Student Idiocy Spreads to Southampton

Student politics is a farcical segment of society that I've had the displeasure of ranting about on multiple occasions. We read repeatedly that institutions such as the NUS propose such idiotic policies that seem to get more purposely stupid with every one of their pointless meetings. However, it turns out you now don't need to be part of the notoriously left-wing NUS to suffer from the mental retardation associated with student politics, and unfortunately the rotten cancer of radical student politics has ravaged the University of Southampton like a plague. You must be shocked to hear that a Student's Union once fronted by a cat and one that allows platforms for such insightful bollocks from the Wessex Scene contains moronic politicians, but their recent actions are far more shocking than any of their puppet democracies have managed thus far. This week news spread of the Southampton Student's Union threatening to paint over a memorial dedicated to student's who fell during The Great War. Apparently students are only supported at this university if they haven't been ripped to shreds by machine gun fire. This means soldiers who gave their fucking lives for their country are treated with less respect at this university than a fucking homeless cat.

You may be asking why such a radical decision like this should be made. Surely a Student's Union would need a strong case for such a dramatic action. Oh no, I forgot they were idiots, and they actually want to take down the mural because it depicts only white people as war heroes. Yes, you read that correctly. It's shocking how someone in an allegedly prestigious position would make a remark as callous as that. To quote her directly in a since-deleted tweet:

I'm struggling to decide over whether I would keep a mural painted by a knighted painter, or replace it with the work of a person who thought that profile picture looked good. Obviously, aesthetics are not the big issue here, and I don't know what Emily was trying to achieve with these comments, but as you can imagine people did mark her words with unsurprising anger. Maybe she wanted a quick popularity boost that appeases the rare few who haven't become alienated by student politics in its current state, but any person that rallies behind these statements should be ashamed of themselves. To relegate fallen soldiers to simply 'privileged white men' is a fucking disgraceful thing to say. This is clearly a thinly veiled attack on white men, and nothing more. Ms Dawes has clearly shown with her lack of dignity that she cares little about the tragic sacrifice of millions, and only uses their suffering as a bargaining chip to show how racist British society has become in her mind. I'm not sure why you would use an example of fallen soldiers to display privilege. I hardly think it's a privilege to be massacred in Belgium. Let's not forget the mural is historically accurate as well, unless we're now deciding that in 1914 the university was a multicultural utopia. It really makes you wonder what other moronic ideas this president would implement to rewrite history in her warped world if she never received this sort of backlash.

The president has since publicly apologised in the most pathetic way possible and thankfully not opened her mouth since. I doubt it's a neuron suddenly firing between her brain and her mouth that's finally shut her up, but more likely a strongly worded letter forcefully gagging her so she can't drill the final nail in her own coffin. Here is that said apology:

So much for the valiant activism. A bit of pressure and she soon caves. It's fucking pathetic that as soon as others see through her virtue signalling bullshit she acts as if nothing is wrong. I don't believe for a second that the tweet wasn't literal, and you've repeatedly embarked on this moral crusade against white men, so why is this time any different?

Emily's comments and actions appear to exist in totally different worlds. We have a narrative that Emily wants to push where inclusion is ideally reflected in this historical mural, yet we have another where Emily routinely complains about the lack of diversity at Southampton University both historically and in modern times. Even if we ignore the significance of this artwork we still have the appalling reasoning to contend with. If you claim there's a lack of diversity at Southampton University then why are you also claiming you don't believe in erasing the past by covering up this mural? Your whole shtick revolves around exposing systems dominated by white folk, yet you simultaneously want to cover up a mural allegedly displaying a system dominated by white people. Not only does this make you a massive hypocrite, but it's also a clear example of you literally trying to cover up history. Of course, these semantics should not excuse the critical point that Student Union presidents feel it's okay to start defacing sensitive murals with their own bare hands. Why anyone living in such a harmful echo chamber was ever allowed near a position of leadership is a mystery to me, but then that's a symptom of modern student politics. Ironically I think your university will not be adopting your attitude and will absolutely make progress in the future by erasing your past.

This apology is such bullshit. No fucking remorse, and a completely deranged explanation. Strong female leadership has nothing to do with honouring the dead. It's clear your issue is with the white men in the photo, not its presentation of females in leadership roles, which has no relation to the mural whatsoever. Why stop there? Why not make the Mona Lisa more ethnically diverse to promote awareness of child trafficking in The Congo? The Southampton mural is dedicated to the men who sacrificed their own lives for your freedom, not some glorification of male leadership. If anything the mural is a damning condemnation of male-dominated leadership that sent innocent victims to the grave in their masses. We are absolutely erasing the past if we start claiming this mural caters to white men. We're quite literally achieving this if we threaten to turn up with a selection of finger paints, so just fucking quit with this hypocritical nonsense that only pleads ignorance, and certainly does not absolve your name or reputation. I just don't understand how you be so ignorant about the university that you fucking preside over.

What's arguably worse is this attitude that 'everything I don't like should just be removed'. This woman recently got a tiny bit of power from a phoney vote and now she thinks she has the right to start censoring pieces of art from her own electorate. Why? Why can't university students be subjected to pieces of art like the mural? Are Southampton students banned from showing remorse or gratitude? Emily, grow up. The world doesn't revolve around your primitive mind. I find your display photo upsetting, and let's not forget it doesn't support ethnic diversity, but under no circumstances should anyone ever force you to cover it up. Why would they? It's a great source for jokes.

The Wessex Scene, which is usually reserved for fascinating articles on where microwaves have been installed on campus, has actually bothered to do some journalism and provide timely updates. The Wessex Scene presented clear evidence for once that Emily clearly knows the significance of the memorial, even making the vile comment that the vandalism should commemorate armistice day. I'm still deeply shocked how some animals can have such little respect towards the common folk who sacrificed their lives for the future of this country. It's shameful that valiance in the eyes of this cretin is defacing commemorative works. Here we have some didactic bitch claiming to be for the masses whilst forcefully trying to butcher the world into her own fucked up vision.

Other 'journalistic' publications lept on this story and put their own political spin on the matter. One such publication was the Daily Mail, who instead of analysing the issue decided a character assassination along with an invasive biography was the correct response. The Mail also decides to take the moral high ground on this issue, along with all of their commenters calling for her head. The Daily Mail response in particular pisses me off because it brings up points such as that she has a nose piercing as evidence of her evil little mind at work. What's that supposed to mean? How is that evidence for her shitty actions? I can do a fucking better job than that. At least compare to her a fucking cow with that piercing. I may not agree with The Mail in how they've constructed their argument, but I do share their frustration with student bodies as vile as this one. My question is how many more events like these are needed before a reformation on student politics is needed that actually does represent the majority of students. How long are we going to allow these idiotic tyrants to control student bodies?

I think the Southampton Student's Union would be looked on more favourably in they hunted Emily for her ivory rather than keeping her in a paid position. The University has certainly shot themselves in the foot by allowing such a radical idiot to speak for all students, yet they've been put in a position where their democratic methods have allowed these idiots to turn the majority of students against the Student Union. However, this year I don't think many would have predicted this vile creature would shame the university to such an extent.

Mrs Dawes believes she can simply spew the same race-based rhetoric that would garn her rapturous applause from the woke crowd across the pond, and for that reason I have a message for her: British people are not the same obnoxious morons you can indoctrinate in the states and the intense backlash from your comments shows the severity of your ignorant comments. The majority of British people do not want to be patronised by some self-righteous bint, and we certainly don't want our most treasured cultural possessions to be trashed by your supposedly moral crusade. I believe your woke crowd would refer to this action as 'cultural appropriation'. I prefer to use the term 'lunacy'.

Ironically it seems the only progress this president will be making is the number of journeys she makes to the Job Centre. A harsh lesson to learn, but one totally justified for such irresponsible behaviour.

Christoforge Reviews: Forza Horizon 4

 When you think of the gaming world it's almost impossible to imagine a lengthy series that consistently pushes out great games. The Forza Horizon series is one of those rare few. Over the years Xbox players have been enthralled by three excellent titles, with the first and third instalments being some of the best racing games I've ever played. If there is any chance this series is suffering from fatigue then I certainly haven't noticed it yet. The big question is what this fourth instalment brings to the table. Actually, it turns out not a whole lot, and what we really get is a large dose of the same great racing series. The one-year development cycle hasn't done this title any favours, but that's not to say this new racer isn't on the same level as its predecessors.

I must begin by mentioning how great Horizon 4 looks. Horizon always does a great job at presenting the player with stunning landscapes based on the real world, and in this new map every detail of the world is picture postcard stunning. The best part is that you can enjoy these stunning landscapes in four different seasons, with whole areas of the map changing complexion based on the time of year. That's assuming you can be bothered to look at anything besides your car that you've been endlessly tweaking and painting for the last half an hour.

I will admit that I did wet myself slightly when they announced the franchise was coming to the UK. As a cynical British patriot I just knew the developers would create some alternate universe where Britain is twinned with some idyllic fantasy novel, and I was sort of right. I do like their diorama, but I don't think it ever encapsulates a whole nation like they managed with Australia in the last instalment of the franchise. Sure, Australia is a lot more varied and exciting than drizzle filled Britain, but I was expecting more than a drive around the north of England and a bit of Scotland. It's not a bad map by any means, but I would have loved a trip down to the seaside on the south coast, or even a quick foray into rural Wales. In the end you get a very pretty, but unrealistic depiction of the UK that still fails to tingle the senses like a blast down an Australian highway.

The UK is still nice to drive around in, but unfortunately it's also a place that happens to be ruined by your character. Forza has always been about the cars rather than the player, and thank God, because your created character in this game behaves like an absolute bellend. You can't dress him up without making him look like a twat, and you can't make him act like anything other than a twat. This idiot that's meant to depict innocent little me is then plastered around the English countryside completely ruining the scenery everytime he leaves the car. I want to look at my car next to Bamburgh Castle in a nice little atmospheric cutscene, not see my irritating doppelganger dancing to the YMCA. I know this is a fun and light-hearted game, but fucking hell the character creation was a bad addition.

 Forza must have shares in the British Tourist Board because there is no fucking way Britain looks like that.

As you would expect the game contains all the usual Forza Horizon goodness. There's a tasty collection of cars to choose from, and an even tastier selection of events and races to get stuck into. You're never realistically going to be able to collect all 450 cars in the game without an insane amount of dedication, so it really feels special when you end up winning a beautiful hypercar to tear around Britain in at a million miles per hour. The beauty of Forza Horizon is that the range of cars reflects the semi-serious tone of the game. There's fast and aggressive race cars that the seasoned racer can customise, or ruin, to their heart's content, and then there are novelty cars like the Peel P50 that are such a blast to drive around in even if you'll never be able to compete in them. Any game where you can add an 8L V12 to a Willy's Jeep and then paint a giant cock on the front is a winner in my book. It's these moments that are always my favourite in the Horizon series. At its core it's just inherently fun.

When Horizon 4 decides to ramp up the intensity it's fucking incredible. My personal highlight is racing The Flying Scotsman to Edinburgh. It's wheel to wheel action through The Highlands of Scotland with some Grieg serenading you in the background. If mucking around with planes and trains isn't your cup of tea then you're hardly going to be left wanting either. Even if the week's online races don't take your fancy there's still a whole sandbox of a map to explore, and so many events to race in. The whole map is such a great playground for a racer, and this element is the cornerstone of the Horizon experience. I must admit I do like a slight helping hand when it comes to progression, but this Horizon game doesn't understand what progression means. That's not necessarily a bad thing, and I'm sure the core Horizon audience will love not being told what to do, but I personally prefer the Horizon 3 system of gradually expanding a festival into a racing paradise. That's the sort of single player experience I was expecting with this game, and I must admit I was left slightly frustrated that the only audience being catered for is those who enjoy the online multiplayer experience. Yes, there's still a lot for the single racer, but precious little has changed from the last game.

What an epic confrontation. Oh wait, the scene is ruined by my fucking character.

I had a growing feeling that a lot of the new changes actually take the franchise in the wrong direction. The focal change the game likes to advertise at every available opportunity is the introduction of climatic seasons. The four new seasons may look very picturesque, even if the only season in real Britain is constant dreariness, but I actually find it more of a hindrance with its poor integration. You see you get to a stage in the storyline where you have no control over the season, so if you're in a Ford Focus and winter suddenly rolls around you're stuffed. Sure, you could say this adds to the realism, but I don't like being put in a situation that I have no control over in a video game that promotes freedom. To begin with you can simply gain more fans to change the season, and that's perfectly fine, but I'm now at the stage where I have to wait literal days for the season to change. This is a problem, because as of writing this review it's currently winter for all players, which the majority of my cars are poorly designed to cope with. Effectively I can't play most of the game now, and there's nothing I can do except wait. What the developers have done is sacrificed the single-player experience so that the multiplayer and community features feel more inclusive. I don't have any friends, so I couldn't give a shit what season other players are experiencing.
 
The seasons don't actually change that much either. The cars may drive differently in winter, and some of the map becomes accessible in certain conditions, but to say these seasons 'change everything' is marketing rubbish. In fact, not a lot has changed full stop. Throughout the Horizon series we've seen quite large changes with each instalment, but here we have what essentially feels like an expansion pack for the third game. It's like you've won freedom from the prison that's Australia for driving fast and are now being given a shot at being successful in the civilised world. I'm really struggling to think of what is actually new. I guess you can now buy a house, or if you're filthy rich you can live in Edinburgh Castle, but that's hardly a change worth an extra fifty quid.

I would briefly like to mention the music, which I must admit was another disappointment. As the Forza Horizon franchise has progressed the musical elements are being gradually phased out. We started out with a melding of music and motorsport in the original, but in Forza Horizon 4 the music is definitely not the focus of attention. It shows, as the once big names that graced the radio stations are replaced with an interesting mix of artists you would normally expect to find in any other generic sports game. I wasn't much of a fan of the music this year, and actually ended up mostly listening to the classical numbers to feel more sophisticated than I actually am, which is a real shame, as the musical elements always gave the franchise that extra layer of authenticity.

Want to plough through some snow in a truck. That does sound awesome to be fair. Unfortunately the game is currently in spring, so you'll have to wait THREE WEEKS for that privilege.

Overall I'm having a hard time giving a verdict on Forza Horizon 4. Yes, I still love the exhilarating racing and the endless customisation the series provides, but I can't help feel this game could have been more. Another year in development and we could have had a perfectly optimised and ambitious arcade racer, but instead we get a title that feels inferior to the third game in almost every single way. However the purpose of this game is to have fun, and yes I did have a lot of fun, even if I was frustrated by some of the new changes. The additions the franchise have made are insignificant changes at best, but that should not undersell an excellent game overall. This is yet another edition of the franchise that exemplifies why Horizon is the pinnacle of open world racing. What this game has is a bucketload of character and charm, and there is no better way to drive around at a million miles with a smile on your face. When the driving and exploration are this good, why do you need any blockbuster changes?


Overall Score: 8/10

Living Whole Part 2: The Vaccination Debate

This particular rant is a follow up to one of my recent articles where I criticised a mother who has taken the selfish precaution of not vaccinating her children for completely ridiculous reasons. That particular article wasn't the first time this mother had spewed complete shit about vaccinations, and so here we have a previous article outlining her arguments against vaccinating children. The mother claims that arguing over vaccines isn't a rational debate, but one borne of emotion, so in an attempt to talk some sense into these idiotic stay at home mums I'd thought I'd provide a factual analysis of her arguments. Perhaps only then will I discover the reason why she feels the need to sacrifice the health of her own children.
___________________________________________________
https://www.livingwhole.org/the-hate-debate/
___________________________________________________

It's amazing why some mothers get so angry and confrontational when through nothing but sheer ignorance their children are put at risk of getting serious diseases that could be easily prevented. It's admirable that you feel the need to question every piece of information given to you, but what isn't so admirable is the superiority complex that leads you to believe medical professionals have a weaker insight into their specialised fields than your own ignorant self. Maybe if you had actually scrutinised your own sources to the same degree you scrutinise others we wouldn't be having this conversation. I find it very troubling when you promote the idea that anyone with a brain can make just as educated a judgement as experts on this very specialist subject. It's of no surprise that the majority of medical professionals heavily encourage you to vaccinate your children, whereas conspiracy peddling blogs are almost always limited to self-righteous morons like yourself. You are not some oppressed academic, you're a fucking idiot that believes in ignorant opinions pulled out of your own anus. Let's just get this shitshow over with.

The medical field is a discipline where evidence is the key to making informed decisions. It doesn't matter what opinions medical professionals have on these matters because they are irrelevant. What you fail to understand is that your opinion, no matter how strong, doesn't influence objective truths. This is why these anti-vaxxers get laughed at in the academic sphere because there are opinions are in conflict with conventional scientific literature on the subject. Manipulating conclusions to suit your own ideology and cherrypicking evidence are cardinal sins in the academic sphere, and no matter your background you will be totally destroyed by your competitors if you make these fatal errors. Remember, this is a discipline that has the potential to be the difference between life and death, so when these charlatans claim that vaccinating your child is a bad idea the response is quite rightly aggressive. It may well be seen as bullying by you, but it's a damn effective way of filtering out the maniacs that seek harm on fellow humans.

Wow, a stay at home mum complaining about other parents showing images of their offspring. My how the tables have turned. Just out of curiosity in the last article of yours I dissected you went into great detail about how your child was almost killed by vaccines. In that same article you began verbally harassing the mother of an immunocompromised child. What I'm trying to get at is the idea that you're a massive hypocrite. Also, the backfire effect refers to the strengthening of a confirmation bias. In other words, you're perfectly happy that even when confronted by new evidence your ignorant thoughts actually become reinforced. I can't imagine why the vaccination gang would target you when you willingly double down on your own regressive thoughts.

I went over this in my last article, but the reason why images of children sick with contagious diseases such as measles are plastered all over the internet is because that's unfortunately not an uncommon disease. Injuries from vaccines are far rarer than measles cases, and so by following your system we end up with this ridiculous scenario where contagious diseases such as measles are seen to be just as prevalent as injuries from vaccines. This scenario couldn't be further from the truth, and provides a hugely biased summation of a field you clearly don't understand.

God, imagine being a tolerant person. What a hellish world to live in that would be if more people were tolerant. Obviously, I understand that tolerance is not acceptable in certain scenarios, but aggressively rejecting vaccination because of nothing more than ignorance is one area in which this attitude does not apply. You are not being bullied if you actively seek to aggravate others, so if you don't want to end up with shit all over your face then stop throwing shit at other people. Here we have a classic case of 'Schrodinger's Anti-vaxxer'. That's a person who is simultaneously being bullied whilst berating other mothers for not being more like them.

The following paragraph is just flat out wrong. It's not just incorrect ramblings, but actually contrary to the actual truth. You seriously want me to believe that measles cases have hit an all time high when before the vaccine it was a common condition in the US? The source you fucking provide even states that rates of immunity have historically been maintained through vaccination programmes. I can't imagine what caused this recent resurgence of measles. Surely it couldn't possibly be idiots that don't vaccinate their children?

The reason why people are calling for you to be held legally responsible for your medical negligence is because you put other children at risk through nothing more than idiocy. Mothers who vaccinate their children do not fall under this category, so I have no idea why they should be prosecuted when they're actively preventing the spread of these contagious diseases. Yet all this basic information just goes right over your head. You've read all these articles yet you still fail to understand that your opinions do not align with the cold hard truth. You make it worse by then blaming others for your own failings. Are you unable to get it through your thick skull that this is why people are pissed off? This is not intolerance, it's groups of concerned citizens preventing people with malicious intentions, such as yourself, from seriously harming their own offspring. But you just don't care, because at the end of the day it's all about you. And when someone dares to challenge your fantasy world you throw all your toys out the pram and blame others in the most pathetic way possible.

I can't imagine why vaccine-preventable diseases never left. It's almost as if not vaccinating children has the effect of spreading diseases. We can easily disprove this point by looking at the history of measles cases within the United States. I bet you can't guess when there's a huge drop in those that contracted measles. Also, here's a quick little tip. When quoting someone how about quoting what they actually say. The CDC has never said measles isn't a deadly disease, because that's blatantly not true. The CDC actually describe measles as potentially dangerous, and that in rare cases it can be deadly. 35-56% of measles being diagnosed in vaccinated children is actually a disproportionately low number considering over 90% of children are vaccinated against MMR. Really this statistic is meaningless unless we compare the incidence of measles in vaccinated children to that of unvaccinated children. I suppose any of these statistics look good if you blatantly misrepresent them in your foolish manner. Later on we find out that the measles vaccine is only 78% effective, but what this statistic suspiciously leaves out is how first time failures are supplemented with a second booster shot that is around 97% effective. Furthermore, you also left out the next sentence in that CDC article which states 'high vaccination coverage helps limit the size, duration, and spread of mumps outbreaks'. That's the next fucking sentence, and isn't even the only instance where we leave out critical information. The New England Journal of Medicine source for whooping cough concluded by saying 'our findings highlight the need to develop new pertussis-containing vaccines that will provide long-lasting immunity', instantly disproving your idea that vaccinations are ineffective. Funnily enough this is the same conclusion made by the other source you used for ineffective vaccines. I'm not sure what part of vaccination programmes need reevaluating based on the evidence you've provided, but don't just assume that all mothers have the inability to read.

What I cannot stand is the attitude that contracting these contagious and potentially fatal diseases is completely fine. Mumps is characterised by painful swelling and is certainly not just a normal part of life to contract. Interestingly I do actually agree with you on the point about chickenpox being largely a benign childhood disease, although that still doesn't mean vaccinations are ineffective at treating it. Again, the source you provided encourages a second dose of the vaccine to increase longevity. Are you starting to see why people might get upset when you keep coming out with blatant lies?

Look at that poor quote. You've butchered the fucking thing, and once again just cherry-picked the bits that fit your argument whilst ignoring the fucking context. Your unvaccinated kid has the potential to infect an immunocompromised child with an active virus that will go about destroying this poor child's already weakened immune system. Vaccines such as MMR do not contain active viruses as they have been attenuated. Stop putting words in the mouth of the CDC. This deranged lady then goes on to list the effects of active viruses, which would all be well and good if there were any active viruses in the vaccines she's referring to. There simply isn't however, and so we're left with yet another useless point.

You of all people are lecturing others on reading things through. Do you have an ounce of self-awareness? Apparently there's something inherently wrong with wanting this mother to adequately protect herself and other kids because of an astronomical chance they could seriously hurt themselves. I wish this mother would have used the same logic when deciding to have kids. How much of a cunt do you have to be to start claiming you're the victim because you refuse to aid those with compromised immune systems? How is it not possible to see how fucked up this attitude is? Nobody is saying these children are more important than yours, so maybe have the common fucking decency to aid their already disadvantaged lives. Again, you don't even read your own sources, because the CDC has very specific advice for immunocompromised children that doesn't mean just giving them all non-active vaccines.

You then bring into question ethical decisions, which is strange, as I don't suppose willingly subjecting kids to contagious diseases is particularly ethical madam. Get the fuck off the moral high horse. I suppose it's better to be snobby than flat-out wrong in these scenarios, as demonstrated by your next point. Of course you can identify if a vaccine is effective or when it wears off because the rate of contracting the diseases vaccinated against will increase. This idea was a rather major point in all that cited scientific literature you can't be bothered to read properly. These questions just don't understand the concept of herd immunity, or why people of certain ages are vaccinated. I would expect these questions from a school child, but not from someone who claims to be knowledgeable on the subject.

I suppose I better address that last paragraph now. All I will ask is what fucking world are you living in? I just can't believe how one person can enter a state of such denial. Shall we have a look at some easily accessible studies comparing the health of unvaccinated children to vaccinated children? Here's a meta-analysis of influenza vaccine trials. Here's another meta-analysis for the influenza vaccine, but for elderly citizens. Here's one for the BCG vaccine. And another. And a final one for influenza. I've already gone through the effectiveness of the MMR vaccine, so won't bother you with those studies again. Remember these sources are the analysis of multiple different studies, so they hopefully give you a good idea of just how many scientific articles call bullshit on this pseudoscientific bitch. Maybe there isn't one huge encyclopedia on the subject, but fortunately there is a wealth of evidence to be found within the scientific community that can be accessed by reading more than a few sentences of studies that fuel your ego.

Vaccine injuries are rare. A lot rarer than measles for example. For a thorough description of just how rare you can flick through the MMR information sheet from the WHO. I personally have never met a vaccine injured child within my 22 years of living, so I don't know where you got the idea that I must have. I suppose if you mean injuries like a small swelling then yes I've met plenty of these people, as vaccines hurt and often have minor short-term detrimental effects. Let's make it clear that these short-term afflictions are not serious injuries and are a poor reason to not vaccinate your child.

The desperation then sets in as you start linking every fucking condition known to man with vaccinations. I have no fucking clue why you've stated ear infections, eczema and food allergies becoming more common is a process caused by vaccines, and you have no evidence to prove these sensationalist statements. You are aware that the majority of the world is allergic to lactose found in milk? That suddenly occurred in two generations did it? Just because we've gained a greater understanding of these issues and have the increased ability to diagnose them doesn't mean they haven't existed throughout history. There's no trade between these conditions and vaccines, just the attempted removal of debilitating diseases. You can hardly present it as an even trade when the cases of measles and brain encephalitis are so drastically different. Measles is not a disease you ever want to contract. Stop instructing parents to participate in dangerous behaviour that increases the chances of infant mortality.

By the looks of it you could quite happily fit into a herd of cows. Certainly you wouldn't be outsmarting any of them. Harsh you may say, but look at the state of this argument. The premise of the argument is based on the idea that vaccines shouldn't be used because they're not natural, as opposed to posting stupid images on the internet. This is such a great argument, and I just love the idea that we should all revert to the medieval strategy of accepting death because at least that's fucking natural. I seem to recall this strategy working well to prevent the spread of The Black Death.

Previously in this article you've claimed the moral high ground, yet here we're entertaining the idea that giving AT LEAST 68% of children measles would stop the spread of the disease. Why would you not inject a higher quantity with an attenuated form to stop the spread? Not only is it completely fucked up to start forcing children to become sick, but it's also a crime that you're basing such horrific policies on bogus information. The image that's sourced originates from a site called 'The Holistic Doula', which showcases this incredible quote: 'When we birth our babies we are vulnerable in the most powerful and awe-inspiring way possible. A doula protects the sacred space of a birthing woman so that she may experience the full extent of her own power however she brings her baby earthside.' This moron is who we're using for an academic source. Fuck me. No wonder these idiots don't understand the mechanisms of herd immunity.

This idea of natural immunity would be great and all if viruses and humans were unable to evolve. Unfortunately viruses and bacteria are able to evolve relatively quickly, so this idea that natural immunity is instantly granted across generations is complete bullshit. Furthermore humans also evolve, so immunity spreading through a population is based on a whole host of factors that your dogmatic model fails to even consider. Subjecting whole swathes of people to measles without any safety precautions could have severe long-lasting effects on a great many individuals. Let's not forget that we're actively giving children these debilitating diseases, which apart from being totally fucked up, is also wishful thinking. What's to stop a child from growing up in this plague-ridden dystopia to not have gained natural immunity and then be defenceless throughout their lives. Wait a minute, that's not a vision of the future but an accurate description of a time before modern medicine. Of course we never needed modern medicine, because natural immunity was working so well.

I actually assume that people who believe vaccination leads to autism are as idiotic as you are. The list of reasons supplied why you wouldn't vaccinate a child is proof of your primitive brain. I just can't be fucking assed to dissect every single piece of bullshit in this debate over autism, as that will take all fucking year, so here are some high profile papers on the supposed link between vaccines and autism. Studies, by the way, that have apparently never been done before.

I don't think you're a conspiracy theorist, I think you're an idiot. Please stop comparing me to some stupid stereotype you have stuck in your head. I have not once referenced the AMA, so I have no idea why that's being promoted as the final word for all medical issues. The AMA is, however, a reliable source, which is a phrase you could do with understanding. This particular paragraph is yet another advert for natural medicine, which as we've discovered is such a good system it raised mortality rates by an inconceivable amount. I don't know why something older is perceived as better, but judging by the life expectancy of medieval times I think we can safely say this argument is bollocks. Hippocrates did many great things for medicine, but that doesn't mean he's some sort of untouchable deity, and some of his thoughts may well have been proven wrong with the wealth of knowledge provided by modern medicine. Aristotle couldn't even count the number of legs on a fly, so we definitely shouldn't blindly follow the wisdom of Ancient Greeks, especially when what they're actually saying is bullshit.

I would like to say that I have absolutely nothing against using natural remedies. I do have a problem with advertising them as viable alternatives to vaccination programmes however, which is a point myself and major medical associations have in common. I hate to pick on Hippocrates, as he wasn't a charlatan like yourself, but he had no knowledge of modern vaccination programmes and so his expertise isn't warranted in this debate. You may as well have quoted the equally pointless Peter Pan for all the weight it adds to your argument. I still don't think you know what immunity means. You don't gain immunity from a condition by playing around with herbs in your local meadow. You gain immunity by the responses of antibodies and antigens in your immune system. High school students are expected to understand the basis of this process, yet this well studied system was apparently too complex for you to comprehend.

I would say that someone who blatantly disregards conventional medicinal practices when faced with overwhelming evidence is 'anti-medicine'. Either that or just fucking ignorant. Remember that belief does not trump objective fact, and just because you think vaccinations are harmful does not mean that should be instantly accepted as factual. It's then another thing to live in your own bubble where you set your own standards for how to conduct yourself. Which hateful people are you criticising in this paragraph? It seems to me you're also guilty of pumping hate into the debate. You've lied and misrepresented statistics and articles all throughout this article. You've written in the most condescending and insulting tone possible. You've advocated subjecting children to potentially fatal diseases whilst ignoring the needs of those with compromised immune systems. You've repeatedly blamed others for the loss of herd immunity without any fucking evidence. You like the idea of putting other children at risk of contagious diseases from your shitty parenting. And you love presenting exaggerated doomsday-like scenarios to manipulate people into believing your disgusting cause. Who is supposed the be the villain in this debate? You certainly don't act like the caped crusader you pretend to be.

I'm personally glad you're projecting your opinions to the wider world, because I'd rather have a cancerous infestation exposing themselves for the world to mock rather than an infestation hiding in a dark corner and silently manipulating others. If you really do want a higher standard for children then I suggest taking the next one way trip to Mars, and if that seems a bit much then vaccinate your fucking kids.

I do respect your choice not to vaccinate your children as much as I hate the idea. However, what I cannot stand by is how you try and manipulate others into this ideology filled with bullshit, with the added potential to do great harm. You will kill someone with this attitude. I can't put it any clearer than that. Your personal ignorance should not be promoted over the health of other kids, and I implore any mother to ignore this blatant bullshit and actually listen to experts with at least one brain cell. I don't give a fuck about your feelings, and I doubt your kids will give a fuck about what you felt was right when they're struck down with measles. You can actively prevent the spread of diseases, but you refuse, because you were too far gone in your own delusional mind. If you just have to read one more study on this debate then please make it this one. And actually read the whole thing, without just picking out bits you like.