Thursday, 4 February 2010

"Dear Antivaxxers, from Science" (No. 8)

Needs doing, might as well kick them when they're down.

(N.B. Some anti-vaccination protesters may indeed be otherwise pleasant, rational people undeserving of scorn or ridicule, but I'm not going to start making detailed exceptions. Some people have complained to me that this sort of generalisation is unfair and non-scientific so I shouldn't do it, completely missing the point that that's why I do this. Science being non-scientific is pretty much the theme of this series. If anyone else feels slighted or upset by the generalisations I've made, that you feel unfairly cast you or your chosen profession/beliefs in a negative light then send me a self-addressed jiffy bag and I'll return it full of good feelings, to replace the ones I've hurt)

"Dear Antivaxxers
Hello, how are you? This might end up being a bit confusing, as I'm the personification of the abstract concept of Science, and as such don't really exist, whereas when I say 'antivaxxers' I'm referring to the sum of individuals who collectively oppose the use of vaccination on the spurious and completely contradictory grounds that they're damaging to health.
I'm pretty sure you aren't part of one international organisation, but I'm lumping you together anyway. Aside from that detail, you do exist in a physical form, whereas I don't, so this letter might be weird for you, especially as it contains actual words and information.

It must be as if Santa Claus wrote to you first. In July. And you hate Santa Claus because he endangers your children (not like the traditional Santa Claus, a perfectly harmless symbol of goodness and generosity that teaches children to appreciate it when a fat sweaty old man in disguise breaks into their room at night bearing gifts, and to be really quiet about it when he does). But I digress.

Believe it or not, this is actually a thank you note. I wanted to say I appreciate it, all the things you've done to help me over that past decade. Not only have you helped me cut my research costs, but you've also opened up new fields of research for me that will no doubt prove very lucrative once I've made some headway, and in these troubling financial times that's nothing to be sniffed at.

For instance, I've managed to trim my research and associated costs by nearly 50% thanks to your shining example. Rather than have my people spend countless hours in labs and clinics, endlessly churning out data and results that might not even give the findings they want, before tediously writing them up then having numerous experts check their findings so that they can ensure the conclusions are appropriate, I've assigned most of them to adopt your approach.

Hysterical nonsensical screaming. Seriously, rather than do all that work to prove their theories about health, I've just got them going out into their street and yelling at passers by, about how if people ignore their theories then the children will be in danger (although with some of the physicists this is coming across as more of a threat, will work on that).

I've even got the paediatricians doing it. I did think that having people responsible for children's health wasting their time by shouting about children's health rather than doing things which were known to improve children's health would be detrimental to children's health, but I just followed your example; keep saying 'children's health' enough and it makes it OK.

Took me by surprise, but I have to admit it gets things done. I've seen a noticeable drop in reports about sick children, which may or may not be related to the fact that I've not bothered taking reports or analysing data for a while, it just gets in the way of all the shouting.

And another nice call on the spokespeople. I've been relying on trained and qualified people to convey facts and information about their chosen field, and it's never worked. If only I'd thought to get some middle-aged female celebrities to tell people what's what. The beauty of it is, they don't even need to be trained! They can talk about anything and people will believe them because media says they should. How ingenious. I only wish I'd gotten hold of some big celebrity spokespeople before Scientology snapped them all up (I'm also thinking of suing Scientology for copyright infringement, but that's another matter)

Either way, I now know in future to use only angry women as spokespeople, seeing as how they interpret every criticism and argument against them as wishing death upon their children, or potential children, giving them the upper hand in every debate even if they're stark raving mad. Maternal anger seems to trump reason and logic every time, I'll bear that in mind.

Also, as I said, thanks for opening new fields of research for me. For instance, I now know that 'harmless' low level or even inert doses of viruses injected from a young age are inherently dangerous, more so than exposure to the full strength virus which a non-vaccinated person is far more likely to succumb to. What an intriguing concept, the fact that tiny doses of measles/mumps/rubella can cause autism but the full-strength viruses don't. Inverse efficacy? I can't explain it. But I agree, can't be having children getting autism, much better they die of an easily preventable disease. Think of the children!

Unless you're one of those people like I implied Santa Claus, in which case do anything but think of the children.

And well done on exposing Big Pharma. That brute needs taking down a peg, admittedly. I mean, I thought I understood how business worked. I was wrong (you may be unfamiliar with this phrase, but just look it up). You revealed that Big Pharma is selling harmful/ineffective vaccines purely for profit. I would have thought that it would have been a major marketing mistake for a business to maim/kill potential customers, but I guess I was wrong. Toyota seem to agree. If I can work out how this is the case, I could make some serious money from it. Killing customers is a valid marketing strategy? I can't wait to ride the Disneyland Decapitator (The Decappiest place on Earth!), or enjoy a delicious McDonalds Cyanide burger. Mmm, lethalicious! I'm lovin' it! (For about 6 seconds)

So yeah, thanks for everything you've done, I appreciate it.

Love and Kisses

Science (BA hons)

P.S. You might want to watch where you tread, I dropped a vial of smallpox the other day, can't seem to find it. I'm sure it'll be fine, though

email: humourology (at)
Twitter: @garwboy


Clare said...

"I now know that 'harmless' low level or even inert doses of viruses injected from a young age are inherently dangerous, more so than exposure to the full strength virus..."

Maybe they think it works in a similar way to the minuscule and therefore more potent "medicines" found in homoeopathy? *facepalm*

On a serious note, it just bakes my noodle. I'm glad my parents had me vaccinated when I was young and I now follow their example by getting the seasonal flu jab every year. It annoys me that the knee jerk reaction of anti-vac parents could lead to an increase of these infections which are much more dangerous to their children (and society).

Dave Steele said...

Could and has. Certainly measles has shown an increase since the MMR troubles. And it is by no means a simple illness without risks. Well worth vaccinating.

Social Network sharing gubbins