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.
No comments:
Post a Comment