About Tanoro

Christopher "Tanoro" Gray is a web programmer and science advocate especially concerned with resource management technologies, biology, and artificial intelligence. He is a student of epistemology and philosophy as well as an Atheist competent in Christian theology.
HOME > View Blog  >  Answering an Anti-vaxxer
Answering an Anti-vaxxer
Posted by: Tanoro - Mar 19, 2014 8:41PM

An anti-vaxxer was throwing some questions at me on Facebook earlier. My response became wordy. Time for a blog!

Let's digest this point-by-point.

getting the measles which in most cases is not life threatening or fatal.

The World Health Organization disagrees with you.

  • Measles is one of the leading causes of death among young children even though a safe and cost-effective vaccine is available.
  • In 2012, there were 122,000 measles deaths globally – about 330 deaths every day or 14 deaths every hour.
  • Measles vaccination resulted in a 78% drop in measles deaths between 2000 and 2012 worldwide.


Now for something peer reviewed, because why not?

WHO established the external Child Health Epidemiology Reference Group (CHERG) in 2001 to develop estimates of the proportion of deaths in children younger than age 5 years attributable to pneumonia, diarrhoea, malaria, measles, and the major causes of death in the first 28 days of life.


Next point.

When you are trying to make someone feel like a bad parent for not vaccinating you are saying you should have predicted the impossible.

No, I'm not asking parents to predict anything. I am asking parents to do the research properly before making their informed health decisions. Armchair opinions based on tenuous crap you see in blogs or Youtube videos aren't worth dick. You can't justify this information if challenged on it and, sometimes, being able to answer those challenges can mean the difference between attending your unfortunate child's funeral or having to miss it because you're in jail for being a negligent idiot. If you speak to the appropriate experts and a health decision goes sour, you can easily defend that choice because evidence-based science is behind you. You did everything right!

To the people who have been harmed they are just collateral damage?

That depends on what you mean by "collateral damage."

In 1911, the Triangle Shirtwaist Factory in New York City burned to the ground, killing its workers inside. The doors opened inward, causing panicked workers to crowd the doors rather than being able to open them. There were no fire extinguishers, no fire escape routes, no sprinkler systems, no alarms, nothing. There were no workplace safety regulations back then. Were they "collateral damage?" I would say not. After that incident happened, we initiated severe regulations to help ensure such errors cannot happen again.

It is the same with adverse reactions to vaccines, which is why we have an adverse reaction reporting system. Doctors want to know about these things so they can be fixed! They obviously care! It is an unfortunate truth that tragedies happen everyday and we may never be able to fix that. However, it is being an inconsistent and unfair douche to suggest we're not trying or that we don't care.

how can you blame someone for not wanting that injected into their childrens blood stream?

If a parent wants to be skeptical of any treatment and question their doctor's advice, I fully support that. In fact, I encourage it! Find a doctor you trust. Work with your doctor for health choices! Ask questions! Discuss alternative methods of treatment. However, if a person is simply paranoid and has prejudged all expert advice for inconsistent reasoning like, "they're all paid shills," they are on their own. Yes, I completely blame them for their own paranoia.

Aborted fetuses, animal DNA

What? Are you serious? There are no aborted fetuses in vaccines! Think about it. The U.S. alone has a population of 317 million people. To vaccinate a fraction of that, we would need some serious hot and steamy intercourse going on all the time, which I am not against, by the way. Giggity! Nevertheless, that wouldn't even work! Human tissue from another person would be recognized by your immune system and attacked as a threat, which is why typing your blood for a transfusion is a thing. You can thank biodiversity (evolution) for that.

What is actually going on is: back in the 1960s, some samples of lung fibroblast cell lines were taken from two elective abortions and these samples have been continuously cultivated in labs ever since. If you want to grow a virus in your lab -- like the kind you intend to make into a vaccine -- you need a semi-natural environment like a cell line to incubate it, so to speak. If you're interested in growing your own viruses, you can order the exact same cells Big Pharma uses here! Try not to bring back the black plague.

As for animal DNA, do you know what else has animal DNA in it? My fucking bacon and egg breakfast. Hell, the eggs are actually chicken embryos. Herpa derp.

Vaccine or no vaccine it is still a gamble.

So is placing your child in a vehicle or a swimming pool. The question is: can you calculate the risk versus benefit using sources of information that hold up in academic arenas?

the very large majority of the infected are always vaccinated

Source, please?

I think better sanitation has played the big roll in virus prevention

The eradication of disease has never correlated with increased sanitation practices. I look forward to more discussion.

This blog is an editorial and contains only the opinions of the author. The author claims no expertise on most topics of discussion and this blog is not to be cited as an alternative for properly vetted journalism or scientific sources.

comments powered by Disqus