Mayim Bialik, hypocrite


TV star and attachment parenting celebrity Mayim Bialik doesn’t vaccinate her children.

She wrote a whole essay on why she doesn’t want to talk about it:

Children today get about four times as many vaccines as the average 35-year-old did when we were kids. Besides visiting the CDC website … here are the books we used to research each vaccine and discuss each with several doctors before deciding what was right for our family.

She then recommends anti-vax books by Mothering Magazine contributor Dr. Lauren Feder (primary care medicine, pediatrics and homeopathy) and super-quack Dr. Bob Sears.

She did offer a bit more while promoting her book in an interview with NPR:

Bialik NPR

So my feeling is you can really do whatever you want, just like I get to do whatever I want, but I don’t inherently think that no one should get the flu, for example. And that’s my personal opinion.

… My feeling is everyone gets to decide and do research based on their family and their needs as to what they want to do. But it’s completely separate from attachment parenting or from my book.

She couldn’t make it any clearer, right? Everyone gets to make their own choice based on their family and their needs, right?


Yesterday Bialik wrote about the Similac commercial, which as I pointed out last week last week is opposed by lactivists.

Surely, if there’s any decision that is personal, for which each woman should make her own choice based on her family and her needs, it’s how she uses her own breasts.


Yesterday Bialik pleaded: Don’t Fall For That Similac Commercial

Bialik is shocked, shocked that Similac presents breastfeeding as a personal choice:

Kveller 2-2-15

The ad shows breastfeeding as “just another choice,” ignoring that it is the medically recommended way to feed human babies. It’s not the same as cloth versus disposable diaper choices or deciding which baby shampoo to use. This commercial undermines medical and scientific fact under the guise of “It’s all the same, don’t judge. And if you do, you are the bad mom.”

In other words: Tolerance for me, but not for thee.

At first I thought that Bialik was being inconsistent. Vaccination is a personal choice, but breastfeeding isn’t?

Maybe it’s because one decision has the potential to harm innocent bystanders, but the other doesn’t.

That can’t be it, because vaccination affects more than Bialik’s children and she thinks that is just a “choice,” while breastfeeding affects no one else but the mother-child pair in question.

Then I thought it’s because one decision is much more serious than the other.

But that can’t be it, either, since even in first world countries vaccine preventable diseases could kill thousands of children each year, whereas formula feeding doesn’t harm anyone.

Then I realized that Bialik isn’t being inconsistent at all.

She believes that whether or not she vaccinates her children should be HER choice and …

Whether or not you breastfeed your child should be HER choice, too!

Because we should never forget that breastfeeding is a medically recommended way to feed babies.

Kind of like vaccination is the medically recommended way to protect babies against deadly diseases.


We have a word for people like Bialik. The word is hypocrite.

132 Responses to “Mayim Bialik, hypocrite”

  1. snazzygina
    February 11, 2015 at 2:04 pm #

    BTW, if you will look at Bialik’s facebook page she now says she vaccinated her kids.

  2. Kat
    February 8, 2015 at 10:11 pm #

    I just love you. I was verbally assaulted for my choice not to breast feed. I was told my baby would basically be retarded and sick all the time. I have a child who rarely gets sick and has a prodigious IQ. Go figure. It’s not about science with these people, it’s about their own narsassistic feelings and their need to see lactation as some sort of super power, not something that my kid’s gerbil can do.

  3. lilin
    February 8, 2015 at 7:29 pm #

    Also, she has a book to sell. How is she going to position herself as a great mom and lifestyle guru if breastfeeding is just a personal choice?

    • Chi
      March 29, 2015 at 9:03 pm #

      Especially since a whole lot of the attachment parenting thing hinges on ‘bonding’ whilst breastfeeding. Seriously, babies will bond no matter how they fed. When I was breastfeeding, my daughter would look anywhere but up at me, and when I finally gave up on the disaster that was our breastfeeding relationship and moved to a bottle, suddenly she was looking at me and smiling at me.

      So yeah she’s full of shit.

  4. DoorCty
    February 7, 2015 at 10:02 pm #


  5. Ardea
    February 5, 2015 at 12:32 am #

    I keep running into several themes, most of which have to do with the concepts of bodily purity or contamination, on the following topics:

    Pesticides in modern agriculture
    Adulteration in the very nature of baby formula

    The chemotherapy one is new for me – “It kills cells!” I’ve seen people write in comments sections only just recently. And this worry and fear is causing parents to chose not to undergo a chemotherapy regime for children with cancer.

    But you know what really appalls me, even more than Mayim Bialik, is cardiologist Dr. Jack Wolfson who won’t vaccinate his children because they are “pure” and too bad about other people’s children, they’re not his responsibility, and “people die.”

    Can he continue to be a doctor and make those types of statements?

    I am a biology teacher. I see so many misconceptions about human health and also about basic ethics – whether it’s misconceptions about natural selection, or callousness towards other people, or a lack of basic understanding about cell theory, germ theory or the immune system, or cancer… I am just ONE teacher, I can only reach 100 or students per year, and it’s just ONE biology class that students are required to take in high school, and many don’t go on in college.

    And then you have someone with a PhD like Mayim Bialik or an MD like Jack Wolfson. I don’t get it, except to say that exceptional intelligence may lead to exceptional delusions.

    • Gregg Braddoch
      February 5, 2015 at 5:06 pm #

      Chemotherapy does more than just kill cells, it damages the DNA in said cells, and may encourage cancer growth:

      • zen
        February 8, 2015 at 7:00 pm #

        Sure. I don’t think anyone would deny that malignancies are a possible side effect of chemo. But if the other choice is certain death from your current bout of cancer, isn’t a risk better than a sure thing?

        • Gregg Braddoch
          February 8, 2015 at 8:17 pm #

          I dunno – would you rather die early, or go through a treatment that may make your condition worse? Personally, this one is up to the individual unless a more effective cancer treatment comes along.

          • zen
            February 8, 2015 at 10:48 pm #

            I guess that depends on my situation. Right now, where I am in my life, hell yeah I’d take the risk that I’d have a secondary malignancy from chemo. If I were a senior citizen and had basically already done what I wanted to do with my life? Maybe not.

            All I’m saying is that it’s definitely not news or some kind of conspiracy that chemo is awful, nasty, possibly cancer-causing stuff. I would have thought that was pretty apparent to most people. But right now it’s the best we’ve got.

          • Stacy48918
            February 8, 2015 at 11:05 pm #

            Well good. Since you believe so strongly in “natural selection”, when you get cancer, stay home and die. Have the courage of your convictions.

          • Who?
            February 8, 2015 at 11:24 pm #

            Or that offers a chance of cure Gregg. But by all means you go for the natural selection option for yourself, if you have what it takes.

            How about though, if you ever find yourself responsible for a child, you give them a chance not just let them die to make your point.

          • Ardea
            February 8, 2015 at 11:28 pm #

            I have known three children diagnosed with cancer. Each of their parents chose chemotherapy for them, as well as radiation and surgery where appropriate (one had leukemia). These children include: the daughter of my colleagues, diagnosed at age 4 in 2007, my 12 year old neighbor who lived across the street, and a current student, now a sophomore. The first two children have passed away – the first, in 2009, at age 5 and a half. The second died in her 8th grade year in 2013. The third student was diagnosed with a brain tumor when she was eight years old, and she is still alive and a valued member of my biology class. When chemotherapy was no longer effective for the first two, the hospital stopped treatment, and the families went on hospice and palliative care.

            What I am seeing, in news stories about parents who are so terrified of “chemicals”, is that they are denying something that is possibly life-saving to their child, because is “kills cells”. Of course it kills cells. The whole point is to kill the fast-dividing cells.

            I will tell you that when my student – the one still living – had a recurrence of back pain, a symptom of her cancer – she was terrified and upset. She wants to live and enjoy her days and her friendships. So did my former neighbor and student and my colleague’s child, too.

          • lilin
            February 9, 2015 at 12:29 am #

            You forgot the third option -you could die untreated, chemo could possibly make your condition worse, or it could CURE YOU AND SAVE YOUR LIFE.

          • Gregg Braddoch
            February 9, 2015 at 9:08 am #

            lol, yeah, but there really is no way for an individual to know which outcome is going to happen, and the entire cause of cancer is cells with screwed up DNA, which is caused in healthy cells by chemotherapy, so the odds of survival are not good.

          • lilin
            February 9, 2015 at 9:38 am #

            How can you be this stupid? There is a way for an individual to know what’s going to happen. If they don’t get treatment for their cancer, they know they will die.

            You seriously can’t understand the odds of death versus a chance of life with a higher-than-average chance of cancer later in life?

          • Gregg Braddoch
            February 9, 2015 at 9:42 am #

            lol, I’d love for you to demonstrate for me how chemotherapy is even 30% effective at curing cancer, then we can talk.

          • Wren
            February 9, 2015 at 9:57 am #

            Which cancer?
            You do know that cancer covers an extremely wide range, right? In some cases, chemo isn’t particularly effective. Gall bladder cancer comes to mind. In others, it can be extremely effective.

          • Gregg Braddoch
            February 9, 2015 at 10:16 am #

            Look, chemotherapy is a rabbit trail – it’s not related to the subject at hand, and personally if I knew someone with cancer, or had cancer, I would be much more motivated to do more research before making any decisions. The person who brought it up was conflating being anti-vaccination with being anti-chemotherapy, which is just a strawman to drag the conversation off topic.

          • Wren
            February 9, 2015 at 11:06 am #

            Actually, it is related. Being anti-vaccination while relying on the rest of medicine is not logically consistent. If one chooses to forgo what has probably been the greatest single medical intervention in terms of saving lives, why rely on the rest of medicine?

          • Gregg Braddoch
            February 9, 2015 at 3:17 pm #

            “Actually, it is related. Being anti-vaccination while relying on the rest of medicine is not logically consistent. ”

            Umm, no. Basing one’s viewpoint on verified facts is consistent, whether or not medicine agrees.

            ” If one chooses to forgo what has probably been the greatest single medical intervention in terms of saving lives, why rely on the rest of medicine?”

            Because despite your claim that “greatest single medical intervention in terms of saving lives” you cannot objectively demonstrate this.

          • lilin
            February 9, 2015 at 10:24 am #

            Oh fuck you’re so dumb.

            Chemotherapy could be one percent effective. Because untreated cancer means death.

          • Gregg Braddoch
            February 9, 2015 at 3:58 pm #

            “Chemotherapy could be one percent effective. Because untreated cancer means death.”

            Chemotherapy that is 1% effective means death.

    • zen
      February 8, 2015 at 6:57 pm #

      Chemotherapy kills cells… is that not the point? The only response to that is “yes, and?”

  6. Denise
    February 4, 2015 at 11:52 am #

    I wish to throw a conspiracy theory around. Anti-vaccination movement is actually a ploy by the Big Pharma. They don’t want you or your kids to get vaccinated because they’d be losing their margins on all the nice little medications they would give you to treat your illness… HUH conspiracy theorists, beat that 😀

    • Young CC Prof
      February 4, 2015 at 12:33 pm #

      Nope. The anti-vax movement was created by the diseases themselves.

      Viruses are actually nanobots created by aliens. In small numbers, they simply replicate, but when the viral load in one person’s body reaches a certain point, the colony becomes sentient. Chicken pox is their finest creation: Easily contagious, rarely fatal, and BECOMES DORMANT INSIDE THE NERVOUS SYSTEM and will come out later in life.

      Nearly all anti-vaccine leaders were infected with chicken pox early in life. They were subsequently exposed to a laser beam that activated the virus. Now, the virus controls them and all their words and actions. Their number-one mission: Ensure the proliferation of chicken pox, and with it the other diseases designed to keep the population weak and confused.

      I know this because of a dream I had when sick with chicken pox. It has come to me now and then since, that’s when I know I need a shingles shot to keep it from taking over my brain.

      • Denise
        February 4, 2015 at 1:24 pm #

        Nah that fails the KISS criteria

  7. Guest
    February 4, 2015 at 5:02 am #

    One of the most common arguments of the anti-vaxxers is that there are so many more vaccines and how awful that it. Ms. Bialik is my age and she and I received (presumably) the same vaccines. The following vaccines weren’t routinely available when she and I were children and are given in the US now:

    1. Pneumococcus (Prevnar): prevents pneumonia, sepsis, and meningitis

    2. Haemophilus influenzae (HiB): prevents pneumonia, epiglottitis, and meningitis

    3. Rotavirus: prevents dehydration from gastroenteritis

    4. Hepatitis A: prevents hepatitis A

    5. Hepatitis B: prevents hepatitis B (90% of those infected as infants develop chronic hepatitis)

    6. Varicella: prevents chicken pox and it’s complications (pneumonia, encephalitis, hepatitis)

    7. Influenza: prevents flu

    8/9: HPV and Meningococcal: Prevents HPV infections and cervical cancer and meningitis respectively. These are not given to infants.

    So there are SEVEN new vaccines available now for infants. When she and I were young, there were also SEVEN (measles, mumps, rubella, diphtheria, tetanus, pertussis, and polio). Eight if you count smallpox, but that was being phased out. So not four times as many. It went from seven to fourteen vaccines that protect against diseases that can KILL. You, Ms. Bialik, are a liar and I’m embarrassed that your PhD committee granted your degree.

    • Elaine
      February 4, 2015 at 9:16 am #

      At two years old I was hospitalized for dehydration due to a nasty stomach bug. I don’t remember it, but I bet my parents would have rather that had not happened. I was really glad to be able to get the rotavirus vaccine for my youngest and reduce the risk of going through that with him. (For a variety of reasons our eldest didn’t get the vaccine, not by our choice.)

      Reducing the risk of pneumonia, meningitis, etc. is good.

      Neither my husband nor I looks back fondly on chicken pox or the flu.

      I could go on, but you get the idea… sparing our kids the stuff we had to go through isn’t bad. If they want to build character, they can go shovel the walk.

      • demodocus' spouse
        February 4, 2015 at 9:24 am #

        We completely agree with you. I suspect DH and I had a now-VPD like that a few weeks ago. Both of us were flattened for days, lying down except to run to the toilet, no appetite, and so much fatigue. Our little guy was fine throughout. He kept offering us his toys and his cheerios.

      • GiddyUpGo123
        February 4, 2015 at 1:13 pm #

        My boy was hospitalized at the same age, for the same reason–severe dehydration caused by an unknown stomach virus. It was terrifying. I just remember him being really floppy when I held him, and he could hardly stay awake and would vomit every time I tried to put fluids in him. I took him to the ER three times before they would admit us … after the second time they sent us for labs and the nurses weren’t able to tap a vein to get any blood because he was so dehydrated. They told me, “Take him home and get him hydrated, then we’ll be able to get some blood!” Gah! I wasn’t able to get him hydrated, that’s why I kept taking him to the ER!

        Anyway if there’d been a vaccine to prevent him having to go through all that, I would have done it in a heartbeat.

      • Saron Hand
        February 5, 2015 at 5:34 pm #

        Me too! When I was three I was hospitalized during an awful stomach bug. I hardly remember anything about it but as a parent myself now I can’t imagine how scared my parents were. And thank God (and Dr Offit) for sparing this generation from Rotavirus!

  8. Dr Kitty
    February 4, 2015 at 4:42 am #

    Pregnancy is not a disease, but I vomited 8 times on Monday between 5pm and 5am, despite chemo grade anti-emetics.
    Thankfully yesterday was better, but it looks like it will only be a matter of time before I end up in hospital. The only thing keeping me out is copious ORT (dioralyte), the fact that my urinary ketones aren’t too high, and sheer bloody minded stubbornness at this point.

    • Who?
      February 4, 2015 at 5:11 am #

      Sorry to hear it, look after yourself.

    • Mishimoo
      February 4, 2015 at 5:16 am #

      I’m so sorry! Hope things get better really soon.

    • Montserrat Blanco
      February 4, 2015 at 7:57 am #

      I am so sorry! I would love to be able to make you feel better!

    • Cobalt
      February 4, 2015 at 8:14 am #

      That sounds like a pretty serious case of not-illness. I hope it gets better before you have to take more drastic measures.

    • demodocus' spouse
      February 4, 2015 at 8:45 am #

      *hugs* Hope the time goes fast. For a not-disease, why does it make so many of us sick? (Rhetorical)

      • sdsures
        February 4, 2015 at 3:54 pm #

        Just for giggles, here’s what Dr Gregory House has to say about pregnancy:

        • Nick Sanders
          February 6, 2015 at 2:24 pm #

          Aww, it’s blocked.

          • sdsures
            February 6, 2015 at 3:53 pm #

            You could try searching youtube from their own site and put in “House MD Clinic pregnancy”; it’s what I think I did.

    • rational adult
      February 4, 2015 at 10:16 am #

      So, so sorry. Don’t be too stubborn if you feel dehydration coming on, head to the hospital! Hope today will be another better day.

    • Samantha06
      February 4, 2015 at 2:10 pm #

      Hope you feel better soon! Would ginger ale help? Probably not at this point… just a thought…

    • sdsures
      February 4, 2015 at 3:51 pm #

      *hugs* Go to the ER if you feel you need to.

    • Ceridwen
      February 4, 2015 at 5:26 pm #

      I skipped IV rehydration last pregnancy and I shouldn’t have. Stop being stubborn and just go. And then remind me I said it in a few weeks when I hit that point with this pregnancy.

    • Ceridwen
      February 4, 2015 at 5:29 pm #

      I always think about the “pregnancy is not a disease” bullshit when I’m adding yet another medication to the regime I have to take to stay out of the hospital due to dehydration. I’m on many times more medication during pregnancy than I have been at any other point in my life. And my nausea and vomiting are still relatively minor compared to what some women get since it at least responds to meds enough to (mostly) keep me out of the hospital.

  9. AnnaC
    February 4, 2015 at 4:36 am #

    I like this quotation from a piece in today’s Guardian: “Your bodily autonomy does not extend to my family.” (

  10. February 4, 2015 at 1:07 am #

    At first, I thought this might be satire, but it seems not:

    The comparison between hygienic regulations in the food industry and the “freedom” not to immunize one’s children is really quite a good one.

  11. HipsLikeCinderella
    February 4, 2015 at 12:47 am #

    I can not understand why some women think it is ok to shame their fellow females for not breastfeeding. Newsflash not all women are able to breastfeed and not all babies are able to breastfeed for a variety of reasons. This does not make those mothers any less caring or loving. A good friend of mine was unable to breastfeed because she is very voluptuous and has very very large breasts. She was told by the lactation nurse at the hospital that it would be unsafe for her to breastfeed because her baby could suffocate under the weight and size of her boobs. So she pumped and bottled fed and felt like she was doing the right thing. That is until family members (mostly other women) started chastising her for not being able to, and I qoute, “give her baby the greatest gift that a mother can provide”. They often hinted that she somehow hadn’t tried hard enough to breastfeed or that someone her size should lose weight before getting pregnant. Thankfully she is a strong person and by her second and third babies she now basically tells judgemental people to shove their opinions where the sun don’t shine.

  12. GiddyUpGo123
    February 4, 2015 at 12:24 am #

    Anyone see Jon Stewart’s bit about vaccination tonight? Pretty danged funny.

    • Samantha06
      February 4, 2015 at 1:01 am #

      “Les Measlesrables”.. pretty good!

      • GiddyUpGo123
        February 4, 2015 at 1:07 am #

        My favorite part is the bit where he compares vaccinations to boarding up the windows during a zombie apocalypse.

        • Samantha06
          February 4, 2015 at 11:20 am #

          Yes, I loved that part too! And, I actually have that original, old movie he had on his clip! I found a DVD a while back that had a bunch of the old, 1950’s horror movies, most of which seemed to be sleepers. It was fun watching them, because they were so different from the horror flicks you see now.

    • demodocus' spouse
      February 4, 2015 at 9:10 am #

      fair trade espresso enemas, ROFLMBO

  13. Lena
    February 3, 2015 at 6:54 pm #

    I. Can. Not. Stand. That woman.

  14. rational adult
    February 3, 2015 at 2:09 pm #

    I’m getting the “error establishing a database” message when I try to browse older posts. Just fyi! 🙂

  15. Laura Thomas
    February 3, 2015 at 1:45 pm #

    ***GRRR*** I just had a facebook friend post this: “What the CDC refuses to release to the public is that the only known cases of measles in the US a few years ago originated FROM the vaccine. Additionally the CDC still refuses to acknowledge that some children should not receive the MMR vaccination until they are older due to their natural immune system. Just ask any parent whose normal son (one if five boys will become autistic) just happened to show instant signs of autism immediately after receiving the MMR vaccination. Parents should be allowed to make the decision.” Is there any merit to what she’s saying? Are there any resources that I could read that refute these things? I will not debate with her on facebook and I don’t see her often enough to argue with her in person – LOL. But what she’s writing seems implausible…

    • Samantha06
      February 3, 2015 at 1:50 pm #

      Maybe ask her to cite the sources of her information?

    • rational adult
      February 3, 2015 at 2:13 pm #

      So she’s saying that a boy can be NOT autistic, but have a “natural immune system” predilection for autism that is awakened by the MMR vaccine? But this same child would never have displayed characteristics of autism if the CDC would acknowledge that some children randomly need to get their MMR vaccine later?

      By coincidence my own (autistic) son is playing with his favorite clock music box right now and saying “cuckoo!”

    • February 4, 2015 at 1:16 am #

      How can one “instantly” diagnose autism in a 6 month old child? In a year old child?
      How absurd.
      If a disease is eradicated to almost zero, then yes, it is possible that immunizing might actually have a higher rate of side effects than the number of cases. Just for the sake of argument, if X number of children who get measles [picking a number out of my hat, let’s say 10,000 cases of measles] result in a single severe complication in a child, if there are only 100 naturally occurring cases of measles, [1] the chances are that one might never see a measles-caused complication, while if 10,000 children are immunized, one might see one or two with a side effect to the vaccine. In other words, as the incidence of the disease itself declines, RELATIVELY the possibility of a side-effect of the vaccine increases. This does not mean the vaccine isn’t safe.
      When I was a child, everyone got the measles. Now, a young doctor may never have seen a single case in years of practice.

      • Sue
        February 4, 2015 at 2:20 am #

        How many times have we read something like this:

        “He was hitting all his milestones and even reaching some of them early, had his vaccine, and then overnight he started high-pitched screaming, lost all his words and lost the light in his eyes.”

        Too much cut and paste, as well as implausible.

        SO many of these people describe the onset of autism “overnight” after their kids’ vaccinations, even though developmental issues can’t possibly occur literally overnight.

        • Dr Kitty
          February 4, 2015 at 4:30 am #

          The signs of severe autism are there (if you know what to look for) from very, very on.
          MOST people only realise that their child isn’t neurotypical when they don’t smile, talk and socially interact in the same way as their peers.
          Which means MOST people first start to think something is wrong between 12 and 18 months… Which is coincidentally when MMR is given.

          There was a family I worked with previously, all kids born between 23-27 weeks.
          The first was moderately autistic- mum blamed MMR. Next sibling got single vaccines between 2 and 3- severely autistic. Next sibling didn’t get ANY vaccines-severely autistic.
          Parents eventually came around to the idea that the prematurity and their genetics might be the actual causes…
          People see what they want to see, and believe what they want to believe.

          We’re getting better and better at diagnosing ASD earlier and earlier.
          Eventually the science WILL be there to show that autism is present from birth, but just isn’t easily detected until some developmental milestones have been reached.

        • EmbraceYourInnerCrone
          February 4, 2015 at 5:12 pm #

          People close to a situation don’t always notice things that outsiders notice. Example my younger brother had a lazy eye as a toddler. It was subtle and my mom didn’t see aunt met him for the first time when he was two and mentioned it right away. mom took him to the eye doctor and they sche dulled his surgery. Sometimes parents are too close to notice a problem

      • Mishimoo
        February 4, 2015 at 5:21 am #

        My mother ‘diagnosed’ my youngest daughter as autistic when she was 6 months old, it’s part of why I cut contact for a bit. (Leaving aside the age part, I was pretty offended that she said autistic like it was an insult)

        • Wren
          February 4, 2015 at 4:13 pm #

          In retrospect, our family could all see early signs in my autistic nephew. He was not diagnosed until well past infancy, but none of us were shocked. He is 6 months younger than my son and my parents happened to meet both at the same age. The difference even before 6 months was clear, in retrospect, as I said.

          None of that excuses your mother, however.

          And just in case it wasn’t clear, I adore my nephew and truly detest the portion of the antivax community who argue that autism is the worst possible outcome, even compared to death of the child.

          • Mishimoo
            February 4, 2015 at 5:27 pm #

            Oh, I know exactly what you mean – with some kids it is obvious from an early age. It would have been excusable if she’d had symptoms, but she didn’t. The ‘diagnosis’ was based on bub insisting on being put down in her cot to go to sleep, instead of needing to be carried and rocked (she was my only baby that didn’t have reflux), and being shy around a stranger (for the first day of my mother’s visit). Oh, and “I’m the Autism lady. I have the gift of discernment*, I can just look at babies and tell if they have autism, even as young as 5 weeks.”

            (*Yes, she believes God tells her. Yes, she is a qualified Occupational Therapist. That doesn’t mean that she’s not a quack.)

    • Liz Leyden
      February 4, 2015 at 10:59 am #

      If the CDC refuses to release that data to the public, how does your Facebook friend know about it?

      • The Bofa on the Sofa
        February 4, 2015 at 11:32 am #

        They have discovered the conspiracy, of course…

        It’s always the same thing…they “know” stuff we don’t

      • Laura Thomas
        February 4, 2015 at 6:09 pm #

        Good point! Maybe she has “secret sources”!

  16. February 3, 2015 at 1:17 pm #

    Dammit, she’s absolutely ruined Blossom for me. And I had so many slouchy hats with giant flowers in the early 90s…

    • anh
      February 4, 2015 at 8:44 am #

      I don’t think I have ever liked a comment as much as I like this one. I make so many Blossom references daily it borders on bizzare. my mind is a strange vault of plots from Blossom.

  17. AnnaC
    February 3, 2015 at 12:59 pm #

    On the other hand, this great post from the same site was linked in the sidebar of Mayim Bialik’s post about vaccination:

  18. Julia
    February 3, 2015 at 12:59 pm #

    Ugh, tell me about it. Earlier today on facebook: a sanctimonious reminder about the horrors of sleep training (inability to form healthy relationships! permanent brain damage!) — from a vaccine doubter. The deplorable part is that this person is actually a really good person, just totally misguided. In her case it makes me sad rather than mad.

  19. Saron Hand
    February 3, 2015 at 12:37 pm #

    OT: has anyone seen that January Harshe from Birth Without Fear just delivered a baby at 43 weeks.

    From her IG account: “I woke up Sunday and there was no denying my instincts were telling me it was the day she needed to be earth side to be safe and healthy. For a few reasons we chose a cesarean.”

    Now she hasn’t shared the whole story like, did she have a trial of labor? I mean, can you walk into a hospital on a Sunday morning and say, “Hi, I’m three weeks post dates and I take one cesarean section please.

    This woman is so full of shit.

    • Elaine
      February 3, 2015 at 12:56 pm #

      Well, maybe her baby was, say, moving less, and that’s why she decided to go in, and she walked into triage and the baby looked bad on the monitors and they went straight to c/s. Which, of course, doesn’t really mean crap one way or another for anyone else’s birth… this “trust your instincts” stuff drives me crazy. Consider your instincts, sure, but don’t rely on them solely.

      • Young CC Prof
        February 3, 2015 at 1:21 pm #

        Remember that, for a lot of the homebirth disasters discussed on this site, the mother’s instincts WERE telling her something was wrong, and the midwife assured her everything was fine. “Trust your instincts when they tell you something isn’t right” isn’t the worst advice out there.

        • February 4, 2015 at 1:22 am #

          She may think it is “instinct” to put together a number of subliminal signs, but if she dissected what provoked her “instinct” she’d see that there were definite signs. My “instincts” often identified a patient with an incipient problem even as she entered my room — but I could figure out why, knowing what I was seeing. It doesn’t surprise me when a woman, who is all puffy and has an exaggerated mask of pregnancy, and looks like she is in pain, tells me she’s got a headache, for example, to discover her BP is elevated.

      • theadequatemother
        February 3, 2015 at 1:24 pm #

        She’s mentioning her instincts so as not to lose too much face with the NCB crowd. She can’t come out with a narrative that days there was less movement so she went in for an assessment and the fluid was low and fetal heart rate concerning…because that’s the biomedical model. Hence feelings/ intuition etc.

      • Anj Fabian
        February 3, 2015 at 1:26 pm #

        Could be chorio, could be pre-e – could be anything…

        But if you are hardcore NCBer, then it’s going to be spun as instincts and such.

        • Sarah
          February 3, 2015 at 1:51 pm #

          Well, either way I’m glad she took the decision to seek medical advice and then, presumably, to follow it. That’s an unequivocal good thing.

    • Bombshellrisa
      February 3, 2015 at 1:05 pm #

      There is the “earth side” thing again. Am I the only one who was sure the hiccuping, somersaulting, bladder bouncing thing in my belly was already “earth side”? And 43 weeks is long past needing to be out so baby can be healthy.

      • Samantha06
        February 3, 2015 at 1:27 pm #

        I know, I don’t get the “earth side” thing either! Do they think in utero means it’s on Pluto or something?

        • February 4, 2015 at 1:18 am #

          It’s “cute”. Don’t get me started on “twee birthy jargon”, please.

          • Sue
            February 4, 2015 at 2:22 am #

            Right, Mama!

          • Roadstergal
            February 4, 2015 at 11:56 am #

            You Mamas with your Mama Milks…

        • demodocus' spouse
          February 4, 2015 at 9:01 am #

          well, since my sister says I’m a pod person, that might apply to me 😉

    • Lisa from NY
      February 3, 2015 at 1:15 pm #


    • Dr Kitty
      February 3, 2015 at 1:51 pm #

      Umm hmmm…
      My money is on reduced foetal movement and/or meconium stained liquor prompting a hospital assessment which showed that bub was not doing well.

      Because you know that things must have been BAD if a BWF person skipped straight to a CS without attempting labour and went straight to a hospital for assessment rather than chilling at home with some relaxing alternative therapies.

      Of course when BWF members choose CS, it’s necessary and moral and based on intuition and doing the right thing for “reasons”. When the rest of us choose CS we’re sheeple who don’t trust birth, or too posh to push, or don’t believe in our birth wombyn goddess powers or something.

      • fiftyfifty1
        February 3, 2015 at 1:57 pm #

        yep: The only moral CS is my CS.

    • Trixie
      February 3, 2015 at 1:51 pm #

      Obviously I’m glad she ultimately made a sane choice and delivered her babe safely. But WTF January? Why inflict 43 weeks of pregnancy on your baby? Holding out for the perfect birth story for your blog?

    • Monica
      February 3, 2015 at 6:53 pm #

      Oh so if I tell the birth story of my son who was breech and had a planned c-section and say I woke up that morning and just KNEW it was his time to be earth side, so we skipped off to the hospital for a c-section, then that would be a totes okay way to have a c-section?

    • HipsLikeCinderella
      February 5, 2015 at 6:21 am #

      Omg I almost just spit tea all over my iPad when I read that! How delusional can you be?!

  20. Zoey
    February 3, 2015 at 11:25 am #

    I know so many people like this. They think it’s great to refer to science and evidence when they feel like it confirms their ideological biases, but then they act like science and evidence isn’t all that important or that they know better than scientists and doctors when science or evidence challenges their worldview.

    This bothers me so much. Scientific thinking shouldn’t be like a hat that you try on and show off when it suits you and then take off when it doesn’t.

    • Young CC Prof
      February 3, 2015 at 11:38 am #

      Definitely. Being a skeptic means questioning everything, all the time. There are a few topics on which I believe the scientific consensus is wrong, but I’m never sure about it, precisely because I know I’m not smarter than the world’s experts with their heads together. On those topics, I keep an eye out for new studies.

  21. Kazia
    February 3, 2015 at 11:17 am #

    Your link to the Similac post (I pointed out)is broken.

  22. ArmyChick
    February 3, 2015 at 10:59 am #

    I had my daughter nearly four years ago and I knew before she was born I did NOT want to breast feed. It is a CHOICE I made as a woman and a feminist. A choice that I was and other women are entitled to make. I have zero guilt. I know some will judge, offer their opinion that I don’t care for (yes really, I know. Don’t let your head explode over my lack of remorse that you think I should feel). It has never bothered me one bit. Unfortunately I know there are women out there who formula fed and are sensitive about this issue because they are made to feel like failures by the NCB movement. You are NOT a failure! Don’t let these fools get to you, mothers. Loving your children, nurturing them, taking care of their health (formula IS safe and nutritious) is what is important.

    Deal with it breast obsessed crowd.

  23. attitude devant
    February 3, 2015 at 10:37 am #

    Oh I disagree. I think her views are COMPLETELY internally consistent, but you just have to see it from her point of view: it’s ALL about Mayim. Anything that increases/underscores/magnifies the role of The Mother is what she gets behind. The narcissism of former child stars is hard to fathom until you see it up close, and here it is: anything that keeps Mother center stage ad infinitum, ad absurdum she’s behind 100%. I’m sure she’d tell you that it’s the biggest role of her lifetime.

    • Roadstergal
      February 3, 2015 at 12:30 pm #

      Didn’t someone comment on an earlier post that the cover of her book had her kids staring up at her in what felt like a creepily staged fashion?

      (Thinking about it – most kids/babies I see have mom(s)/dad(s) staring at them adoringly, while the kids are looking all over the place, because _big exciting new world_.)

      • attitude devant
        February 3, 2015 at 2:04 pm #

        I know, right? I remember having this fantasy of my little girl rising to her feet the first time and toddling toward ME. This great moment, shared between mother and child.
        Umm, not a chance. She stood up, and RAN…..right off into that big exciting new world. After I stopped laughing (at her, at myself), I had to chase her, and not for the last time.

  24. ModernLife
    February 3, 2015 at 10:05 am #

    Lactivists really piss me off. Dur of course breastfeeding is great and has benefits. But the constant shaming of, and looking down on, mothers who don’t or CAN’T (like my mom) breastfeed is shameful and causes more harm than Similac or formula ever would. Assholes.

    • Spiderpigmom
      February 3, 2015 at 10:59 am #

      “Dur of course breastfeeding is great and has benefit”: I know there are proven benefits of breast milk in the case of pre-term neonates, but I wasn’t aware of any benefit over formula for healthy newborns born at term (other than vague correlations). Can you tell me more?

      • Helen
        February 3, 2015 at 12:04 pm #

        I think that there’s a huge difference between “has benefits” and “has benefits over X.” Benefits of breastfeeding include 1) Convenience. The milk is always fresh, warmed to the right temperature, available, and delivered without a bottle that needs to be washed. 2) Price. Strictly from a money perspective, and as part of the weekly food budget, breastfeeding is cheaper. 3) Warmer cuddle time. HOWEVER — these benefits depend on breastfeeding being easy, plentiful, and available. As soon as you add a stressed mother into the mix, harried for time, or problems with the supply or feeding process, then the benefits diminish for that mother. Just because the benefits exist does mean that they are equally accessible or of equal worth to all — thus, and thus the benefits are not over breastfeeding. Depending on the situation, the benefits may be greater for bottle feeding.

      • The Bofa on the Sofa
        February 3, 2015 at 12:44 pm #

        Depends on the person. Formula feeding has HUGE benefits for people in circumstances where, for example, they aren’t able to physically breastfeed, or where other factors of their circumstances make breastfeeding costly or unfeasible.

        For example, formula feeding was very important for us with our first because my wife could not pump enough milk to keep up with our baby’s demand while she was at work, and so I fed him a mix. Or with our second, who refused to drink breast milk from a bottle in any way, so formula was our only option when he was at daycare.

        Therefore, because of formula, my wife was able to work. I hope you would agree that is an advantage, yes?

        Just because it doesn’t apply to everyone doesn’t mean it is not a benefit. For example, you mention the benefits of breastfeeding with premies despite the fact hat most babies are not premies.

        • Spiderpigmom
          February 3, 2015 at 2:55 pm #

          Haha — of course, the mother being able to work is a benefit. I was asking about the benefits of breastmilk that ModernLife seemed to hold for obvious (“dur of course”). My understanding was that breast milk had no demonstrable benefit apart from the case of preemies.

          You don’t have to page me about the benefits of formula — not starving to death, for example, is a significant health benefit 😀 — and formula probably has convenience benefits too; breast milk might be always ready and at the right temperature, but when your baby, like mine, won’t have anything to do with a bottle, you have to be with him all the time and either stay home or show your tits in public, which is not precisely convenient.

          • The Bofa on the Sofa
            February 4, 2015 at 2:55 pm #

            My understanding was that breast milk had no demonstrable benefit apart from the case of preemies.

            Again, depends on the person. For someone who doesn’t need to work, breastfeeding is a lot cheaper, for example. And it saves the hassle of having to carry bottles and formula with you everywhere you go. That can certainly be a benefit.

            Whether they are net benefits to the population or not says nothing about individual situations.

      • ModernLife
        February 3, 2015 at 4:34 pm #

        Don’t misunderstand.. I’m not saying it is better. I’m saying that there are benefits to it. As others have said below, when it is possible it is free, readily available, comes in its own container so no bottle is required. My main issue with Bialik (and others like her) is the shame and guilt they place on mothers who for whatever reason are not breastfeeding. Terrible.

  25. OBPI Mama
    February 3, 2015 at 9:57 am #

    But you know, secretly or in her circle of friends, she spouts off about how cloth diapering really IS the only way babies should be diapered because they’re free from chemicals and bleach and all that. And that all babies should have all-natural baby shampoo because it’s just safer. I don’t buy that she thinks those are “just” choices, it’s the only way to go to be a good mom! (I am someone who does cloth diaper her babies and shampoos her children’s hair with Suave once a week… she’d deem me great until I used the word “Suave”… moms like this are black and white and she doesn’t fool me for a minute).

    • Cobalt
      February 3, 2015 at 10:06 am #

      I feel ya. I use cloth diapers, too, I even have the old style 100% cotton prefolds. Why only pure cotton? Because I can wash them in the generic detergent from Wal-Mart without worrying about damage. It’s cheaper and easier for me.

      I breastfeed for all the wrong reasons, too.

    • Sarah1035
      February 3, 2015 at 10:33 am #

      She only did cloth for about 6 months then saw the light and started using EC. Totally not making it up, it’s in her book.

      • Cobalt
        February 3, 2015 at 11:06 am #

        Talk about moving the goalposts…

    • just me
      February 3, 2015 at 10:40 am #

      Ha ha free from chemicals. Which would mean a bare butt with nothing on it. And she has a phd?

      • Roadstergal
        February 3, 2015 at 12:48 pm #

        A bare butt in a vacuum jar. If it’s exposed to the air, it’s exposed to chemicals.

  26. Cobalt
    February 3, 2015 at 9:49 am #

    Pediatricians prevent more death and disease in one day through vaccination than would be prevented if every baby was given breastmilk for 2 years.

  27. Sarah
    February 3, 2015 at 9:43 am #

    Bialik is genuinely revolting. I was given a copy of her book as a gift, and have passed it on, but I wish I’d made a list of all the inconsistencies and stupidities therein. She seems to get something of a pass from some quarters due to being in a successful TV programme, bizarrely.

    • Stephanie
      February 3, 2015 at 9:45 am #

      I would have kept it around to use if I ran out of toilet paper.

      • Sarah
        February 3, 2015 at 9:48 am #

        Nah, there’s more sense comes out of my bumhole than there is in the whole of that book. I’d be worried about making my arse stupider.

        • February 3, 2015 at 1:21 pm #

          No worries. You clearly have a smart ass…

          • Sarah
            February 3, 2015 at 1:52 pm #

            I shall take that as a compliment!

      • Elaine
        February 3, 2015 at 10:01 am #

        I would have thrown it in the recycling. Some books I don’t want to pass on because I don’t want to be in any way responsible for their dissemination.

    • Allie
      February 3, 2015 at 9:51 am #

      I can separate her as an actor from her as a quack. The thing that bothers me about her as a quack is she has an advanced degree in neurobiology, which means a) she should know better and b) to her followers, it lends credence to her quackery. I find it comforting that her character on BBT would totally mock her stupidity, as would Sheldon.

      • Young CC Prof
        February 3, 2015 at 11:28 am #

        I really wonder how a person pretends to be a skeptic and scientist.

        Well, she doesn’t write the scripts, I suppose.

        • Guest
          February 3, 2015 at 11:53 am #

          Sheldon once had a line making fun of homeopathy, while she was right there in the scene with him. I laughed much harder than the line warranted!

  28. Sarah1035
    February 3, 2015 at 9:35 am #

    I admit I’m a fan of her on the BBT and even read her book cover to cover. I found it entertaining, but I myself am not into AP. Based on her book she is one of the women who struggled and went to the ends of the earth to make breastfeeding work. She can’t wrap her head around someone making a different choice and that choice still be a good decision.

    • The Bofa on the Sofa
      February 3, 2015 at 10:31 am #

      I admit I’m a fan of her on the BBT

      Actually, after learning about her really, really disturbing woo, I have become NOT a fan of hers on BBT.

      • Sarah1035
        February 3, 2015 at 10:38 am #

        At least we will never see Amy deal with birth “choices” since she is with Sheldon. I couldn’t stand it on Bones when they had her be all about natural childbirth and anti hospital, then of course have a fast delivery in a barn and end the same night with a champagne toast.

        • Dr Kitty
          February 3, 2015 at 11:42 am #

          Daisy’s delivery kind of made up for it on Bones!

        • The Bofa on the Sofa
          February 3, 2015 at 12:38 pm #

          Sheldon’s sister had a homebirth, because “she wanted to go back to the stone age and a cave wasn’t available”

          Unfortunately, the only downside of homebirth they mentioned was cleaning up the mess

          • A
            February 6, 2015 at 9:48 am #

            I was quite disappointed when that scene ended with Raj arguing for homebirth, I expected a witty comeback from Sheldon or just about anyone there.

        • Roadstergal
          February 3, 2015 at 1:06 pm #

          I remember watching Breaking Bad and feeling like someone on the script writing team was sneaking in NCB. Like Skylar scheduling her C-section and then going into labor and saying she was so glad she went ‘natural’ (after references to a difficult labor with Walt Jr and him having CP). And Hank saying he only wanted to give Holly the bottle with breast milk, not ‘that soy crap.’

      • Mariana Baca
        February 3, 2015 at 1:23 pm #

        Same here. I used to find her one of the only tolerable parts of BBT… now, not really.

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.