will be increased skepticism about vaccinations in the years to come.

Maybe that's why billionaire vaccine pushers made the CDC take this important information off their site.

Regardless, now you know. Always make an informed decision. Don't automatically trust a medical professional when they say, 'you need this vaccine.'

Learn more: http://www.naturalnews.com/041411_SV40_hidden_cancer_viruses_polio_vaccines.html#ixzz2aWGSwuwP

Learn more: http://www.naturalnews.com/041411_SV40_hidden_cancer_viruses_polio_vaccines.html#ixzz2aWFTMhcC

Jul. 30 2013 05:27 AM
David Ezell from Seattle

There's skepticism about everything in science. That said, science is evidence-based. The evidence for vaccinations causing any sort of autism/spectrum-related diagnosis is non-existant. So until that appears from a VALID source, one must assume it is not true.

Thanks Bob for showing the power of modern myth and revealing the ignorance that continues to kill children who die from conditions easily treated by a shot in the arm.

Jul. 26 2013 05:42 PM

I am very disappointed in OTM's mocking tone toward people who question vaccines. Sort of like finding out a friend secretly despises you. I no longer feel like listening.

I can't believe that OTM can take this stance and completely overlook the typical "bread and butter" approach of enterprising journalists with regard to the vaccine "industry." For example:

- you seem comletely willing to ignore the millions of dollars of lobbying influence on regulators at the CDC and FDA;

- you ignore the "revolving door" between regulators and industry, i.e. those once in positions of power at regulators are now highly paid lobbyists wining and dining their ex-colleagues;

- you fail to acknowledge the lack of long-term studies on the effects and potential dangers of ALL ingredients in ALL vaccines (not just Thimerosol), since substances like aluminim hydroxide and scores of others can be added tomorrow to a vaccine without anyone really knowing what impact it could have five years down the line in humans;

- you refuse to ponder to potential for complications from front-loading increased numbers of vaccines mainlined into young children's bloodstreams and brains, taking industry's word for it that we'll all be ok;

Why is there NO skepticism on your part when it comes to vaccines? Is it so far-fetched that one or more of the above factors give pause to parents before offering up our children to the vaccine gods? Or are we all just - by extension - Holocaust denying truthers?

Jul. 26 2013 02:44 PM
ASH from Ohio

Then why is there a government slush fund for vaccine payouts?

Others have freaked out as well over the ABC decision.

"McCarthy is not expressing a disagreeable political position, she is spreading misinformation that has actual, tangible health risks. America's public health authorities should be sounding the alarm," Salon writer Alex Pareene has written recently [http://www.salon.com].

But the facts are not on the side of McCarthy's detractors. As InfoWars.com notes, if vaccines were as safe as everyone says, why would the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services need an independent arm whose sole function is to hand out cash settlements to people whose family members have been either killed or otherwise catastrophically damaged by vaccines?

"The Vaccine Injury Compensation Trust Fund provides funding for the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program to compensate vaccine-related injury or death claims for covered vaccines administered on or after October 1, 1988," the DHHS' National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program's website states [see it here: http://www.hrsa.gov].

Yes, that's right.

So the next time you hear someone trashing McCarthy or anyone who has expressed concern over, and doubts about, vaccines, think of the Vaccine Injury Compensation Trust Fund and the role of the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program.

Learn more: http://www.naturalnews.com/041364_Jenny_McCarthy_vaccines_censorship.html#ixzz2a9MvKrME

Jul. 26 2013 07:30 AM
felix ray from usa

The irresponsible thing is not that McCarthy has been hired, it's that ABC is directly promoting McCarthy's "views on parenting" as if it were to be a part of the show. There's always a chance that this will lead to closer scrutiny and greater awareness of the pitfalls of anti-vaccine psuedoscience, but on the face of it, this is appaling. The strong language is called for.

People who are shocked that Bob should give an out and out straight editorial are perhaps unaware that he does it every week. It's a regular feature of the show.

Jul. 25 2013 07:07 PM
ASH from Ohio

You had the polio vaccine between 1955 and 1963.....are you going to suffer the consequences of possible cancer in your near future all these years later? Perhaps, read on.

You can view the full archived CDC page here:

As you will notice on the archived CDC page, the SV40 virus was allegedly first discovered in monkeys back in 1960, and not long after began appearing inexplicably in polio vaccines. The SV40 virus, according to this same page, has been linked to causing a variety of human cancers, including childhood leukemia, lung cancer, bone cancer, and Non-Hodgkin Lymphoma.

Though the CDC denies a definitive causal link between SV40 and cancer, it implies that the virus, which was supposedly removed from all polio vaccines in 1963, was problematic in relation to cancer development. More than 98 million people, in fact, may have been exposed to SV40 as a result of receiving government-recommended polio vaccines back in the 1960s, and many of these may have developed cancer as a result.

"More than 98 million Americans received one or more doses of polio vaccine from 1955 to 1963 when a proportion of vaccine was contaminated with SV40," explains the CDC. "[I]t has been estimated that 10-30 million Americans could have received an SV40 contaminated dose of vaccine."

Learn more: http://www.naturalnews.com/041345_CDC_polio_vaccine_SV40.html#ixzz2a3igS1S0

Jul. 25 2013 08:22 AM
John Huntington from Brooklyn, NY

I want to commend Bob for sticking to the actual facts and giving us this great piece. Thanks Bob and OTM!


Jul. 24 2013 08:33 AM
ASH from Ohio

Families of three babies who died shortly after receiving their routine hepatitis B vaccine are mourning the loss of their children. The babies, vaccinated in Vietnam under the country’s National Expanded Program on Immunization, died on July 20 in the central province of Quang Tri, according to the report. [1]

The Vietnamese Health Department has since opted to discontinue the use of two vaccine lots in the entire country to protect other babies from a similar, tragic fate. According to officials, the vaccines were not expired and were properly stored. They were administered by a nurse with over twenty years of experience. [2]

On July 21, the nation’s health minister, Nguyen Thi Kim Tien, sent her condolences to the families of the deceased infants, ordering vaccine experts to investigate the tragedy. Preliminary investigations have identified anaphylactic shock as the cause of death. The chairperson of the vaccine program has asked parents to “keep calm” and continue vaccinating their children.

Health representatives have conducted damage control with home visits to the grieving parents, paying each family $377 and offering free medical care to the mothers at the hospital where their babies received the deadly vaccinations.
- See more at: http://vactruth.com/2013/07/24/hepatitis-b-vaccine-deaths/?utm_source=The+Vaccine+Truth+Newsletter&utm_campaign=40b3dea391-07_24_2013_hepb&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_ce7860ee83-40b3dea391-408214113#sthash.yiXu69GD.dpuf

Jul. 24 2013 07:06 AM
Aaron Voyles from Minneapolis,MN

Absolutely fantastic. Thank you for for this. There are such things as truth and fact, thank you for firmly asserting them on multiple levels. I hope everyone involved in this piece is proud of their work, you should be.

Jul. 24 2013 02:49 AM
Tim Ryan

Bob Garfield's diatribe was reprehensible. His rant ignores that the medical profession and the pharmaceutical industry lie to the general populace on a routine basis about the benefits and cost of their regimens. My god, you only have to watch the evening news on any channel, Bob, to know that drug companies have been constrained to not lie outright about their miracle cures.

My understanding is that there is no data to confirm or deny that the extremely accelerated rate of vaccinations among current infant population can be ruled out as at fault. In the past they did not load infants with toxins at the rate they do now. I undersand that they are loading infants and small children with disease in an effort to build immunities. But they do it at a rate that would never be experienced in the real world. Some of this is the result of major drug companies trying to maximize on a low payback program.

Time to stop this until there is more data. Loading infants up with contaminants may just be a very stupid thing to do.

Jul. 23 2013 10:19 PM
jasonzenith.blogspot from nyc

ABC and Taliban Terrorist Adnan Rasheed: A Perfect Match.

The Pakistani terrorist commander Adnan Rasheed, while "explaining" why they targeted for assassination a 15-year-old schoolgirl who they shot in the head (Malala Yousafza, who survived and is now 16), reiterated the Taliban's conviction that vaccination is a U.S. plot to sterilize people. (Which is why they keep murdering Pakistani vaccination workers, mostly young women. These guys are not very chivalrous!)

I was thinking, why not get Rasheed on The View also? His demented anti-vaccination "views" would complement McCarthy's perfectly. (Indeed, they would make hers look moderate by comparison. Plus, people would be too busy attacking ABC for putting a Taliban terrorist on to bother objecting to McCarthy. It's a double win for ABC!)

Jul. 23 2013 05:37 PM

Great job Bob. Would have been even better if it had been flagged as "editorial" or "commentary."

I applaud you for calling out quackery as quackery. There is no room for false equivalence in reporting. Once we have a scientific consensus on an issue, it's time to quit giving the "other side" an equal voice that it does not deserve.

Thanks for the outrage in the name of public health and science!

To the anti-vaxers: pediatricians really want to help kids. They work very hard and did quite a lot to get to where they are. They are not part of a big pharma conspiracy. They are not perfect, but their advice on childrens' health is going to be excellent in the vast majority of cases.

Jul. 23 2013 02:09 AM
Jimmy Buechler

I caught about seven minutes of Bob's scathing rebuke of Jenny McCarthy's existence, since he claims not to agree with her, and therefore she has no right to her viewpoint. I think he's the one who should be off the media.

Jul. 23 2013 12:37 AM
Catherine Kehl from Cleveland OH

I was not distraught by the overall content of the segment. The consensus of the scientific community is quite strong on this issue, and I'm tired of people asserting that opposing opinions are equally valid. Sure, opinions are opinions, but unless they are rigorously support by data (this after all is why we have peer reviewed publications, and while that system isn't perfect either it does mostly weed out the real stinkers) they should not be given particular weight. (And those people who want to make this an issue of Big Pharma might want to look into the economics of vaccines in particular.)

I was, however, a little concerned with the language that was used, and how it particularly seemed reinforce negative stereotypes of women. Okay, it concerned a woman, and a show watched mainly by women. But are mothers uniquely suseptible to bad information about vaccinations? Are mothers the only people who make decisions about childhood vaccinations? (Even if this last were so, it would be a monument to massive abdication of responsibility on the part of men.) If you're going to suggest that a particular belief is profoundly stupid, you might want to be very careful about language that implies women are particularly susceptible to that belief.

Jul. 22 2013 09:52 PM
Bob from St Louis

Good on you, Bob. As someone who has been fighting medical crankery for some time, it's refreshing to hear some unabashed common sense.

Jul. 22 2013 09:39 PM

Bob was spot-on. Why does ABC hire Jenny? For ratings! Her belief (not based on any science) but her own desire to blame something for her childs experience.
I thought the sound bites from "The View" bebating who were first was classic or Oprah praising "Google" for the wealth of "information" it provides.
The power of the Media is a important power to influence(cue Spiderman theme) and with great power comes great responsibility! If, as according to the Press Release bit, ABC is more interested in ratings... which means revenue.
Yes, its not Jenny's fault. She has a Google degree!

Jul. 22 2013 09:26 PM
Greenwood from Pennsylvania

I was very disappointed in the commentary on Jenny McCarthy. It completely ignored the mountains of scientific, statistical, and anecdotal evidence proving there are serious problems with the current vaccine programs. Look back to the Swine Flu vaccination fiasco. Many died, many others developed serious health problems. Only way any of this was addressed was to imply anyone who pays it more than a passing interest is a 'conspiracy theorist'. This is the type of biased all-or-nothing reporting by the so-called journalists at Fox News I was subjected to before I turned them off. Also shows a total lack of compassion for all the people and their families whose health has been impacted by adverse reactions. Until it's acknowledged there is a problem there's no incentive to develop safer vaccine programs. Expected better of NPR.

Jul. 22 2013 07:28 PM
Bob Garfield

To those disappointed with me for sullying our media-criticism program with criticism of the media I offer my profound apology. I shall in future try to hold my tongue.

Jul. 22 2013 07:26 PM

@Kerri from Indiana

Learn the difference between 'causative' and 'correlative' then come back.

When Meredith AND Barbara were on the panel, the show could reasonably be thought of as a show with some journalistic integrity to what was essentially kvetching in a coffee klatsch...

Now it just seems to be celebrities talking to other celebrities. Nothing there for me to see.

Jul. 22 2013 06:05 PM

Whilst I may agree that this was a poor choice by ABC, I was none the less disappointed that OTM slipped into an emotive opinion piece on childhood vaccination, yet again. Recently you devoted an entire episode to the manipulation of Medical Data, which I was really looking forward to, there is so much to cover, and so few looking into this subject. It was a hopelessly missed opportunity, not least because you rehashed an old unimpressive piece about childhood vaccination. This issue is far less important than many many other subjects relating to medical research. As you state, the research is unambiguous in this area and the media almost unanimously reflect that; so it is more about a small well connected group making a noise. There are much more important subjects currently in Medicine and medical research coverage that desperately need to be reported. Do you really think "The View" has the power to collapse the US vaccination program??? This issue seems to be much more a personal crusade by OTM for some reason. If I wanted a media outlet to launch personal crusades, I would watch Fox. In future, please refrain from such tedious outbursts. The "smokin' hot" holocaust denier comment was particularly tacky, and did not help your point, even for those like myself who agreed with your overall argument.

Jul. 22 2013 05:57 PM

I did not think for one minute while I listened to Mr. Gardield's commentary that he was not giving us an editorial. I for the life of me do not understand the people who are upset that he read an editorial. That is part of the media and I don't think for a minute that he was dishonest about what he was doing. He was giving his opinion on the hiring a new host for some show called "The View". You may not like what he had to say but he has the right to give his opinion if he wishes, it's his show after all. I commend Bob for doing this and expressing his views. I does not make me want OTM less but more. Thank you.

Jul. 22 2013 04:59 PM

As a retired Family Physician I am convinced of the effectiveness and generally minor side effects of the many vaccines which are now available. It is distressing to think that Jenny McCarthy has been granted a popular media platform by ABC where she might have a platform for espousing her mistaken viewpoints on this issue. I applaud Bob Garfield for his frank opinion piece, well stated and appropriate to the situation.

Jul. 22 2013 04:58 PM

It seems that people are getting a little confused there.

This is a show about the media. The fact that Jenny McCarthy is right or not, or that vaccinates are safe or not doesn't matter. That would be the subject of a medical/science show.

What it is a terrible shame is that somebody who should be a model of journalistic integrity is carried out by his opinions even if those comments could be justified (at least for him).

I couldn't believe what I heard. It is a disgrace for Bob Garfield, On the Media and the whole NPR.

I am very disappointed.

Jul. 22 2013 11:32 AM
Jeff from Chicao, Il

I'm not looking to wade into a fight with the crazy anti vaccine people, but instead a point relating to the media -

I always knew the On the Media crew was smart, but this really takes the cake.
The story starts out like any other on OTM, setting the stage by explaining what the current issue is, some sound bites, etc. Typically it would then segue into reporting on the story or interviewing a related guest. However, as Bob continues to go on and on, you slowly begin to realize that this is commentary on the media, not reporting.
In an episode about propaganda and how it can be insidious in tricking the
viewer, reader or listener, this was an ingenious method of showing it.
Thankfully, I agree with Bob's point - McCarthy's opinion on the issue is
idiotic. However I do wonder how I would feel if he had been talking about
something I don't agree with and I hadn't realized the story's ground rules at the start.
The end result is that it does make it harder to listen to Bob's other reporting when I'm not sure if it's going to end up, not a news story, but a commentary.
It also offered, I'm sure intentionally, a great laugh when Bob gets on a high horse about unlabeled advertising pieces, since listeners have had a similar experience just minutes earlier on his own program.
Would the 3 seconds it takes for Brooke to set it up as "And now here's Bob with commentary on the current media landscape -" take that much away from the program?
A faithful OTM listener

Jul. 22 2013 10:29 AM
Andrea from Stamford, CT

Dear On the Media,

I listened to Bob's commentary this morning and I think it may be one of the most inspiring items I have ever heard on public radio. Thank you for taking a stand against idiocy. The University of Google - ugh! My head is spinning when I think of it.

Jul. 22 2013 10:27 AM
J. Brook

Between this broadcast and Diane Rehm's "Shocking! Shocking!" response to the Rolling Stone cover with Dzhokhar Tsarnaev on it, I'm not sure I can listen to NPR any more. I have, for a very long time, considered NPR to be blatant advertisers for Big Pharma. No one on NPR will ever report anything critical of a pharmaceutical. Can't touch that! No investigative journalism there! No critical thinking, no examination of the history of vaccines and the frequent problem of contaminants, toxic adjuvants, etc.

If they announced that it was imperative to be vaccinated in order to breathe the air on this planet, everyone working for NPR would jump for joy and happily promote the program, while likely calling anyone who questioned it a moron.

And, the last time I listened to On The Media before this broadcast, I couldn't figure out how the show even related to its title. I thought you guys were supposed to be media watch dogs. How 'bout a story on the horrifically poor reporting of the Boston bombings story by the MSM? about the inconsistencies in story after story and the many giant questions left unanswered? You probably can't think of any of those questions, can you?

Jul. 22 2013 08:52 AM
GB Tyrrell from UK

Number of deaths due to preventable diseases in the US from June 03 20111 - July 13 2013 = 1171
Number of cases of Autism linked to vaccination in the same time period = 0


Jul. 22 2013 05:10 AM
MistrX from my house

Yeah, she's wacky, but not any wackier than the rest of the cast.

Jul. 22 2013 01:20 AM

Wow. This is the most comments for a segment I can remember. I had earlier mentioned doing a show about the government publishing, like PubMed, etc. I would like to revise and extend. Based on the numerous messages about the issue that drown out the discussion of your great and unusual segment, I think you should consider a follow up:
1. On the misuse, misrepresentation or misunderstanding of source material. For example, @Kerri has several comments with misleading quotes/statistics which are accurate quotes, but leave an impression opposite of the text. In the quote of the PDF page 11 of adverse effects of a vaccine, @Kerri left off the sentence following the quote: ". Because these events are
reported voluntarily from a population of uncertain size, it is not always possible to reliably estimate their frequencies or to
establish a causal relationship to components of Tripedia vaccine.2" In another statistic saying that the "herd" immunity is a lie, quotes a statistic that most of those who got a disease had vaccines, leaving out the points made in various documents that the vaccine had a failure rate and that most people had the vaccine so that the statistic @Kerri quoted is consistent with a highly effective vaccine and "herd" immunity. It is hard to know if these comments were intentionally misleading or just poorly researched. The role of the media should be to vet issues better, which ABC appears to be more interested in PR and ratings. But how can any media vet the comments that are often misinformed.

Second, I would do a piece on how to be a better reader of the media and specific articles. Is there a guide? Corrections have gotten better, but is there more for us to go on?

Third, with the Internet and source material, what role can there be for the media to better help the public take advantage of what is often difficult to understand material.

I feel sad that there are so many that have been misinformed about vaccines. Nothing is without danger. On the other hand, this is not even a close call. As a caregiver of a cancer patient that could not get all vaccines and depends on herd immunity for certain diseases, I hope that the media can do a better job of explaining the issue better. Your show has helped journalists and the public to better understand how the media can and might work better. Good luck with this one.

Jul. 22 2013 01:07 AM
Todd Hoener from Ester, Alaska

Thank you for the Jenny McCarthy piece. I live in Alaska (which is not the point) hand have many alternative minded friends who also might see fit to agree with Ms McCarthy's ideas. I would be considered progressive and liberal and I don't mind. But my ideas about what is community common sense and what is appears a personal choice dressed up to be presented as fact disturbs me. Maybe I'm too trusting but I also don't have time to adhere to every conspiracy theory nor do I believe them. I'm a believer in science. Even when science gets it wrong and changes its mind, I'm a believer then, too. The world is getting warmer. Sure, who really knows when we compare the earth's 5 billion history to our mere 1 million, but anyone with any sense would know that industrialization within the mere 200 years has got to be doing something. Vaccines are the same to me. They appear to work like birth control, fluoride (sorry my dear friends)driving on the right side of the road. Perhaps scientists will change their minds later after new evidence, but right now I believe the earth circles the sun and is not flat. I applaud Bob Garfield because I, too, think some things are just dumb and getting dumber. I'm not for dumb.

Jul. 22 2013 12:55 AM

Outraged at the lack of journalistic integrity in this report. Shocked that you would alienate your main demographic. If Mr Garfield had done research beyond the propaganda put out by the CDC and FDA he would have realized that the majority of vaccine declining parents are college educated. These parents are doing their own research of the actual data from objective sources such as Pub med.gov and finding out that autism isn't the only risk with vaccines. Just some of the issues not mentioned in Mr Garfield's highly inflammatory rant include the lack of safety guidelines for aluminum exposure in infants, the lack of any safety studies done to show that the current dosages recommended and given to infants is safe ag such a high concentrations, the logical flaws in the so called "herd immunity" theory, and the clear and growing evidence that the effectiveness of these vaccines have been greatly misrepresented. Mr. Garfield cited examples of increased incidents of diseases without mention of how many of tbese cases were in fully immunized children. And no mention was made of the millions of dollars paid out to victims of vaccine-related injuries by the federal governments Vaccine Injury Compensation Fund. These are just a few of the issues that have educated parents making different decisions about their children's health that they have every right to do without mockery by the mainstream media let alone a media outlet that could formerly be trusted to be fair and balanced and well-researched. You might as will be sponsored by Merck & GlaxoSmithKline. I know my money will no longer be going to my local NPR station

Jul. 21 2013 11:39 PM

I work with animals and have observed healthy pets get tumors and seizures and just plan ol sick when they get vaccines. its simple. its not all of them, but it's enough. sooo..... is it possible that this happens with people?

Jul. 21 2013 11:29 PM
Jim H from Glendale, CA

You know, the worst trap any people have ever made for us is the inability to be trusted with scientific judgment. This is not difficult stuff, people. Any disease, we know from the past, will kill or maim millions throughout the world, and every bacteriological disease has the potential to mutate to a more virulent state. So you take the harm that will happen if there was no vaccine, versus the miniscule number of side-effects now, and the choices are pretty clear. Vaccines are effective on individuals, but what really makes diseases disappear is when "the herd" has developed its own immunity. So you don't have to vaccinate absolutely everyone, but there's a definite level below which we would not, as a herd, be able to keep the disease away. Most epidemics, if they establish themselves in a large group, will get more virulent and spread faster. I think that if suppressed diseases would snap back we would have some nasty mutations. There are definite problems here, but turning down vaccinations on the basis of a bunch of nonsense is pitiful. Much better? Increase federal research, and better science education would be very good.

Jul. 21 2013 11:17 PM

@ Collin...why would they remove them from the market when they are making BILLIONS of dollars off of them? If they remove them patients get better. If patients get better they won't need to go to the DR's which means Dr's won't get paid. And if they don't go to the Dr's they obviously won't be needing any medication which means Big Pharma is at a loss as well. See what I'm getin' at? It's all about money & greed. That's all the US is worried about. You can call me a conspiracy theorist but you seriously need to take a look around and see it for what it is.

Jul. 21 2013 10:38 PM
Collin from Milwaukee

@ kerri

Ok, I didn't think I would have to spell it out for you but here goes. The FDA, by law, must publish reported reactions to medications as part of its assigned mission to safeguard the public. But these are only "reported" symptoms, i.e. to be published they do not have to pass any scientific scrutiny. Thus my comment about the green polka dots.

Also note that the same FDA has not moved to remove vaccines from the market. One would think that if they had proof of your "theory" that they would have at least moved to restrict them or push for a major modification to the treatment.

Jul. 21 2013 10:17 PM
kerri from Indiana

@ Collin from Milwaukee, It's not a theory it's evidence. If it wasn't factual they wouldn't have listed it. You can believe what you want & I will continue to believe what I already do but you can not deny the fact that there are family's who are losing their children due to vaccinations and some are even getting settlements because it has been proven in the courts that the vaccines ARE the cause of death. Autism is not the only risk here. I'm not sure about you but I am not willing to play Russian Roulette with my kids when they have a very minimal chance of contracting the diseases anyway. More kids are dying of the vaccines administered than they are of the actual disease.

Jul. 21 2013 09:38 PM
Collin from Milwaukee

@ fran

Let's wait to see how many children die because of her evangelizing for no vaccinations, then we'll have an exact number of how many deaths Garfield was off by.

Jul. 21 2013 09:32 PM

Comparing Jenny McCarthy with Holocaust deniers is so wrong.

I am surprised that a show that defends the integrity in Journalism could have been so bias by personal opinions even if those opinions are right.

Shame on you Mr. Garfield

Jul. 21 2013 09:28 PM
Collin from Milwaukee

@ Kerri

Yes, and notice how it says the word "reported"? If you made enough reports that the vaccine caused green polka dots on the skin they would have to put it in there. And guess who reported that reaction in the first place? The proponents of your "theory" of course! So you are simply using circular logic, making you crazy or not that bright.

Jul. 21 2013 09:23 PM


Jul. 21 2013 09:19 PM
Kerri from Indiana


Look on page 11. It lists autism as an adverse reaction:

"Adverse events reported during post-approval use of Tripedia vaccine include idiopathic thrombocytopenic purpura, SIDS,
anaphylactic reaction, cellulitis, autism, convulsion/grand mal convulsion, encephalopathy, hypotonia, neuropathy, somnolence
and apnea. Events were included in this list because of the seriousness or frequency of reporting."

If you don't see it it's in the paragraph above "Reporting of Adverse Events"

Who's the crazy one now?

Jul. 21 2013 09:18 PM
Collin from Milwaukee

@ jaysee999

The reason Bob didn't give any "evidence" is because the scientific community has completely rejected and debunked the theory. It's telling that you pull a mash-up of "facts" presented by a man with no medical training (and only one PhD from an ill-respected "school") who was almost killed by his own health supplements.

Jul. 21 2013 09:16 PM

Bob Garfield's rant this week, even IF accurate, seemed very unprofessional and certainly not 'media journalism' but rather his personal editorial. He gave NO facts or references or sources for his _opinion_ on the efficacy of vaccinations.

Yes, there was one study that was 'debunked' initially -- but there have been numerous studies that do show adverse effects in many children due to vaccinations. It was obvious from Garfield's rant that he not only did not pursue finding these studies, but he's clearly not interested in knowing about them.

A previous commenter (Jessica) mentioned the National Childhood Vaccine Compensation Injury Act. There have been thousands of monetary awards made by this Compensation Board based on proof of adverse affects of vaccine administration.

Unlike Mr. Garfield, who provided no sources for his rant and comments (either on the air or on the website), I offer a few links where direct references to studies and scientific journals are provided. (Most of the links are via Gary Null's presentations, and there are many who try to discredit this triple-PhD holder with specialization in Public Health and Nutrition, but _he_ does state the source of each fact he provides.)


[with 71 specific footnotes documenting source of statements made]



(Contact www.garynull.com to order the complete text of this document including full endnotes and references)






=== if that is not enough, then go get your kids vaccinated... ===

Jul. 21 2013 09:07 PM
Collin from Milwaukee

@ Kerri from Indiana

The reason for those statistics is because autistic children were misdiagnosed. Actual statistical analysis shows that the rate of autism has remained steady.

Jul. 21 2013 09:06 PM
Kerri from Indiana

And with 3rd world countries - they don't have clean water, proper nutrition and sanitation like we do (in the US). Those are HUGE factors. There are no vaccinations for VIRUSES as you put it. You call Jenny a crazy ass lady but this "crazy ass" watched her son die within hours of receiving his vaccines. Luckily they were able to resuscitate him. If you would actually do your research instead of listening to what people tell you then you would see that autism is actually LISTED in package inserts for several vaccines. Along with other problems. Vaccines are not saving people they are killing people and/or giving them the very disease they are supposed to be preventing. Look at the statistics from the pertussis out break in California. Of all those infected 90% of them were fully vaccinated, 8% had received some but not all while only 2% (yes that's correct...2%) were completely vax free. Now tell me, who exactly is spreading disease?

Jul. 21 2013 09:06 PM
Kerri from Indiana

US Autism Prevalence:
2012 1 child in 50
2004 1 child in 150
1992 1 child in 500
1986 1 child in 2000

2012- 49 doses were given of 14 different vaccines
1983- only 23 doses were given of 7 vaccines.

People want to deny that vaccines cause autism but I beg to differ!

Jul. 21 2013 08:55 PM

i read a couple studies that were done, all you people jumping on her back, well the CDC study had no control group, such as Amish children and high religious orders that do not receive vaccinations this could have provided some real science instead of something protecting big pharma, people will believe what they will.

Jul. 21 2013 08:34 PM
Cobblehillite from Brooklyn

This report has nothing to do with whether vaccines are safe, whether they should be given as per the AMA, or whether vaccine protocals should be changed. the issue is that Jenny McCarthy is positing what she claims is a "fact": vaccines cause autism and many in the media are covering it because she has big breasts. This coverage of a discredited view is dangerous and shameful.

Her "fact" is not based in any credible science but in long discredited hooey. Vaccination,and administering them in the most safe, effective and efficient way (especially in poor, underdeveloped countries) is an important topic that should be discussed, and studied by doctors, scientists, health professionals and administrators, parents and others. The goal should be to get safe vaccines to the most people, in the safest way at the least cost (including eternalities).

the media is doing the american people a disservice.

Jul. 21 2013 07:59 PM
Carrie from Pennsylvania

I loathe this woman. She gives false hope to parents with children who really have autism, which obviously her son does not. She used to say she cured him but then started with the more politically correct recovered. Made millions on books on the topic and sent many desperate parents to bullshit DAN doctors. Do you know what it takes to be considered a Dan dr? Like a two day seminar. How much of the money she made on her books about curing her son did she donate to autism research. On the vaccination issue, both sides Re wrong in my opinion. There is not conclusive evidence that some of the newer formulations and combination shots do not cause autism. Much more research has to be done, but there are very real risks with vaccination as well as. Not vaccinating. They know there is a percentage of children who will die and have severe adverse reactions from vaccination and have known it for a long time. No one should be forced to be vaccinated. I the last outbreak of measles 80% of the children who contracted measles had been vaccinated. That is how they found out that vaccine was not effective and that is now kids get boosters the entire way up through high school. If you read pediatrician a sites about the chicken pox vaccine, they are even surfeit is effective or safe. That's what the general public is for testing. It's not all or nothing. I had such an adverse reaction to the mumps vaccine I ended up in ice at 5 years old, consequently they never vaccinated my little brother because of my severe reaction. My sisters daughter has a seizure after the protussion vaccination and was paralyzed on one side for a long time. Suffered rotten teeth and learning disabilities quorum the intense medications and the seizure for the rest of her life. There is obviously a genetic component involved. Much like people can live in the same house breathe the same air and only one of them will get lung cancer. Genetic reaction to a environmental trigger. We need MUCH more research and real scientific discussion about the possible causes of autism and certain vac inaction formulas and schedules are still suspect and should till be studied. No one has proven definitively that's vaccination is not. Factor. But to says all vaccination is bad or that everyone should be forced to be vaccinate dare both simplistic explanations to complex medication, neurological, immune system and brain development issues. she isn't qualified to speak to any of those issues.

Jul. 21 2013 07:38 PM
Corey S from Florida

Doctors forgot to vaccinate my son Zain with prevnar 13. an opportunity they had 4 time's. 3 months after his last wellness visit he contracted bacterial meningitis and almost died.The prevnar 13 vaccination would have protected or prevented this specific strein of meningitis. As a result of this he has bi-lateral hearing loss, high blood pressure,adhd,a perminant shunt, loss of vision, and will suffer from epolepsy for the rest of his life..35% brain damage and scarring on 50% of his legs from sepsis. So lets just say Jenny..you really need to rethink about where you stand..Because when it happens to you..you will have a new light twards things

Jul. 21 2013 07:31 PM
sandram from los angeles

The anti-vaccination folks are not universally condemned: read Temple Grandin's new book. There are communities in the U.S. where parents refuse vaccinations for their children (at least to prevent "too much, too soon"). Why not compare the children in those communities to others who've followed the prescribed schedule of vaccinations? The proof is in the eating, as they say.

Jul. 21 2013 07:19 PM

thanks in part to Jenny, Whooping cough is a serious threat ,once again, as a result of parents not getting their kids vaccinated. Not entirely her fault the heavy influx of immigrants into California probably stressed the "blanket" effect of immunization. Autism is not caused by immunizations. there are countless studies proving this. At least she's not a climate denier or an austerity proponent.

Jul. 21 2013 06:53 PM
the babster from Arizona

Hey, it's called "The View" not "The View on Vaccinations".

Jul. 21 2013 06:38 PM
Linda from Ann Arbor, MI

Big Mistake here. I'm all for people having the freedom to pursue their convictions. But when you give someone a bully pulpit to spread, what has already been established as wrong and dangerous, it is a DIS-service to your viewers. As a guest, a one shot, that is different because you can share alternative views, but this appears to give credence to her very misguided ideas.

Jul. 21 2013 06:18 PM
Vic Davy

No wonder Jim Carey dumped her.

Jul. 21 2013 06:13 PM
Bethany Smith from MAINE

Jenny, your lack of education WILL cost MANY children's lives AND heartache to countless parents...Get off the soapbox and study REAL science!! I, for one, will NOT watch 'The View' until YOU clean up your misinformed act.

Jul. 21 2013 06:13 PM

The problem with vaccinations is twofold: the preservative that was used, and the fact that doctors now "bundle" them into one shot, instead of spacing them out.
Vaccinations are very important. We all had them as kids. They should be spaced out, and given at a later age...after the neurological system s fully develped...which happens later in boys. My opinion...

Jul. 21 2013 05:50 PM

Worked on her show, heard her say the only way she made it was that she gives the best head in Hollywood! LMAO

Jul. 21 2013 05:32 PM

Brain dead eye candy. $10K body, 10 cent head

Jul. 21 2013 05:25 PM

This woman must be incredible at the couch auditions! Why else would these networks keep unearthing someone who is a total idiot and has a string of failed shows behind her!?

Jul. 21 2013 05:21 PM
Belinda from Canada from Canada

I conduct historic cemetery tours. Anyone who has spent any time at all in a cemetery or researching the incredible number of deaths of children BEFORE vaccinations quickly realizes how incredible vaccinations have been in keeping children alive. No, I'm not saying vaccinations are the only factor in changing these numbers and we also have to thank better water and sewer systems, better nutrition, etc. But every time I hear vaccine deniers given an air time, it worries me for the future of all children. It's not really a controversy. Those who are anti-vaccination are wrong.

Jul. 21 2013 05:10 PM
Kristina Stykos from Chelsea, Vermont

Wow. I am not impressed with how you've mistaken this ditzy celebrity's ignorance with a valid conversation around the pros and cons of vaccinations: a complex topic that you dismiss, ostensibly because your position is "right" and anyone else's is "quackery". This seems to be exactly your complaint in regard to the TV personality.

I don't consider it good journalism on your part to spew out reductionist invective such as "because they suck" - this kind of language assures me that you have no factual understanding of the position you so vehemently and emotionally wish to discredit. Did you google "vaccination deniers" and then write your piece?

A parent's right to have control [how much?] over their child's health care is a legitimately rich and uneasy discussion. Assessing the impact of individual parents' decisions on public health, needs and deserves an open and ongoing dialogue, shared by scientists, policy makers, medical ethicists and parents. It is not a simplistic case of quackery vs. non-quackery, as you imply.

There is an unbecoming vitriol & bias in your reporting that goes beyond celebrity bashing and I consider it shoddy. You have appointed this celebrity a poster child for everyone who questions the use of all vaccinations all the time. I recommend going beyond lumping crystals users and holocaust deniers with parents who may not completely buy into every aspect of the current western medical model. A more balanced presentation of this issue should include contributions from sophisticated thinkers and MDs from more than one medical tradition, and those who seek in the spirit of true science, to keep examining the changing landscape of immune system issues.

- Kristina Stykos

Jul. 21 2013 04:55 PM

Good piece. These deniers are dangerous fools. But like the rest of us they have predictable psychologic responses to interactions (even decidedly one sided interactions). So as strong as a rejection of their discredited mumbo jumbo is warranted, it seems important to recognize the legitimacy of whatever emotional issues lead them to find solace in medical advice from a nude model (or any unqualified celebrity).

It makes me sad that people are so confused they would refuse life saving vaccinations in preference to the emotional satisfaction they find in believing a conspiracy theory. Concerned parents should google that

Jul. 21 2013 04:06 PM

The preservative that was in question has been taken out of vaccines, that's true.

However, the safety of vaccines depends as much on the body receiving the vaccination as the "FDA-approved safety." But since the FDA only accepts for denies meds & vaccines based on data supplied by the manufacturers, the "oversight" of the FDA is highly questionable, especially with many of their specialty panels manned by many MDs who derive income from the manufacturers.

Safety factors for the young patient including: the safety of 2 or more vaccines being delivered in 1 shot, the time between vaccinations in the first 2 years of life, doses of all meds increased decreased at the whim of the manufacturers without oversight by the FDA and/or warnings to MDs e.g.

As with all meds & procedures, effects fall into various categories: the med/vaccine may be effective immediately after treatment; the med/vaccine may be ineffective at first but effective later; the med/vaccine may be ineffective both short- & long-term; the med/vaccine may worsen the disease/condition immediately & long-term; the med/vaccine may have no effect at all, negative or positive - not even a placebo effect.

Jul. 21 2013 03:20 PM
Donald Miller from Connecticut

It seems that Bob Garfield himself voiced a strong position without reference to authoritative sources. Who among us really has time to research the research? In lieu of that, here’s a link to a website hosting a repository of studies that might refute the virtues of vaccines: http://vaccineresearchlibrary.com/.

Jul. 21 2013 03:11 PM
Jon from Chicago, IL

This is one of the best pieces of journalism I have heard or read in a long time. Yes, it is opinion journalism but there is nothing wrong with that as long as it is not pretending to be straight reporting -- which this easily could have been if written only slightly differently.

Jul. 21 2013 02:44 PM
Clay from Utah

Thank you for defending vaccinations! I am sick to tears of listening to uneducated people vilify a medical advancement that literally saves millions of lives every year. Many of us would not even be alive today to be having this discussion if it were not for vaccinations. Thank you Bob for being a voice of reason, and shame on Jenny McCarthy for continuing to spread wild and false rumors that cause many children to suffer needlessly. Even more shame on ABC for validating her by hiring her.

Jul. 21 2013 02:10 PM
Clark Fortson from Athens, GA

Bob Garfield's (I think the speaker was Garfield)criticism of Jenny McCarthy's hiring to The View was weakened and contradicted by his overstretching to make his point and pander to his audience. Ironically he made the same mistake for which he criticized NBC - doing anything for ratings. Was he perhaps more influenced by the fact that Jenny McCarthy was a Playboy Playmate, but he didn't dare mention it? I agree that science does not support the opinion that vaccines cause autism. BUT science also does not support the official story of 19 Muslim hijackers bringing down the World Trade Center Towers with planes. Thank God for Google - that sucky University, according to Garfield. Google leads us to the facts that show us a very real and important cover-up by the US Government. So, what was really in Bob Garfield's mind? Or in NBC's mind? Or in George Zimmerman's mind? And what really happened on 9-11? Let's all learn some elementary lessons on how to distinguish fact from fancy, propaganda from truth, ulterior motive from honest expression.

Jul. 21 2013 11:37 AM
Anita Manning from Wilmington, DE

Thank you, Bob Garfield, for speaking out so strongly. I haven't read other listeners' comments, but am assuming you'll be castigated by those whom science cannot convince. I just wanted to add my voice to those who appreciate what you have said.

Jul. 21 2013 11:28 AM
Tim Grizzard

This article is spot on. Modern media, with few exceptions, is a farce. Thank you for a little sanity. You are a breath of fresh air.

Jul. 21 2013 11:24 AM
carolita from NYC

I avoid children like the plague because I'm unwilling to catch their childhood diseases, myself. And the last thing I need is a case of pertussis at my age. But while I am not a conspiracy theorist, I'm also not one to buy into everything the pharmaceutical industry tells me is good for me and society. I think balance is the key. If you do some research, you can find medical papers that actually indicate that there are benefits associated with early childhood diseases -- WELL MANAGED, which I'm sure is not the case with most people. For example, measles infection has been associated with diminished atopy in later life (that means asthma, allergies, immune disorders). Obviously not measles to the point of death or debilitating injury. But the infection results in certain immunities that do help with other conditions the immune system faces. And mumps has been well-documented, so it seems, to decrease the incidence of ovarian cancer in women who have had the mumps. That's nothing to sneeze at.
I'm certainly not going to advocate that people stop vaccinating their children, particularly the way I see people raising their snotty little brats these days. They can't even teach their kids to cover their mouths when they cough, or say "excuse me" to people. I wouldn't trust most to manage their children's illnesses well enough to keep them from being a danger. Some, yes, but most, ha. No, thanks. But I do think that if people were better at managing childhood illnesses, some could be harnessed to the benefit of the general good. Not all, mind you, but some. Me, I'd have loved to have caught measles as a kid, and been done with it. For one thing, I wouldn't have to worry about catching it from a kid now (after vaccination in childhood, it won't help me now), and for another thing, maybe I wouldn't be quite so atopic (I've got all sorts of allergies and sensitivities that have cost me thousands and plenty of lost time and anguish over the course of a lifetime.)

Jul. 21 2013 10:42 AM

To shyonelung,

Thank you for the correction about the actual phrase Bob Garfield used to describe Jenny McCarthy ("this woman", not "that woman", even though I still find either phrase disrespectful and degrading). I did not intend to misquote him, yet somehow the word "this" became "that" while I was composing my original post. I guess I was thinking too much at the time.

Jul. 21 2013 10:25 AM

@mrhoagie. By the way, you had claimed to be a physician but based on your writings I can only guess that you are a chiropractor. If so, can you tell us more in depth about the chiropractic theory that polio and other diseases are caused by spinal misalignment? That vaccines aren't necessary but chiropractic "adjustment" is?

Jul. 21 2013 09:27 AM
Roman from Toronto

This comment thread is the prime example of the "university of google."

So many misinformed, and dangerous anti-scientific opinions, that have no basis in fact.

If you are an anti-vaccination proponet, you have the blood of innocent people on your hands.

Shame on all of you.

Jul. 21 2013 09:23 AM


Thiomersal is no longer used in the US and Europe because of the public fears as i mentioned and because vaccine distribution is reliable enough to get away with not having a preservative in the vaccines. However many countries do still need a preservative to keep the vaccines effective for longer. So OK you are right that pharmaceutical companies still manufacture vaccines with thiomersal, but I had assumed you were based in the US, where it is not used.

Jul. 21 2013 09:15 AM

To all you Pro vaccine Kool-Aide drinkers

Dr. Maurice Hilleman, who explains why Merck's vaccines have spread AIDS, leukemia, and other horrific plagues worldwide.

Merk drug company vaccines admits injecting cancer viruses.


Jul. 21 2013 09:03 AM

@ techie

I didn't say newborns get vaccinated because their immune system is not developed. I said there is no immunity in a newborn and to put a vaccine into them is dangerous. Colostrum from the mother and nothing else begins the building of immunity. The gut bacteria which is 75-80% of the immunity is not even present in a newborn.

Thimerasol IS STILL in vaccines and I listed those that continue to have it. Don't believe everything you read or hear the drug pushers...you might just die of a misprint.I never mentioned autism as a link to vaccines in these comments, you have....I have seen it manifest after vaccination.

Herd immunity, what a false premise. Vaccines compromise a body, they do not build up a body. After vaccines are given, why do children have swelling, fever, cry and just do not feel well? Their immunity is not developed. Oh, but they need poisoning by foreign substances.

Jul. 21 2013 08:58 AM

@"mrhoagie" Did you attend Hollywood Upstairs Medical College? Because you cannot possibly be a real physician. You wrote, "A new born baby has no immunity to fight off foreign, injected who knows what is in a vaccine." Sorry, but newborns do not get vaccinated, because their immune system is not yet developed. In fact, newborns are one of the groups of people that have to be protected by herd immunity. People who choose not to vaccinate put not just their own kids at risk, but also newborns and people with immune system problems which prevent them from getting vaccinated.

You also complain about thiomersal. It is not even used in vaccines any longer, do to the public fears caused by anti-vax misinformation. Autism rates have continued to rise even though it is no longer used.

Jul. 21 2013 08:34 AM
mrhoagie from Ohio

@ Dietrich

All physicians do not drink the communal Kool-Aide of allopathic medicine. Vaccination IS NOT immunization. I have seen whooping cough almost disappear completely in 24 hours after some sound recommendations to follow. Immunity isn't built up through artificial means of periodically giving vaccines year after year. Exposure builds up permanent immunity and those not forced to consume franken-foods and highly processed foods barely get sick from childhood diseases. Granted there is more to health than food.

In the mid 80's a vaccinated child received about 12-15 vaccinations total (some combined). Today if a child receives all that is recommended by age 18, that total is about 60 (again some are combined. If vaccination is immunization then there would be no need for boosters. Adults get their yearly flu and pneumonia vaccine,.....how accurately is a virus predicted, given that it mutates from one person to another? I have watched some of these people who are dedicated to continually bow at the alter of pharmaceutical poisoning, turn into helpless, sick forms of human life.

Thimerosal may not be in all vaccines but it is in some of the most used vaccines like: DTaP (Tripedia, DTaP/Hib (TriHIBit),DT (sanofi),HepA/HepB (Twinrix),Influenza (Fluarix), Influenza (Flulaval),Influenza (Fluvirin),Influenza (Fluzone),Japanese Encephalitis (JE-Vax),Meningococcal (Menomune),Td (Decavac),Td (Massachusetts).

My stance against vaccines shows my grasp of chemistry better than you want to admit. How many children have you seem compromised by a vaccine?

Food sources are a tremendous influence. Do you agree with Monsanto that GMO foods are perfectly safe to consume and show no dangers compared to organic foods? These GMO's pose far more dangers of genetic compromise than Monsanto will admit. Do you personally enjoy pesticide and herbicide sprayed foods? They don't seem to pose an immediate threat either, but long term consumption of small amounts of poison are affecting humans, insects and animals. Where are the bats and bees today, why so much cancer in children? Cancer is a BIG MONEY MAKER. There will never be a known remedy for cancer that is widely promoted, too many people are living off this condition in the name of Money. Back in the 80's when the tobacco companies were testifying to Congress...the top executives all said tobacco was safe. We knew better back then and even more today. Gasoline mileage for autos has been way over 200 miles/gallon. You'll never see this mass produced. Follow the money. A person that tries to manufacture something like a high mileage device for an auto will be dead. This has happened over and over, or they were bought out and a gag order for life put upon them.

Like it has been said on this comment page before by Dr Rob, follow the money. A university researcher once told me that, "for $100,000, I can prove anything" All research isn't true to results, but loyal to the sponsor in the name of money.

Jul. 21 2013 07:52 AM
Dietrich from Portland, OR

To mrhoagie:

The fact that you are a physician (if true) fills me with far more fear than even Jenny McCarthy can instill. If it is true, then you, a registered doctor, are prescribing scam medicine to people in real need. Shame on you.

First, just because a large amount of the population is vaccinated does not mean everyone is safe. There will always be a population of immuno-compromised or immuno-weak people that, because of reasons of medical diagnosis or age, cannot be vaccinated. They need US to be vaccinated because they can't be. The fact that you think newborns are vaccinated is laughable, though considering your demonstrated lack of medical knowledge it is understandable.

Vaccines can be dangerous. I will grant that. But the amount of danger posed by a vaccine is far outweighed by that of contracting whooping cough, mumps, measels, chicken pox or the flu. You are telling me you would rather a child have WHOOPING COUGH rather than be vaccinated? Again, shame on you.

Even if there was evidence that said thimerosal is dangerous (there isn't), it isn't even present in a vast majority of vaccines. And your lack of ability to understand even basic chemistry further puts into doubt your claim to be a physician. Just because an element is found in a chemical does not make that chemical dangerous. Phosphorous applied to the skin will cause severe burns, but without it *you would not be alive*. The other things you list as "dangerous," are far more laughable. For example, your body naturally creates far more formaldehyde than will ever be found in any vaccine.

Diseases have been on the decline because there has been a nearly century-long effort to destroy them with vaccines. Yes, sanitation helps, but small pox wasn't eradicated with clean water. Polio hasn't been nearly wiped out because we stopped defecating in our water supply.

That the children in your practice are healthy is more likely a factor of their good luck than your ministrations or lack thereof. I fear for their continued health if they continue to see you.

Jul. 21 2013 06:30 AM
melanie from albany, Ny

I don't know why people are afraid of an alternate point of view.

She has an opinion. If you think her being hired is going to be dangerous, you think that people are stupid and can't think for themselves.

Just because she has a view doesn't mean everyone will adopt it.

Just because everyone is bashing her, doesn't make her wrong.

common sense people.

Jul. 21 2013 04:22 AM
Linda B from Cambodia

We have choices - lead a healthy, nutritionally balance lifestyle (then we don't need vaccinations - and at 50+ I am living proof); or hand our minds, body's in a state of irresponsibility over to the pharmaceutical industry (and their lobbyists) and risk the other side effects (which might not be the virus we are being vaccinated against) but another secondary consequence. I am very happy with my choice of avoiding vaccinations - and instead educating myself about building my immune system naturally - and I live in a developing country.

Jul. 21 2013 03:32 AM
Thatwood B. Telling from The Village

If I owned a TV, I'd boycott ABC.

Jul. 20 2013 10:50 PM
Dr. Rob from Ann Arbor, Michigan

McCarthy’s attack on vaccinations on the Friday, July 19, 2013 edition of “On The Media” was annoyance. It was clear to me that Bob didn’t do his homework about the negative affects of vaccinations.

What directly followed this piece on my local radio station, Michigan Radio, made me laugh. Ironically, it was an advertisement for Allergy and IMMUNOLOGY Associates of Ann Arbor. Bob’s later report of “An Ethical Framework for Sponsored Content” made me wonder how someone could report on ethics when he clearly doesn’t understand the concept. His point that Jenny McCarthy doesn’t have the medical credentials to speak about what she is promoting, may be valid. But neither does he! I finally understood the motivation when the advertisement for the Bill and Malinda Gates Foundation that promotes vaccinations throughout the world, was aired. Just follow the money.

To borrow some of Bob’s own words: “This is America. [Garfield] is entitled to say any stupid thing [he] wishes to. But how can a [radio] network be so cynical as to enable [him].” “These people will do anything for ratings” or their advertisers. “The trouble is, the University of [On The Media] sucks. Because anyone can teach there, no matter how dishonest, how superstitious, how ignorant,” or who is paying their salary!”

Jul. 20 2013 06:44 PM

After years of listening to On the Media, I was surprised by Bob Garfield speaking with such emotion (especially with the tongue in cheek comparison with Holocaust deniers). The show is about the media and less about general policy issues. But sometimes when the consequences of how the media works has fairly direct implications in life and death matters, perhaps it is appropriate to be clear about that and speak out against it. I think it is funny that this comment board is filled with likely non-listeners who have an interest in the issue, not OTM.

I wish that On The Media covered more about government media. Besides the VOA story and the poorly understood and presented open data movement, there is a great deal to what the government publishes. Specifically, as a caregiver (not medically trained), I rely on NIH's Pubmed, FDA prescription info and clinicaltrials.gov.

Where ABC is in the process of destroying true news reporting (do not forget the ruining of Ted Koppel's Nightline) and the decline in print, the government has continued to provide amazing informative data. Not journalism per se, but crucial and generally accurate.

On vaccines, FDA has http://www.fda.gov/BiologicsBloodVaccines/Vaccines/default.htm
with real and helpful data on every aspect of vaccines. This is not the normal part of your OTM coverage, but it should be. (let me know if you want help).
Daniel Bennett

Jul. 20 2013 06:20 PM
linguisticdame from Johnson City, TN

Great education on the actual scientific evidence of vaccination and autism for the those who would like a great synopsis. These are great videos.

Part 1: http://www.khanacademy.org/science/healthcare-and-medicine/influenza/influenza-special-topics/v/vaccines-and-the-autism-myth---part-1

Part 2: http://www.khanacademy.org/science/healthcare-and-medicine/influenza/influenza-special-topics/v/vaccines-and-the-autism-myth---part-2

Jul. 20 2013 05:26 PM

If your vaccines are so effective, then what are you pro-vaccine people so afraid of if I and my children do not have your vaccines? Aren't you protected already because you subjected yourself to the "shot"

Vaccines ARE dangerous. As a physician I am against their use and inform my patients of it openly. A new born baby has no immunity to fight off foreign, injected who knows what is in a vaccine. Deny all you want, thimerosal IS a form mercury and is in vaccines along with sucrose, sorbitol, Urea, formaldehyde, egg protein,aluminum phosphate, aluminum potassium sulfate and on and on it goes.

Diseases were on the decline years before vaccines come along in the form of improved sanitation and getting the drinking water away from the waste water areas.

The healthiest children I have in my practice have never been vaccinated, eat little to no processed foods, use real (raw) milk.

Jul. 20 2013 05:02 PM

Like ALL medications, vaccines are poisons with desirable side effects. And, like taking ANY medication, patients/parents and their physicians have to weigh the benefits vs. the risks. Like other physicians across the country, I deal with these decisions multiple times on a daily basis. In my opinion, any parent who decides to gamble with their and by extension, other children's health by refusing to vaccinate their children, is at best naive about the history of infectious diseases vis-a-vis public health, and at worst, willfully negligent. In addition to her threat to the public's heath, Ms. McCarthy has done significant damage and made all of our lives as health professionals harder by planting her dangerous and wholly ignorant "medical" opinions into the heads of parents and patients, and that ABC/Disney would give her a larger stage upon which to foist her ignorance on our nation is truly disturbing. On the Media has done us all a great service by helping to bring attention to this situation, and anyone who cares about the health of our society is in their debt. Please keep up the good work.

Jul. 20 2013 04:56 PM
JadeQueen from Oregon

Functional, personal, personalized, integrative, N=1, and cooperative medicines acknowledge that human beings have different risk to procedures based on their personal profiles. That conventional media hasn't got this message yet is too bad for the people who fall for one size-fits-all and pharmaceutical profits with risks underwritten by the public.

Jul. 20 2013 04:11 PM
Jessica from New York City

Bob Garfields rant on Jenny McCarthy was just that. It was also ill informed and biased. The fact is that there has been a National Childhood Vaccine Compensation Injury Act since 1986. The Act was instituted so that pharmaceutical companies, that have everything to gain from promoting vaccines and a lot to loose when they are questioned, wanted to be legally exempt from liability due to death and illness caused by vaccinations. Through the Act, parents can receive government compensation for injury and death suffered by their child due to vaccinations. The fact that this Act exists is acknowledgement that vaccines cause injuries and death. Though it is extremely difficult to prove that a child has been injured or harmed due to vaccination, thousands of parents have struggled to do so to and received compensation due to illness, injuries and deaths of their children due to vaccinations. Why is it so hard to demonstrate vaccinations cause injuries, illness and death? Because of parents and doctors blind faith in them. The fact is that all of the so-called vaccine preventable diseases declined by 90% prior to the introduction of vaccinations. If anyone is concerned about the possible dangers of vaccinations, simply ask your doctor for the package insert, where all the possible contraindications are listed. Jenny McCarthy is not dangerous, uniformed consent is. In New York State, vaccinations can only be administered by informed consent. If there are no dangers, why is that the case? What's really dangerous is allowing hysteria, fear and uncritical acceptance of authority to suppress a transparent and objective look at the facts.

Jul. 20 2013 03:46 PM

To Mario500, in journalism style, people are often referred to by their last name for clarity purposes. Some newspapers -- the NY Times, for example -- use the title "Mr." or Mrs" or "Ms". Not to use it is not a sign of disrespect. Further, Garfield called McCarthy "this woman," not "that woman". It's a critical distinction. If he had used the latter phrase, I would agree that it's disrespectful. But, again, he did not.

As many have said here, the "negativity" by Garfield is purposeful. McCarthy's views on vaccines has real and measured and scientifically proven consequences -- that is it could lead to the return of deadly viruses that will harm or kill children and possibly lead to a public health catastrophe of epidemic proportions. In other words, people will likely die by following her 'advice'. This cannot be understated -- McCarthy is being hugely irresponsible in a way that can injure others, not just her own family.

This doesn't just make her stupid, it makes her dangerous. Lethally dangerous. There is no counter argument against views that have zero basis in reality or science -- the only weapon we have is to repeat regularly and often that they are ignorant, stupid and potentially deadly.

Jul. 20 2013 02:48 PM
Sonja Rein from Milwaukee

Thank you for calling them out! Finally some informed criticism!

Jul. 20 2013 02:20 PM

I expect a show like On The Media to questions assumptions on both sides of an issue. If you put the controversy about autism aside, the truth about immunization is that there are health risks and fatalities associated with their use. If you have a Doctor in your family, she will privately admit this. It is very hard to find clear statistics related to the side effects caused by immunization because their is no room for doubt when it comes to Federal Public Health Policy. I think what parents really want is access to transparent, statistical information from the Center for Disease Control that details the health risks of each vaccine. Bringing this information out into the light, would remove the mistrust that many families feel towards a monolithic public health effort. On The Media should be helping to question the media's pro-Immunization bias and investigate the statistics on side effects. The whole point of journalism in a democracy is to question authority, the status quo and received assumptions. Bob's rant today did not of these.

Jul. 20 2013 02:07 PM

Craig: I agree. Most of the family in Oklahoma watches The View, even my dad. A lot of what they talk about is from the show. The false information about vaccines that McCarthy champions is a threat to the health and safety of Americans.

Jul. 20 2013 01:46 PM

@dwightmlee: I wouldn't care about Ms. McCarthy and the show except for the fact that her views are influencing a significant portion of the public and putting public health in jeopardy.

Jul. 20 2013 11:24 AM
dwightmlee from right now Sao Paulo

If you care about Jenny McCarthy and the View you have your priorities all screwed up and you need to "get a life!”

Jul. 20 2013 10:51 AM

That "The View" is giving this irresponsible peddler of pseudoscientific nonsense a national forum says one thing: the public weal is subordinate to the making of money. How typical of today's amoral and immoral ways of doing business. Shall we have a cookery show featuring Hannibal Lector?

Jul. 20 2013 10:19 AM
Ken Grimm, MD from Canton, Michigan

THANK YOU for the way that you discussed this is such a straight-forward way. As a Family Physician who's job it is to prevent disease when I can, I am SO tired of the way most media elevates this ridiculous pseudo-science by calling the vaccine discussion a "controversy." You called it what it is: wrong and dangerous. My only question is why you didn't ask people to try and do something about this? People can contact ABC. People can contact ABC's parent company, DISNEY. What would happen if Disney's Citizenship division (you can contact them at http://thewaltdisneycompany.com/node/537/done?sid=29544 ) got a couple million emails asking them to protect children by not letting this happen.

Jul. 20 2013 08:26 AM

Pardon my including my username in the location bar before my previous comments were posted. That was a typographical error.

Jul. 20 2013 08:04 AM
Mario500 from Mario500

I found the commentaries by Bob Garfield and the commentaries posted here to be very negative. I'm sure there are other opinions by Jenny McCarthy (I refuse to refer to people by only their last names) that Bob Garfield and other people would call "stupid" after learning about those opinions. They may even call some of the opinions of the other hosts of "The View" "stupid".

Since no person cannot agree on anything, even opinions that may turn out to be good, Bob Garfield could have taken a different approach to commenting about the addition of Jenny McCarthy to "The View" by telling his audience that she may be viewed by some folks as controversial in the beginning of her tenure as a host for "The View" due to the feelings she expressed about vaccination and told his audience that any person in broadcasting is vulnerable to controversy. He also could have presented information that goes against the feelings Jenny McCarthy expressed about vaccination and kept his personal feelings about her feelings about vaccination to himself.

By the way, Bob Garfield did not need to refer to Jenny McCarthy by the phrase "that woman". I found it degrading and disrespectful; the same goes for Chris Boese's similar reference to her ("this woman").

Jul. 20 2013 08:00 AM

Thank you for speaking out against McCarthy's dangerous pseudo science beliefs.

Jul. 20 2013 12:44 AM
Chris Boese from Brooklyn

(BTW, you should really be using Disqus commenting. This new uncredentialed system is worse than your old system. I can't look at my old comments or check to see if anyone replied to them!)

I just had to raise a point with Bob here, who does a wonderful rant on McCarthy's advocating of quackery et. al.

While I loved the absurdity of the rant, I did want to point out that the argument used to justify the placement of McCarthy on The View (ostensibly an entertainment program-- Bob takes issue that quackery is being given a platform and hence a kind of validation, even if the network choosing to give that platform is trying to distance itself from her "messages" as if they aren't giving them an endorsement by disseminating them, giving them a platform) has been used before, with pretty dire consequences.

I was working at CNN Headline News (now HLN) back when Ken Jautz and others were "screen-testing" some new on-air news readers and personalities for the new HLN Prime evening programming, launching in 2004-2006.

Oh, they loved Nancy Grace, loved what she did for ratings, loved her wackadoo finger-pointing, frothing, even to the point of inciting one mother of a missing child to suicide. Nancy Grace, with a resume' that was easily fact-checked as erroneous, puffed-up, and with serious ethical problems from her time as a prosecutor in Georgia. All of those things had NO IMPACT on the decision to give this woman a platform, an endorsement.

But wait! It gets worse!

Because hot on the heels of that decision was more anguished screen-testing of a "political" commentator.

Word got around that the "cream" that rose to the top of this process was none other than Glenn Beck. A bunch of us did more than roll our eyes at that news. We tried to stop it. Some of my colleagues circulated easily findable transcripts of things Beck had said in his radio program, called Mexicans "wetbacks" and calling the people who were ravaged victims in New Orleans from Hurricane Katrina "lazy" and other blatant bigoted code words for "African Americans."

That my cable news network would even entertain giving such a person a platform, an implicit endorsement with that platform, with resources and promotions that essentially said to the world, "We think this person is someone you should spend your time watching," left me gasping.

But how much worse, I thought, for some of my colleagues in what I felt was one of the most diverse newsrooms I'd ever worked in, there in Atlanta. African American colleagues would have to write promos and contribute to the network that put that man on the air. That, to me, constituted workplace harassment.

Through a friend, I tried to take the issue to the Turner Diversity Council, because working in a newsroom that promoted such a man, such views, as some kind of "good" certainly created a hostile workplace. But that got nowhere as well.

In the face of that, Bob, Jenny McCarthy is just another one in a long line of such appointments.

Jul. 19 2013 08:45 PM

Leave a Comment

Email addresses are required but never displayed.