This week Washington played host to the anti-vaccination movement. Everybody was decked out in their "Green our Vaccines" shirts talking about the harm vaccines are doing around the US. I still have yet to find out what the absolute goal of the march was but according to their website the purpose was to:
Secondly you ask that Congress "reenact legislation that would eliminate mercury and other toxins from our children's vaccines. Now Jenny, I'm trying to give you some leeway on the science aspect of this whole argument since Google University usually puts out some pretty weak scientists, but take a fucking history lesson. In 2003 all mercury and mercury derivatives were removed from vaccines, and yet autism rates continue to climb (its what we in the science community like to call a negative association). Now as for these "toxins" in vaccines, do you mean that list of "chemicals" in some of your literature---since everything is "chemicals", I'm not sure which ones are "greener".
In your push to find harmful substances in vaccines your website lists "anti-freeze", and yet there isn't any in vaccines. Now some do have a compound with a similar name (polyethylene glycol vs. ethylene glycol---that little part "poly" makes a big difference, but its kind of "scienc-y" so I'll leave it out). There is also mention of "formaldehyde", which is used to inactivate the viruses in some vaccines, but its present in such small amounts, that common environmental exposures are much more significant.
My favorite in the list of chemicals if probably "chick embryos". Jenny, I'll share a little secret with ya, that's just a synonym (that means "means the same as") "egg". Eggs (yeah, the kind we eat, totally) are used to make flu vaccines. Maybe we should consider taking them out of supermarkets too if they're so harmful.
The next statement just kills me too. "Study the instance of Autism and other neurological disorders in vaccinated versus unvaccinated children". To complete a study of "vaccinated vs unvaccinated" children is possibly one of the most morally reprehensible studies that could be conducted. Maybe this is a bad analogy but a study like this is equivalent to placing two groups of people in a room. One group surrounded by a cage and the other group not. A lion is then released into the room and you measure how many people hit their head on the bars of the cage, ignoring how many people outside the cage get mauled or eaten. This is a classic example of placing an unethical and unrealistic goalpost on researchers and then claiming failure that the researchers cannot morally institute the experiment. Anyone who would willingly submit a very large group of children to the dangers of being unvaccinated (I truly hope I don't have to enumerate those dangers) should question their integrity. I would be ok with the study if the children could consent with their own volition, but that isn't the case. Does anyone else not see how stupid this goal is?
Jenny, a bit of advice, you are probably a good mom, a mediocre actress, and a damn good naked blonde bimbo with fake tits, but what you aren't is a science person. Your degree from Google University doesn't mean you're good at understanding any of what science has to offer. If anything you are giving hope to a bunch of people in a false location, they don't deserve that. Hopefully I can stop writing about why one of my Playboy Playmate fantasies keeps popping up in the news spouting stupid opinions about stuff she doesn't understand, but I sincerely doubt Jenny has any intention of doing so.
"Demand Congress take action to Green our Vaccine Supply while reassessing our current vaccine schedule. Ask Congress to reenact legislation that would eliminate mercury and other toxins from our children's vaccines, study the instance of Autism and other neurological disorders in vaccinated versus unvaccinated children, and to extend the state of limitations to allow all children affected by vaccine induced Autism to file in the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program (VICP)."First, you demand that Congress take action on vaccine includants and schedules. I'm not entirely sure what Congress has to do with either of these issues as there is a full agency set up to deal with chemical threats (whether in Food or Drugs, aptly named the Food and Drug Administration). They happen to have a whole host of scientists and policy makers that use the science (I know, what an ugly word) to determine the best benefit to society.
Secondly you ask that Congress "reenact legislation that would eliminate mercury and other toxins from our children's vaccines. Now Jenny, I'm trying to give you some leeway on the science aspect of this whole argument since Google University usually puts out some pretty weak scientists, but take a fucking history lesson. In 2003 all mercury and mercury derivatives were removed from vaccines, and yet autism rates continue to climb (its what we in the science community like to call a negative association). Now as for these "toxins" in vaccines, do you mean that list of "chemicals" in some of your literature---since everything is "chemicals", I'm not sure which ones are "greener".
In your push to find harmful substances in vaccines your website lists "anti-freeze", and yet there isn't any in vaccines. Now some do have a compound with a similar name (polyethylene glycol vs. ethylene glycol---that little part "poly" makes a big difference, but its kind of "scienc-y" so I'll leave it out). There is also mention of "formaldehyde", which is used to inactivate the viruses in some vaccines, but its present in such small amounts, that common environmental exposures are much more significant.
My favorite in the list of chemicals if probably "chick embryos". Jenny, I'll share a little secret with ya, that's just a synonym (that means "means the same as") "egg". Eggs (yeah, the kind we eat, totally) are used to make flu vaccines. Maybe we should consider taking them out of supermarkets too if they're so harmful.
The next statement just kills me too. "Study the instance of Autism and other neurological disorders in vaccinated versus unvaccinated children". To complete a study of "vaccinated vs unvaccinated" children is possibly one of the most morally reprehensible studies that could be conducted. Maybe this is a bad analogy but a study like this is equivalent to placing two groups of people in a room. One group surrounded by a cage and the other group not. A lion is then released into the room and you measure how many people hit their head on the bars of the cage, ignoring how many people outside the cage get mauled or eaten. This is a classic example of placing an unethical and unrealistic goalpost on researchers and then claiming failure that the researchers cannot morally institute the experiment. Anyone who would willingly submit a very large group of children to the dangers of being unvaccinated (I truly hope I don't have to enumerate those dangers) should question their integrity. I would be ok with the study if the children could consent with their own volition, but that isn't the case. Does anyone else not see how stupid this goal is?
Jenny, a bit of advice, you are probably a good mom, a mediocre actress, and a damn good naked blonde bimbo with fake tits, but what you aren't is a science person. Your degree from Google University doesn't mean you're good at understanding any of what science has to offer. If anything you are giving hope to a bunch of people in a false location, they don't deserve that. Hopefully I can stop writing about why one of my Playboy Playmate fantasies keeps popping up in the news spouting stupid opinions about stuff she doesn't understand, but I sincerely doubt Jenny has any intention of doing so.
Posts
2 comments:
Post a Comment