Let's take note of how anti-vaxxers like to tell those of us who do vaccinate our children that we are killing them, making them retarded and autistic, and basically endangering the lives of the people most important to us. That's right! You share articles you find on the Internet. Must be true, it's on the fucking Internet, for Christ's sake! How did we even function before Google? How did we do research on a subject that interests us? How did we learn anything new? Anyone remember a place called a library? You know, that building with rows and stacks of books? Those cute little drawers called card catalogs that helped you find the books you were looking for in those stacks? OMG, does any remember microfilm and microfiche? Can I get a shout out for scholarly articles? Yeah, we don't use those anymore. We prefer to find our information online on sites run by people making fat cash by allowing people with no expertise, much less real credentials proving such, to publish their "findings" on every topic under the fucking sun.
There was a man who set out to prove that anyone could publish a "scholarly" report online and have people take it as factual and true. In Why A Journalist Scammed The Media Into Spreading Bad Chocolate Science, John Bohannon was able to publish his fake findings about chocolate being instrumental in significant weight loss in a pay for play journal called the International Archives of Medicine, which to people like you and I, sounds very official and trustworthy. How does this happen? How can someone just publish blatant lies? Because many publications you find on the Internet are not authentic or verified sources. These so-called scholarly journals are simply venues for jackasses with asinine opinions to get their word out to idiots who believe shit they read on the Internet. Pay a $500 fee and get your bullshit published! Mark Shrime, a medical researcher at Harvard, set out to prove that you can publish just about anything for a fee, and did so in Why A Fake Article Titled "Cuckoo For Cocoa Puffs?" Was Accepted By 17 Medical Journals. Yet, there are some who use their computers exclusively to determine what is safe for their children. Are you fucking high?
When is the last time we heard an anti-vaxxer say they sat down with their child's pediatrician and discussed the pros and cons of vaccinations? When have any of us heard them say that their child's doctor said, without hesitation, that they shouldn't immunize because their kid will become autistic? Do we actually think these disorders only started happening in our children's lifetime and that they are caused by vaccinations? Jesus in a fucking jumpsuit! What we used to call a hyper brat now has a proper medical name, ADHD. Kids who used to just "not listen" to their parents, now have Auditory Processing Disorder. And so on and so forth. So, since we can now diagnose these children properly, we can thank modern medicine for its tireless research and work towards helping our children. The same goes for vaccinations.
Many of our parents would not have been around to facilitate our existence without vaccines. Think about the diseases that were prevented back then. Small pox, whooping cough, diphtheria, typhoid, TB, and tetanus...all were prevented back in our parents' childhood. Fortunately for us, the next set of vaccines came out when we were kids. Measles, mumps, rubella, and polio...all rendered not dangerous to us. And now our children can and will benefit from the protection that is being offered to them in the form of Hepatitis A and B vaccines, Meningitis vaccines for those about to live in a college dorm where the disease becomes a serious risk and can be fatal, HPV...the one everyone is up in arms about, the one that not only prevents the HPV virus, but also by virtue of that can assist in preventing cervical cancer in our daughters. You are goddamn right I want to protect her from possible cancer! As I watch my favorite aunt's battle with ovarian cancer, I am constantly grateful for the ability to prevent my daughter from dealing with a similar struggle later on in her life.
Once again, I reference the ridiculous articles that claim these vaccines are killing children. Yet, has anyone seen actual laboratory proof? Where's the medical research that unequivocally deems these vaccines are the sole cause of the tragic deaths of young children? If I didn't die, and you didn't die, and all of our contemporaries didn't die from our vaccines...and those of us with older children didn't have issues with vaccines beyond fevers, redness, and soreness at the vaccination site...then what the fuck are you trying to say? You prove nothing. Yet, I can prove that the lack of herd immunity is starting to bring back diseases that were long eradicated during the era where people actually listened to doctors and vaccinated their children. Not only are these diseases making a return, but they are actually killing people as is painfully clear in Spanish Boy Dies of Diphtheria. Measles outbreak numbers are absolutely startling as is evidenced in CDC Measles Outbreaks in 2015. Scary, isn't it? Herd immunity is what keeps us safe, keeps us alive.
Because of herd immunity, you and I are here to have this argument. Without it, you might have died years ago from an entirely preventable disease. Yet, today you stand in opposition to the very reason you are alive to fight against medical advances in immunizations. They exist to keep us alive longer and stronger. Telling me that vaccines are made in a "disgusting" way by posting crap like this, 7 Most Disgusting Ingredients Used to Make Vaccines, only proves to me you didn't do very well in science. Making drugs, developing new cells, growing what will become life saving drugs in labs require a little thing called a host. These items serve that purpose, so keep the juvenile ewwwww to yourself. To believe that "big pharma" is out to kill us is patently ridiculous. If we die younger and younger, who will take the drugs they make to ease our pain, cure our curable diseases, manage our chronic diseases, and eliminate the bacterial diseases that require their special brand of drugs to kill? Who will keep them in business if they are a one shot (no pun intended) deal? Your argument is fatally flawed. They want to keep us around for as long as possible, as we get older and more frail...and more in need of the relief only they can provide. Killing children is definitely not high on their to-do list. No real money in that. Trust me, I am aware of their money hungry nature and would not deny that their priority is making making more. But how can they do that if we aren't around to pay for their products?
Instead of walking around with your head up your ass, try thinking for yourself. I know that's what you think you are doing now, but face it, does believing everything you read without checking and double checking your sources make you any smarter than the asshole who paid $500 to publish what is basically their opinion? Does surrounding yourself with people who share your underinformed opinion make you any more right than those who don't share your beliefs? Keeping everyone's children safe is our job. When you choose to exclude your child from engaging in a preventative method of protection, you endanger the lives of other people's children who are innocent bystanders to your fight against "the man" and that totally sucks. Oh, and a child can carry a disease without ever manifesting it in its visible form. We all carry germs, some we transmit to others and some we don't. But if you can stop your kid from carrying something potentially deadly and spreading it to my kid, I expect you to do so. If I didn't look hideous in orange, I'd come over there and explain it to you in further detail with a shiv. Are you friggin kidding me right now???
