Add A Comment
No she is not. She is merely raising awareness for a condition her son has. If that means rattling the cages of social norms, so be it.
Did you watch the video?
Yes I did.
He is not very believable though as it sounds nothing like Stephen Colbert.
Guess you don't understand the humor. Everything he said about her is true. She is a self-appointed expert, and her pseudoscientific views deserve to be laughed at.
True, but I still think that as mothers we know when there is something wrong with our children.
You are right, I didn't find it funny. I usually crack a smile with his material too. Maybe it was the whole puppet get up.
I don't usually find Stephen Colbert to be that funny, this is funny to me because of the material. Jenny has taken it upon herself, with her "Google PhD", to be the "representative of mothers of children with autism". She doesn't speak for most of us, only a few that have fringe beliefs. Anyone in the public eye, who deliberately sets themselves up as a self-appointed expert, deserves the public flagallation they get. She is making boatloads of money off of desperate parents with her fringe beliefs. She is subjecting her son to fringe alternative treatments that have killed some children. All because they are autistic. Autistics deserve better.
I guess I don't know enough about what she has done recently with the Autistic community.
I agree, she is a public figure and set herself up for any scrutiny she receives.
Although remember, before Jenny, people didn't know what Autism was unless it impacted their family. Now most everyone knows what it is. She raised a lot of awareness even if there was some negative impacts. That is a good thing, right?
I love Stephen Colbert, and although I didn't think this puppet's voice sounds much like the real deal, I did get a chuckle from this.
With regard to JM, I have a lot of problems with her. In every interview, she talked more about herself and the book she wrote, and how she was affected by her son's "diagnosis"--and she would rarely let anyone else talk when she was on a panel. She would rudely talk over any one who dared disagree with her. Her self-centered approach to the interviews put me off.
But most of all, what bothers me about her is her claim to have cured her son's autism. It is doubtful that he even had autism. It is more likely that her son suffered from some pretty severe allergies--to a list of foods and environmental triggers. She even says that herself in her book, but then glosses over it to make herself seem the hero. True that some children with autism have food allergies and sensitivities, but addressing them doesn't cure or "heal" autism. When a child with autism suffers from food allergies, and those things that trigger the allergies are removed, some of the negative behaviors are also removed, which would lead one to believe that he/she is on the road to recovery.
So while she did bring more national attention to autism, I'm not sure that she's really helped the cause. Her assertion that vaccines cause autism is highly controversial. There is some anecdotal evidence that links some vaccines to some disorders that mimic autism, but I can tell you that vaccines do not cause all autism. How do I know? Because autism has been around since long before vaccines were ever invented. Also because my daughter has autism, and I'm quite sure that it is something that she was born with, since she showed delays from early infancy.
I'd respect her more if she would support autism research, and quit trying to come off as some sort of expert on the subject. In my opinion, she is a self-serving egomaniac who saw her star fading and is grasping for ways to stay in the spotlight.
LOL!! !Oh my!!!
Sign up for CafeMom!
Already a member? Click here to log in
Most Liked Posts