Morons of the Internet: Living Whole

This is the segment where I scour my favourite forums around the internet and find some particularly interesting articles about current affairs told in the words of my favourite human beings.

In this edition we have one of those irritating stay at home mums who has managed to look around the cesspits of the internet and declared herself an expert on a subject she knows next to nothing about. Normally I'd just ignore idiots like this, but on this occassion one has decided to try and take on parents who vaccinate their children, and so like the knight in shining armour that I am I've decided to rid the internet of the shit spewed out by these demon.
__________________________________________________
http://www.livingwhole.org/to-the-parent-of-an-immunocompromised-child-who-thinks-my-kid-is-a-threat/
__________________________________________________

To put this post into context I think it's important to mention that this lady was responding to the anger of another parent over the recent outbreak of measles in the US. The angry parent makes the perfectly reasonable argument that because her child has a specific form of cancer, and therefore doesn't have an adequate immune system to take vaccines, she is unable to be protected from illnesses such as measles if other parents refuse to vaccinate their children.

For some reason this perfectly reasonable cry for help from a powerless parent angered some stay at home mum called Megan Redshaw, who despite claiming she cares about the child with cancer, evidently doesn't give a shit about kids with measles. She is far happier not adequately protecting kids from this debilitating disease. I don't care what hormonal emotions are surging around her body, but these feelings have clouded her judgement and seriously affected the security of her own children. Megan, you may like to compare yourself to a female bear, but by writing this piece of shit it's clear you have the cognitive ability of one, and nothing else. Nobody is claiming your children are unimportant, they just think you're a fucking idiot. Let's quit with this attitude that your some oppressed martyr sacrificing the safety of your children for the greater good, when in fact this way of thinking has the very real potential to put whole areas of children under serious threat. Is it now starting to make sense why people don't respect your opinion? Just because you have an opinion on a topic doesn't mean you're informed on the subject.

There's a damn good reason why organisations such as the CDC and the NHS are projecting the idea that measles is making a return, and that's because that's factual information. Data from the UK shows that the country experienced 56 cases of measles in 1998, whereas ten years later that had shot up to 1370. Similarly in the US there's also been rises in measles outbreaks throughout the previous few years, with the added bonus of outbreaks in 2008 being attributed to unvaccinated individuals.  Nobody is claiming measles is only being caught by solely unvaccinated individuals, but rather they are often the primary cause of these outbreaks. And yes, you madam are a key cog in this medical negligence and must share the blame with other moronic parents that don't vaccinate their kids.

The reason why you don't often see images of vaccinated kids with severe ailments is because adverse reactions to vaccinations are incredibly rare, whereas measles sadly is not. Life-threatening injuries from vaccines are possible, but this is vastly outweighed by their potential benefits. For some reason you have the fucking balls to take the high ground on objectivity when you produce this pathetic slander. I doubt you even know what the fucking word means. I get it, you believe your kid was one of the unlucky individuals who displayed adverse effects from vaccines, although whether that's actually true is another matter. However, your child does not represent a trend. Your child does not have a 240% increased risk of developing autism from the MMR vaccine, and you might want to read the small print in the article you've sourced, as the producer's notes very adamantly admit this statistic is complete bullshit. There are in fact multiple meta-analyses of these studies, with the common findings being this relationship between the MMR vaccine and autism being non-existent. And yes dear, these meta-analyses are far more reliable pieces of information than your retracted nonsense.

Funny how you don't provide evidence that the rate of measles declined prior to the vaccine being introduced. It's almost as if reality is different from the thoughts in your primitive mind. Not only would the fewer natural occurrences of measles prior to the introduction of the vaccine provide zero evidence that the measles vaccine works, but statistics show a dramatic decrease in measles cases after the vaccine was first implemented in 1963. It's almost as if this horrible condition doesn't have to be a common childhood disease if you take the necessary precautions and vaccinate your fucking kids.

For an added bonus the idea that measles can protect children against more serious ailments such as cancer is also highly misleading, which is a shame as it's the only fucking point you bothered to source. You can do all the research you want, but funnily enough if you're shit at it the results aren't going to make you sound more informed on the subject. I just can't comprehend how someone can end up at the conclusion that the measles vaccine puts both babies and adults at a greater risk when the evidence clearly doesn't allude to this idea at all. I don't know what's so difficult to comprehend, but when a vaccine has the effect of dramatically reducing cases of a disease it greatly reduces the risks of people contracting the disease. That's reduce the risks, not cause the fucking disease you bellend.

Just to confirm, 73,000 people died due to complications from measles worldwide in 2014, with the risk of death being approximately 0.2%, which interestingly is a lot more deadly than the approximate 0.001% risk of serious injury from the MMR vaccination. Once again you didn't actually read the source you provided properly, as vaccines were not the cause of the disparity between age and fatality rate, and the webpage even strongly advocates for the use of the MMR vaccine. We've now got to the stage where we can't even cherrypick our own sources without them completely contradicting our point. In any case, this point doesn't detract from the fact that all age groups have a decreased risk of contracting measles overall if they are correctly vaccinated, which your provided source is very keen to point out. I'm not quite sure why you think it's strange that young children and the elderly are the most vulnerable, but surely that's to do with them being vaccinated, and not at all with mortality trends.

Maths is the latest skill to be added to your long list of weaknesses, as 140 children certainly aren't enough to describe vaccines as killing literally 'thousands' of children. Interestingly you just provide a website rather than actual data for your statistic on MMR vaccine deaths, so I actually did the hard work for you and found a lovely analysis that concludes the evidence that vaccines lead to death is inadequate and to a reject a causal relationship between the MMR vaccine and death. I don't know where you're getting those estimated figures from, but my bet would be from straight out your arse.

It's not bringing your child up in a bubble if you're adequately protecting them from diseases that can KILL THEM. You even admit that your kid is a potential threat to others, and yet you don't give a shit. It gets worse, as in your sadistic mind it's the other parents who are in the wrong. How can you be so fucking ignorant? We can all bang on about anecdotal stories, which is something you criticised the mother of the cancer-ridden child for doing earlier, but these cases do not represent trends.

Let's put your examples into perspective. The MMR vaccine has a 95% rate of success for children over twelve months of age, which is adequately above the 92% vaccination rate required for herd immunity. Of course vaccinated children can still carry the disease, but that's further encouragement to vaccinate your own kids to prevent the disease from spreading through populations. Vaccines do indeed have life expectancies, although I couldn't find an accurate estimate as to how long the MMR vaccine provides immunity for, but what is clear is the need to vaccinate the vulnerable at certain ages. And yes, of course people with vaccinations can get ill. What are you expecting from vaccines? Fucking immortality. There seems to be this assumption that vaccines will magically make you immune to disease, which isn't true, as they merely minimise risk; a risk that you're exacerbating. You have the audacity to lecture us in this condescending tone like you've just dismantled every argument from medical professionals. These individuals have extensively trained and dedicated their lives to saving others, so how about showing them some fucking respect and stop lecturing them like some sort of expert? You on the other hand cherry pick information, and despite your claims do not provide peer-reviewed studies, and even when you do you manipulate the information into your shitty little pseudoscientific world. I'd like to see direct quotes from the package inserts you've sourced because I can't find any of the conclusions you've just shat out of your gaping gob.

You just can't get it into your thick skull that diseases cannot be spread through populations if there is sufficient immunity, and it's idiots like you that prevent this from happening. Somehow the innocent mother is apparently at fault for not providing her daughter with the genes for protective immunity. Seriously, fuck you. If you think passing on natural immunity is a more effective system than vaccination then I've got some bad news for you. Just a quick look through the pages of human history and you'll see just how badly humanity succumbed to diseases without the aid of methods such as vaccines. That natural immunisation against measles was such a good strategy that this woman even admitted earlier that measles has historically had high rates.

Imagine thinking that a decreased chance of contracting a potentially fatal disease is sacrificing the health of your child. We've already been through both the effectiveness and safety of the MMR vaccine, so instead I'll just tell this woman to go fuck herself again. She claims there's been no double-blind placebo controlled study, but it's clear that selected vision is playing up again, because here is one of those studies that you claim doesn't exist. I bet you a million pounds it completely annihilates your argument. And hey, for an added bonus here's a scientific review of your alleged concerns.

Just fuck off. Of course herd immunity applies to vaccinations. But wait, it gets better. The source for this ludicrous claim is from 1933. Fucking hell. That's right, you've managed to deduce that herd immunity doesn't work in the case of MMR vaccines a good 30 years before the vaccine was first administered. Just fantastic. In the near century since that archaic study was last relevant we've seen how herd immunity has eradicated smallpox in the 1970s, or more recently rinderpest in 2011. If you claim to be a fan of herd immunity the least you could do is actually understand the basic principles of it.

Christ, you're now lecturing people on misleading others. I doubt I've ever been faced with such an obnoxious weasel as you madam. I'm not going to repeat myself on how herd immunity has succeeded, and how vaccinations being temporary really isn't a big issue, but I'd just thought I'd add that the link you provided for herd immunity failing in vaccinations no longer exists. The source was also from a website called 'Natural Immunity Fundamentals', so most probably would have been biased propaganda in any case. Now you come to mention it the second link no longer exists either. Just incredible sourcework dear. And yet you claim in the comments section that you have the ability to effectively research. I call bullshit. You may believe I'm the one living under a rock, but I can tell you that's a much better place to live than up my own asshole.

It's great that there are a variety of lifestyle choices people can do to reduce the risk of measles by up to 50%. Interestingly however vaccinating your kids is 95% effective, and is therefore far more effective at reaching the herd immunity threshold than this natural bollocks you stupid bitch. Even the WHO, the very people you cite, claim the measles vaccination has saved over 20 million lives in the current millennium, resulting in an 84% drop in the death rate. The logic then gets even worse. It turns out going to the hospital increases the chances of your children getting ill. How can that possibly make sense in anyone's head? Why this is seen as a good counterargument I will never know as it's completely contradictory. You begin by saying that people admitted to hospital don't catch measles, which is evidence for it being harmless, and then go on to state that people shouldn't be bringing children into hospitals with the infectious diseases that you've admitted in the same sentence are completely harmless. I also don't understand how this supports your argument. You've been constantly bleating about not letting kids live in bubbles, yet when an environment presents itself with a large number of viruses for that good old natural immunity you cower at the prospect. Maybe that's because these ailments are too potent even for this tough woman, who would rather her child contract the relatively harmless measles, which doesn't at all kill thousands of people each year. Just in case you missed it, this pathetic tough mum attitude is being made towards a parent whose child is immunosuppressant. She's calling measles harmless towards a child without a fucking immune system, which doesn't make her sound like an asshole at all.

I just don't know how anyone can ever get through to you. With all your points you just have to blame everything apart from unvaccinated children, even when the evidence points the other way. How can you so willingly revel in your own ignorance? I'm not going to go over herd immunity for the third time, but it's worth repeating the idea that if illnesses are unable to spread they don't pose a threat. It's all very well suggesting these other precautions, but why are we promoting these strategies as alternatives instead of implementing them alongside a method that is proven to work? Also, health advisory bodies do educate parents on these matters and specifically advocate vaccination programmes. You just choose not to listen to advisory bodies that find you at fault.

Your shitty attitude continues into the next paragraph by again denying any sort of responsibility for your negligence, and since you asked for a causal relationship between unvaccinated children and the exposure of immunocompromised children I'll give you a nice bit of reading. There seems to be this attitude that because germs and microbes are everywhere in life we shouldn't be protecting our children against them. Surely you must be able to see that there is a very fine line between a child catching a common cold from unsanitary conditions, and measles from simply not vaccinating your kids.

Then the shitty attitude reaches a 10/10. Just look at the disgusting attitude displayed in that last sentence. This poor child, through no fault of its own, has a compromised immune system, yet you can't get your head out your own ass and show some common decency. But it gets better than that dick move, because you then actively blame the other mother because she allows her child to live in a bubble. WHY THE FUCK DO YOU THINK THE MOTHER PROTECTS HER DAUGHTER!? It's almost like her child doesn't have a fucking immune system. How the fuck can you sit there and take the moral high ground when you behave in this vile manner?

By the way, did you know that none of those studies relate to the type of cancer the child you're referring to has? You still haven't figured out what a trend is yet because the studies cited here refer to very specific illnesses and in no way paint the picture that measles is an overall beneficial condition. Again, please refer to the Cancer Research article from earlier that explained very nicely why this isn't a good argument. I also wonder why that particular CNN article was taken down. Surely it couldn't be because it failed to meet journalistic standards. No, I'm sure it's because these absolute idiots are also in on this big conspiracy, which I guess is why you've sourced them multiple times in this piece. The beautiful irony in this is that your article on making a vaccine has also been removed, which just fills me with pure delight.

What doesn't fill me with delight is the next disgusting comment. You start wishing children could contract measles in order to help your theoretical cancer-ridden child. Seriously, what the fuck is wrong with you? You need a visit to an asylum, not parental responsibilities. You would happily sacrifice your own child's safety in order to prove your point, using the suffering of other children for your own benefit. Let's get this straight, you are not Edward Jenner. You're a fucking idiot, so stop playing with the lives of children. I'm not even going to properly respond to your final comment that directly compares the lives of unvaccinated children to European Jews in the 1930's. The sick mind who thinks that's an acceptable and reasonable argument to make shouldn't be worth a single second of my time.

Maybe I shouldn't be conversing with this demonic bitch, but I do have my reasons for writing this rant. Mostly it's because I enjoy a good moan at the expense of other people, but perhaps more importantly I needed to highlight just how crazy this way of thinking is. How anyone could deduce that any of the arguments presented are in any way rational is beyond me. It's all very well parading around with your law degree, but this makes you qualified to lecture on law, and not medicine. Just because you claimed to have researched the subject doesn't shield you from idiocy. Interestingly you didn't mention where you graduated in law, which I would have thought you would have jumped at the chance to do if you graduated from any half-decent institution. Surely a person as knowledgeable as this would easily get a job in the medical field, but as far as I'm concerned you're just a mother, and mothers don't get precedence over conventional scientists when it comes to scientific arguments. Not only do you owe the mother of the immunocompromised child an apology for your disgusting behaviour, but you also owe the readers of your article an apology for the blatant misinformation found throughout. Obviously that's not going to happen, as this article proves pure ignorance is your way of inflating your sense of self-importance.