This is the segment where I scour my favorite forums around the internet
and find some particularly interesting articles about current affairs
told in the words from some of my favorite human beings.
In this edition we return to the website 'Viral Women', who have once again let their feelings get in the way of common sense. Apparently logical scientific practices should always be inferior to the feminist agenda, even if that does involve ignoring peer reviewed studies and decades of statistics.
______________________________________________________________________________________
http://viralwomen.com/post/vaccine_choice_is_a_feminist_issue
______________________________________________________________________________________
I'd like to start by pointing out that I do actually agree with the law that California has just passed to instigate mandatory vaccination unless a valid reason is given, and failing to do so will result in children not being allowed in public schools. As far as I'm concerned vaccination of common diseases should be compulsory as there is clear scientific proof and statistics to show that not only does this prevent the spread of diseases, but also eradicates some if the vaccine is particularly effective. The author of this article doesn't understand that, and instead is ignorant enough to deny other children a healthy working environment for the sake of feminism, yet still demands that she needs the benefit of free schooling. She totally neglects the idea that this new law has been founded on public safety and years of peer reviewed studies and statistical analysis. Just because you can't feel the effects of vaccination programmes doesn't mean they're not effective, despite whatever statistics you bring to the table. That would be like standing under another persons umbrella when it rains and then deciding that your own umbrella cannot possibly stop you from getting wet as you still kept dry without taking it. The statistics you do source are actually laughable. Where you got that '8% required to preserve herd immunity' statistic from I don't know, but the reality is that it simply isn't true. Different diseases require different levels of vaccination, or herd immunity threshold as it's known. According the World Health Organization measles requires a 92-95% vaccination rate that by your own admission is not enough to stop the spread of the disease if some people are allowed to opt out. The measles vaccination has a 95% success rate, and so it's imperative that everyone is vaccinated to preserve a herd immunity. The statistics clearly show that contrary to your belief the vaccination rate of California is not high enough to adequately deal with some diseases, and so surely regulation was the correct solution.
What a surprise, another invalid source. The link for showing that vaccines aren't as effective as first believed has been deleted; what a surprise. If you had bothered to do some research you would discover that according to the webMD, the reason why diseases still exist after vaccination is due to newer vaccines not lasting as long as before, and the contribution of the good old people who object to vaccination. This is further evidence that an even greater number of people should be vaccinated to preserve a herd immunity, despite your claims that even more vaccines will not solve the problem. Need evidence that more vaccines will solve the problem; well here you go:
The issue here isn't that schools aren't beneficial. The issue here is that they're a congregation of various groups of children from different backgrounds that will easily allow a spread of diseases to a large number of individuals.Why should law abiding children have their health put at risk by a minority of ignorant parents who think they know the bodies of their offspring better than science? I wouldn't say that was naive, I would say that's a necessary precaution. It is true that those children will be visiting the same recreational facilities, but unlike school that won't happen on a daily basis, and so contrary to your theory the risks of contracting an illness will be greatly reduced thanks to a reduced amount of contact. The law may be a drastic measure to improve public health but you have not provided me with any evidence to suggest that this would have a detrimental effect, and science has proven that the exact opposite would happen, so why are you putting your opinions above the health of average citizens? Face it, you have no fucking clue about the technical details of vaccination, and so are in no position to start dictating over the wellbeing of the public, unlike the lawmakers who have been thoroughly educated on this decision and haven't just passed the law for the banter. I still don't see how this is a feminist issue. Just because women predominantly care for the child in the family doesn't mean that they instantly have a greater knowledge of vaccination processes. The actual bill has nothing to do with gender, and so maybe you should be more concerned with women in third world countries who cannot get vaccinations because of their background. That is the only thing that seems to be a feminist issue here.
How the hell does breastfeeding, ear piercings and circumcision affect the health of other children? You are aware that herd immunity isn't just going to be of benefit to individuals, but a whole community. It's hardly fair to call this bill extreme when serious illnesses that can be prevented by vaccination are still rising in America on a daily basis. You have proven that you have no idea about medicine on a national scale, yet alone a global scale, so how about leaving this debate with science and not just uneducated feminists. I would like to know what your opinion is on narcotics. Where do we draw the line on that? You know that drugs such as heroine have negative effects on the human body, but under your logic they should be legalised by the government as a women has the right to choose over her body. I'm sure this feminist stance on drug use would certainly not be beneficial on public health in the same way that their views on vaccination would also lead to a decrease in public wellbeing. I just hate this view that because a woman has the power to make informed decisions for their child they can do as they please. You wouldn't give your child prescription medication that's suitable for over 18s because it would have a negative effect on their health, yet the hypocrisy here is that you simply ignore this for vaccinations even when the science, or the label in the case of my metaphor, is clear on the consequences. It would be interesting to hear the views of body autonomy off a person who's contracted measles due to not being vaccinated. I think that person would prioritise health over body autonomy.
So now being injured by a vaccine is becoming the new issue? I know you're now clutching at straws and trying to avoid a scientific debate at all costs, but wouldn't you rather be injured by a vaccine than die of a disease that could easily be treated. Just for the record if you are injured by a vaccination then you are entitled to compensation. The National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program has reported that 2,620 people have been injured by vaccines since 1988, as opposed to the 545,000 who have died from measles alone since 1990. I'd say that not using vaccines because there's a risk of injury is a bit like campaigning against the use of airbags in cars since I'm told they're not the most pleasant of objects to hit your face on, despite the fact they save thousands of lives and are a mandatory safety feature in cars. But then I'm sure you hate that the government forces you to have an airbag in your car as after all it's your car and not theirs. Trust me, I'm a huge supporter of car autonomy.
However the thing that pisses me off most about this article is the blatant denial that millions of people are affected every year by diseases that could be treated with vaccinations, but you don't give a damn. All you care about is your own personal agenda, showing no sympathy or respect for the people that are in desperate need of something you take for granted, and even campaign against. That's the issue here, not your body as a method of trying to adhere to the feminist ideology. You conclude by saying that feminists should support the rights of women even if they make stupid choices, which not only implies that women are somehow being victimised by vaccinations, but also that this is an issue that solely affects women. Your narrow-minded, ignorant and irresponsible approach makes you look like an idiot, and I hope that no sane human being actually believes this bullshit propaganda that's quite obviously false.
No comments:
Post a Comment