STUPID'S the problem, NOT the stuff you pour into the stupid!

In a recent interview, Penn Jillette, when asked if he thought Sarah Palin was culpable for the Arizona shootings (due to cross-hairs appearing in certain areas on a map and some of her rhetoric), responded: "...Crazy's the problem, not the stuff you pour into the crazy."


In other words, you can't blame the things crazy people do on anything but the crazy.


I agree.


I've been a fan of Penn & Teller since 1985 when I first saw them on Letterman. I remember it well. My father was dying of a glioblastoma brain tumor at age 38, and my brother and I at ages 12 and 15, respectively, were running the household by ourselves. The freedom we had as adolescent heads-of-household gave us the ability to stay up as late as we wanted. What we wanted (after spending a day at the hospital willing our father to get well so he could join us back at home and watching him slowly fade away each day) was to watch David Letterman, the man who knew how to make us laugh with his gap-toothed grin (back in the days when the gap was visible) and forget our troubles, if only for a little while.


I'll never forget Penn's hair back then. It was so... 80's. He was just a young punk, and Teller, ever-adorable but quietly evil, was the perfect complement to Penn's louder, more verbose persona.


I've watched them over the years evolve into much more than just a comedic magical duo. The two of them (in addition to being talented performers) are extremely intelligent, well-informed, and very adept at making people think, something the rest of the entertainment-media world seem to discourage.


As an adult, I've had the pleasure of attending their show and hanging out in the monkey room backstage. I've met them a few times, and interestingly enough, Penn seems much less talkative in person, while the extremely erudite Teller isn't shy at all. We have several mutual friends, and I'd say we all have a deep admiration and respect for what P&T have accomplished, not just in the entertainment world, but also in promoting atheism, freedom (via libertarianism), and the art of healthy critical thinking.


I'm something of a freedom fighter myself, which is why you'll rarely ever see me polarize on an issue. I've learned over the years that power isn't as much in who has money or position as much as it is in who has won over your mind to their way of thinking, and if you're "won over" to one side or the other on any issue, you usually end up the loser.


If there's anything I HATE, and I mean HATE with a purple passion, it's the assumption so many seem to have that there are only two options when forming opinions on important matters, that you must "choose sides". To me, both sides are equally unbalanced in any charged debate, whether it's about finances, health issues, or politics.


I've had a lot of exposure to medical and science research over the years as a think tanker and writer. (Anyone who has ever done any technical writing knows just how much one must learn in order to write accurately and effectively on any topic.) One of the areas that is of great interest (and of great concern) to me is that of the vaccine industry.


Unfortunately, much of the world seems to have fallen ill with "either-or syndrome" when it comes to the issues we are grappling with in the vaccine arena. One side believes that all vaccines are so wonderful they almost behave as though vaccines are their "gods" and run out to get each and every new vaccine that becomes available as though they were Harry Potter books or Apple products. The other tends to believe that vaccines are evil and to be avoided at all costs.


As with most things in the "real" world, the truth is somewhere in the middle. Unfortunately, those of us who are informed enough to know this end up getting accused by each side of being in the other's camp, making it very difficult for anyone to learn the facts that show neither side to be as informed as they believe themselves to be.


A few weeks ago, I got into a discussion on Twitter with some folks about the whole "Jenny McCarthy is anti-vax" bullshit. I call it bullshit because, any time someone gets called anti-ANYTHING just because they question certain aspects or are critical of it, (YES! Even if they ARE wrong!) the end result is that people start feeling bullied into keeping their mouths shut, even if they might have some valid points or concerns. After all, who wants to be ridiculed?


In both science in general and medicine specifically, even the most talented individuals are often wrong many times before they get it right, and at times it is the uneducated but very motivated who diligently work to bring information to the professionals who end up contributing valuable information. (Just ask any spoonie who has a doctor who asks them to keep a journal and explains that they use the information when writing papers and doing research on the diseases in question.) In fact, as a patient with little formal medical training, I've had many doctors ask me "What do YOU think is causing your flares?" I've learned that this is a sign of a good doctor.


I'm not a Jenny McCarthy fan, and to be sure, she's very misinformed about many things she seems to believe about vaccines and their possible connection to autism. Unfortunately, many things are being attributed to her that she has never actually said. She says that if she had it to do over again, she wouldn't get her child vaccinated, and suddenly she's accused of discouraging other parents from getting their children vaccinated.


Never mind that Jenny McCarthy is NOT anti-vaccine, but rather, PRO-vaccine-REFORM. Those who love to engage in hyperbole could not restrain themselves from isolating sound bytes of her various interviews to create an imaginary Jenny McCarthy bent on preventing every child from receiving life-saving vaccines. How DARE she QUESTION the always-perfect pharmaceutical industry!?!


I almost fell for the temptation to bash her myself, but, knowing what I do about science, medicine, and the vaccine industry itself, that's one mistake I didn't make.


First of all, let's establish that medicine, though it IS a branch of science, is NOT an EXACT science. It is as much an art as it is a science (as most physicians will tell you) since there are still so many unknowns, and always will be, despite our impressive advances and progress in diagnosing, preventing, and treating various illnesses and injuries.


Second, there is a HUGE difference between QUESTIONING the safety of something and saying it is to be avoided altogether. After researching the SV40 contamination of the polio vaccine supply over a 30 year period, and discovering that there may not be any conclusive evidence of the suspected link between SV40 in human vaccines and the particular type of brain cancer that killed my own father at age 38, I still had to consider the fact that there was not only contamination of the vaccine supply by the virus KNOWN to cause the cancerous brain tumors in monkeys, but that it went on for a 30 year period before anyone caught it. For me, that was reason enough to be concerned about the methods used in manufacturing, testing, and even disclosing information about the results of said testing of our vaccines. (That's a topic for another blog.) Nonetheless... I am NOT anti-vaccine.


For the record, I think the risks of NOT getting vaccinated are FAR worse than any risks (real or imagined) of getting vaccinated. I think most people should be vaccinated, even though I have been advised not to ever take a vaccination again after suffering paralysis on the right side of my body for several weeks after receiving a tetanus shot. (It is believed by several doctors I have seen to have something to do with me having an auto-immune disorder.) Having said that, anyone who doesn't understand that many vaccines are very experimental should check out this article.


Furthermore, even the C.D.C. says that there is no way to establish the safety of vaccines. This is why so much money and effort is put into MONITORING the adverse events people have after receiving vaccines, because it is AFTER the vaccine is received and there is an injury or death and after it occurs a significant number of times that anyone knows there is a problem that must be looked at more closely.


In a nutshell, vaccines are the MUCH lesser of two evils. There are many unknowns when it comes to the vaccine industry and vaccines themselves, enough that there is a well-established table of what is eligible for compensation under current guidelines. It clearly shows that, though the claim is constantly regurgitated that "we have been unable to establish a definite link between vaccines and this or that..." ad nauseum (it's called double-speak) that a significant number of people enough to create a specific table of specific vaccines linked to specific reactions can be established by the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program. That speaks for itself. And yet, again, I say: GET VACCINATED! THE RISK OF HAVING YOUR CHILD DIE OF POLIO IS FAR FAR WORSE THAN THE RISK OF AUTISM, AND AUTISM IS FAR PREFERABLE TO THAT OF DEATH FROM POLIO!!!


Now, here is why those who bash those who dare to question the safety of vaccines deserve bashing themselves: NOT questioning the various unknowns prevents us from being able to discover what IS causing various reactions and PREVENTING them in the future.


For the record, it is ONLY true that there appears to be no link between autism and the INGREDIENTS which Jenny McCarthy refers to in vaccines. There have to date been NO studies done that I know of to study POSSIBLE CONTAMINATION ISSUES in various batches of vaccines that may be breaking through the blood-brain barrier and causing many of the autism spectrum disorders we are seeing surge in number over the past few decades.


As someone who is a science advocate, I do not tolerate anyone who discourages the asking of questions which may lead to answers that may lead us to the ability to all but eliminate the risks that even necessitate a vaccine injury table to start with. Yes. Even if it is done in the name of science and skepticism, it is unacceptable to ridicule someone for asking stupid questions and voicing their honest concerns, even if those concerns are 100% unfounded.


That leads me to my next point: The fact that I believe Jenny McCarthy is headed in the wrong direction with her belief that it is ingredients (rather than unintended consequences due to contaminants) that are causing autism, does not make her deserving of ridicule for her desperate efforts as a mother to help her son.


I gag when I see articles written with no other purpose than to call her a baby killer while sporting pictures of her as a sex kitten squirting mustard on a foot long hot dog with a provocative expression on her face. That kind of sophomoric behavior is akin to showing a picture of someone laughing while watching a comedy show in an article misquoting their comments about someone's tragic death.


At one point, someone referred me to a "Death By Boobies" link to Penn & Teller's episode on Bullshit! - Topic: Vaccines. While I enjoy the show for its entertainment value, I have found many of the episodes to be quite distorted, misrepresenting the side in direct juxtaposition to the side they are on. Sometimes they're just flat out wrong. Luckily, (and this is one of the things I admire about Penn) when he's wrong, he's humble enough to admit it. There is more information out now than they had access to when they did the episode on the second-hand smoke issue, and several years ago I remember Penn saying they may do an updated episode. I can respect that.


What I do not respect is when all people who question vaccine safety are painted to be morons who believe that all doctors and big pharma are in on a conspiracy to make money and keep us sick. That is a very small segment of the population that questions vaccine safety, and I am not a part of that segment. I resent anyone suggesting that I am required to be a part of that segment merely because I am not a "vaccination is my god" cheerleader.


And here is where I have a bone to pick with Penn: I mentioned that I found that episode to be cynical, and Penn asked how so, since he tries very hard NOT to be cynical. (It's one more thing I admire about P&T.) I explained that I didn't think it was fair to paint Jenny M. or anyone else, for that matter, as anti-vaccine simply for asking questions and being wrong about the questions they are asking and the theories the flawed questions are based on. (It was a Twitter conversation, so of course it was much more abbreviated, but that was the message.)


Penn conceded that he saw my point, but that the reason he saw her as anti-vax is because she has "repeated things that are lies about vaccinations". Enter cynicism: defined as one who is critical of the motives of others. To his credit, Penn did not say "She's lying." But to call it a lie and blame her for repeating it is to assume that Jenny M. knows what she is saying is a lie. Not that she should know and is just too ignorant to get it, not that she's made some errors in understanding things that she may not have enough education to "get", but that she's knowingly spreading false information. For what purpose? That is cynicism: to believe that someone who clearly needs more information has ill intent (and using the word lie is what implies that there is ill intent in my view). Why not send an overnight letter gently pointing her in the right direction? She might pay attention to someone who is known for pursuing the truth. But then, that doesn't make for as much of an entertaining show.


Penn then mentioned that "Children are dying. It's not just big titted fun and games." I agreed, and I didn't say then what I'm going to say now, because I happen to know that Penn is very prone to hyperbole and appreciate that it's part of his persona, part of his value as an entertainer. It helps him get his points across. But for the record, I'm pretty sure Jenny McCarthy doesn't think ANY of this is fun and games, big titted or otherwise.


The next thing Penn said, once it sunk in, really bothered me. "She's helped a few children die, and that's why we hit hard." As if to say "Ok, you may be right. Maybe we shouldn't call her anti-vax, but your argument is trivial compared to the lives of the children which Jenny McCarthy is guilty of taking, if only indirectly." He also sent me this link: Jenny McCarthy Body Count


It was the first time I'd ever engaged one of my long-time favorite entertainers in a debate, and I didn't want it to get ugly. I still don't. Penn knows, as Penn Says: "It's a real drag getting yelled at by your idol." But my integrity as a human being who is trying to tell the truth as I see it does not allow me to let a statement like that go un-addressed, and I've taken Penn's own words to demonstrate my point:


Penn's words: "Crazy's the problem, not the stuff you pour into the crazy."


My words: "Stupid's the problem, not the stuff you pour into the stupid."


No offense to Penn Jillette OR Jenny McCarthy, but if you are basing your decision regarding whether or not you vaccinate your children on anything Penn Jillette OR Jenny McCarthy say (or on what I say, for that matter) on your teevee (or anywhere else), YOU ARE FUCKING STUPID. The ONLY people who should be influencing your decision on whether you vaccinate your kids are your pediatrician and your good common sense. If you don't have common sense, nothing Penn Jillette says will help you make the right decision, and nothing Jenny McCarthy says will lead you to the wrong one. Hopefully, what I am saying will at least inspire you to look at ALL of the information, and not just the limited fare you will find at an over-priced restaurant vs. a fast food joint. I prefer a buffet, where I am free to see all of the information and the associated options, such as vaccinating only for those diseases that are deadly (Polio) and foregoing those that are more suspect according to many M.D.'s (Gardasil for H.P.V. which does NOT guarantee immunity to all strains, many of which can be contracted via unprotected oral sex.)


Crazy and stupid are twins. Perhaps not identical twins, but twins nonetheless. Crazy people do crazy things regardless of what Sarah Palin says, and stupid people do stupid things, regardless of what Jenny McCarthy says. Smart people do smart things, regardless of what Penn Jillette says, and well-informed people do well-informed things. Period.


"But, but... she has so many adoring fans. She's being irresponsible." blah blah blah.


Again, ANYONE who takes advice on medical issues from anyone other than a scientist or medical professional is, by definition, stupid. If it's not Jenny McCarthy it will be a psychic, religitard, shaman, or some other "stuff you pour into the crazy and/or stupid" who convinces someone to buy into a crazy-ass conspiracy theory and/or scares some ignorant person into putting their kids in danger by not vaccinating them.


When you start making ANYBODY who says ANYTHING responsible for something someone ELSE does or DOESN'T do that kills someone, you put freedom of speech on the line. And no, this is NOT the same thing as yelling "FIRE!" in a crowded theater.


Someone who yells "FIRE!" in a crowded theater KNOWS there is no fire and does it as a prank or for other nefarious purposes. To suggest that Jenny McCarthy KNOWS she is doing something wrong or is doing this as a prank is ridiculous AND cynical, and that is what anyone who makes that analogy is suggesting.


I leave you with a few facts:


There are reports that those who have survived the H1N1 infection have developed super-immunity. It has long been considered that there may actually be value to not getting vaccinated against some diseases, because your own immune system (assuming it is healthy and functioning properly) is amazingly able to create immune reactions that some vaccines are not, and which some vaccines may very well inhibit.


There are findings that many children who have received the chicken pox vaccine have contracted the illness anyway, and that their ability to fight future herpes outbreaks of herpes zoster (shingles) may be inhibited by having received the vaccine that reduces the number of natural antibodies they would otherwise have against it. Vaccine companies have responded by saying that the vaccine is effective, but that "boosters" are needed. Forgive MY cynicism here, but isn't it a rather church-lady brand of conveeeenient that the vaccine is found to be "less effective" (read: ineffective in some) and that the "fix" is to purchase another vaccine "booster" or two down the road?


Reactions to vaccines are almost always labeled "inconclusive" when investigating whether they are indeed connected to vaccines, regardless of the consistency, while concerns are always labeled as "speculation". Again, I refer you to the vaccine injury table. There's a reason why you are required to sign a waiver of liability before receiving a vaccine in many places.


If any one of you reading this is truly concerned about the danger we face as a species with people refusing to get vaccinated out of fear or ignorance (remember, there's little we can do about crazy or stupid) here are the TRUE culprits that have caused the public to lose faith in the vaccine industry and the governments that mandate it:

• Guatemalan prisoners intentionally infected with syphillis. (At one time, those who knew about this and have been talking about it for decades were called "crackpots" and "conspiracy nuts".) Yep.
• U.S. prisoners said to have been experimented on as well, though they haven't yet admitted that one. Give it another 30 years or so. Trust me on this one. (Or don't, but pay attention 30 years from now when the politician-du-jour decides to save face by apologizing for it at just the right moment.) Hey, I can own my cynicism. Sometimes it's warranted.
• SV40 - Simian Monkey Virus known to cause brain cancer in monkeys found in contaminated Polio vaccines over a 30-year period. Original studies are VERY difficult to locate now, but at one time showed 80% cancer rate in recipients of batches known to be contaminated. That percentage dropped in later "studies" with over-inflated "estimates" of the number of recipients of contaminated doses. It's easy to manipulate percentages when you multiply the number of recipients artificially and count them as people who got the contaminated vaccine (even if theirs wasn't) and didn't get sick. There's also no documentation to support their claim of how many people actually received the contaminated vaccines. Skepticize THAT!
• The fact that anyone who dares ask questions about the safety of vaccines gets slandered and ridiculed, insuring that their questions and concerns WILL NEVER GET ADDRESSED, and thusly their willingness to get their kids vaccinated will never materialize, because instead of stressing that the danger of NOT vaccinating is far worse than any other possible concern, you're too busy ridiculing them for asking questions. They're ignorant because you're KEEPING them that way!
• U.S. Soldiers are being experimented on with vaccines for which the government can not find volunteer test subjects. 

Penn mentioned Jenny McCarthy's "great rack". I like her rack too, Penn, but mine's pretty nice too, and it's REAL But what I'd like people to consider, is that Jenny McCarthy isn't wrong because she has a great rack. She's wrong because she's wrong. When I'm wrong, it's because I'm human and have made a mistake. It's not because I'm sporting a couple of nice D-cups.

I'm sure Penn's got a great cock, but it has nothing to do with why he's sometimes wrong, so I've never thought to mention it.

I still love ya', Penn, and maybe I'm expecting too much, but I'd like to see less hyperbole on Bullshit! - less make-believe that nobody exists who questions vaccines other than because they are conspiracy nuts. If educating the ignorant is the goal, just know that the ignorant don't hear us when we ridicule them. (Trust me, I've tried that, too... and how.)

"Those who question the benefit of mass immunisation are not all irrational non-believers. Most support vaccination but are concerned at - and question the necessity for - the large number of vaccines and the early ages at which these are given. Many have studied the research, only to find - as I have - contradiction and uncertainty. They deserve to be treated with respect and given the opportunity for an open and honest debate."

- Dr. Richard Halverson, letter to the British Medical Journal

A.


P.S. TALK TO YOUR PEDIATRICIAN ABOUT GETTING YOUR KIDS VACCINATED! PLEASE!


P.S.S. Here is a link to a web site giving information about Fluvirin. It clearly states that: "this is not a complete list of side effects and others may occur". You'll notice that none of the really bad side effects are listed on that site. As luck would have it, I happen to have access to a COMPLETE list of possible side effects directly from the package insert of the Fluvirin vaccine for H1N1 (something to which most patients are not given access, and some have even been denied access when asked):


*Local injection site reactions (including pain, pain limiting limb movement, redness, swelling, warmth, ecchymosis, induration)
*Hot flashes/flushes
*Chills
*Fever
*Malaise
*Shivering
*Fatigue
*Asthenia
*Facial edema.
*Immune system disorders
*Hypersensitivity reactions (including throat and/or mouth edema)
*In rare cases, hypersensitivity reactions have lead to anaphylactic shock and death
*Cardiovascular disorders
*Vasculitis (in rare cases with transient renal involvement)
*Syncope shortly after vaccination
*Digestive disorders
*Diarrhea
*Nausea
*Vomiting
*Abdominal pain.
*Blood and lymphatic disorders
*Local lymphadenopathy
*Transient thrombocytopenia.
*Metabolic and nutritional disorders
*Loss of appetite.
*Arthralgia
*Myalgia
*Myasthenia
*Nervous system disorders
*Headache
*Dizziness
*Neuralgia
*Paraesthesia
*Febrile convulsions
*Guillain-Barré Syndrome
*Myelitis (including encephalomyelitis and transverse myelitis)
*Neuropathy (including neuritis)
*Paralysis (including Bell’s Palsy)
*Respiratory disorders
*Dyspnea
*Chest pain
*Cough
*Pharyngitis
*Rhinitis
*Stevens-Johnson syndrome
*Pruritus
*Urticaria
*Rash (including non-specific, maculopapular, and vesiculobulbous).