vwls is this true?

[Bobby Wong]

http://www.thedailybeast.com/article...es-in-nyc.html

Quote:

Thanks, Anti-Vaxxers. You Just Brought Back Measles in NYC.

Measles was considered eliminated at the turn of the millennium. Now it’s back, thanks to the loons to refuse to vaccinate their children.
Of all the things to be nostalgic for, infectious diseases probably don’t make it onto many lists.

However, if you happen to pine for the good old days when measles was an active public health threat, I have good news for you. The anti-vaccine crowd is bringing it back.

There is currently an outbreak of measles in New York City. Considered eliminated in the United States in 2000, last year saw a record number of outbreaks around the country. It’s only three months into 2014, and not only is the nation’s largest city seeing cases in several boroughs, but other major metropolitan areas are warning of new cases as well.

This is not some inconvenience to be laughed off. Measles is a highly-contagious illness caused by a virus. It usually presents with a combination of rash, fevers, cough and runny nose, as well as characteristic spots in the mouth. Most patients recover after an unpleasant but relatively uneventful period of sickness. Unfortunately, about one patient in every 1,000 develops inflammation of the brain, and one to three cases per 1000 in the United States result in death.

Reports from New York note that several people have been hospitalized, and infected patients include infants too young to be vaccinated themselves. Because the American public hasn’t needed to worry much about this once-contained threat in quite some time, most people probably don’t know that measles can kill, or leave children permanently disabled.

We vaccinate people for a reason.

It is because I never want patients in my office to contract vaccine-preventable illnesses (like at least two unlucky people in the New York City outbreak, who got the disease from visiting their own doctors) that patients whose parents refuse to vaccinate them are not welcome in my practice. I cannot entirely eliminate the potential for disease exposure between children who come to see me, but I can do my best to mitigate it. I never want to know that a child was sickened or killed because I let the recklessness of a vaccine-refusing parent jeopardize their health.

But now, shoppers in Boston-area supermarkets get to worry that they may have been exposed when they stopped by for groceries. Commuters in the Bay Area now have to contend with the possibility that they or their children may contract the illness because they happened to get on the wrong train. Over a dozen people around Los Angeles have been diagnosed with measles already this year, nearly half of them intentionally unvaccinated.

This is sheer lunacy. Just over a dozen years ago this illness was considered eliminated in our country, and this year people are being hospitalized for it. All due to the hysteria about a safe, effective vaccine. All based on nothing.

There is no legitimate scientific controversy about whether or not vaccines are safe. The original study that started us down this insane path by linking the MMR vaccine to autism has been retracted outright. The evidence against administering the MMR vaccine to healthy individuals is utterly without merit.

But people continue to make the utterly baffling choice to refuse it anyway. Dispiriting new information seems to indicate that they are immune to persuasion when confronted with facts inconvenient to their worldview. Indeed, writers at prominent online media outlets chide us for “demeaning” vaccine-deniers, saying to do so “defies explanation.”

The explanation is simple, and is as accessible as the nightly news. Vaccine-deniers are responsible to the resurgence of once-eliminated illnesses. Their movement is responsible for sickening people. They are to blame for the word “outbreak” appearing in headlines from coast to coast.

The anti-vaccine crowd may think they’re only making a decision for their own family. In fact, they’re threatening to make the rest of us sick. Refusing to vaccinate your children means you are contributing to a worsening public health crisis. There is no denying it, and there is no point in sugar-coating it.

I hope the anti-vaccine movement somehow loses steam. Perhaps America will take note of the return of long-gone illnesses and will stop treating vaccine denialism as a viewpoint worth considering. Perhaps vaccine-refusing parents will consider whether it’s worth the anxiety of knowing that a person who coughed in their grocery store two hours earlier could infect their kids as they do the week’s shopping together, and will reconsider their choices.

There is no good reason for there to be a measles outbreak in New York. Or Boston. Or LA. But there they are. If you missed measles and are glad it’s back, thank a vaccine-denier.

[SkyNigger]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bobby Wong

http://www.thedailybeast.com/article...es-in-nyc.html

Quote:

However, if you happen to pine for the good old days when measles was an active public health threat, I have good news for you. The anti-vaccine crowd is bringing it back.

I wonder if the paediatrician gets it but -that- is exactly what the anti-vaccine mothers are pining for.

Quote:

Because men are supposed to take care of us. I don't like work. I shouldn't have to. I like caring and being cared for. Loving and being loved. Emotional exchange is what I'm good at, or at least, what makes me feel good. to care. I'm a mother. I'm a carer. I should be loved. I'm not a robot drone taking orders from a sexist boss who hates women who don't work. This is such a sexist world where women have to work twice as hard as men just to be respected for achieving half as much. It's male privilege. Damn the Patriarchy.

To be fair, they were told they deserved certain things for not having sex with women's slaves when they were girls.



To be fair, maybe no one wants their putrid comforting.



What would you do if your children didn't love you? Sick children need them. They feel important then, valued, needed. Loved. So they make children feel bad. They're all doing it to men but no one notices, strangely. Making people feel bad is what objectified women do.



To be fair, most of the time they really believe they're looking out for their children. Slut-shamed women have to Doublethink to cope with two realities at once, biological and sociological. If they screw up the former, they become a nun. If they screw up the latter, they die. It is farcical to presume anyone, but especially women, can really function on an entirely conscious level. What is Truth?"

Women think the truth is that there isn't any.

But the truth in a world where truth varies is that there shouldn't be any. Reality remains constant so anyone who cannot synchronise their truth with biology and wishes to deny it shouldn't be forced to. No one has a Right to life but everyone has a right to die like a human being. There has never been a need for need but women mutilate their own so what can you do.

[SkyNigger]

Quote:

Making people feel bad is what objectified women do.

Because mothers will proudly send their sons to war to die for lies, but the idea that mothers would make their children sick if it suited them is implausible?



Because objectified women who hate their betters for being better and making them look bad would never hate their children for being healthy and making them feel unneeded and unloved and miserable. It's their children's fault for making them feel that way, just like it's Kelly Oxford's fault that she's cute and funny and not fat.



Because women who latch onto a man for life against his will, making him so miserable (by refusing to leave where she is not welcome) he loses control of his pain and starts trying to beat her sensible repeatedly (it's never worked, but women raising children agree to disagree) wouldn't make their children sick to make their husband realise how lucky they are to have them? They'll let their children get beaten as well but they wouldn't make their children sick.



Because women who make their daughters feel worthless and slut-shamed to the point where they cannot show their face in public without concealing it wouldn't make their children sick because making them sick would make them feel bad.



They'd beat their children to snap their resistance to domination but they wouldn't make them sick as that would make them feel bad.



As long as your children NEED you, it means you're doing Christian objectification right. But they'll make children hate them as that is just good parenting but they'd never make them sick to feel like a valued parent. That's too far-fetched.



For the mother's glory they make their children suffer to please them. They'd never make their children sick to suffer to please them, that's unreasonable.



Vicious terrorism to keep girls frightened and scared away from Society's male slaves who must be protected from truth, but they wouldn't make a promiscuous daughter sick to keep her from destroying the imaginary family honour in the community that doesn't give a Fuck but only judges and disapproves of everyone else to manipulate them.



They'll kill her with acid for fear of public opinion but they won't make her sick. That would just be sick.



They'll make their children read the most evil book imaginable that is basically the non-stop killing of children by the all-powerful God but a woman who tells her children God's words are this and that God is good would never hurt their child.



People don't understand how need works. Need blinds. You do what you need to do then you go back to your deluded Personal Myth that you imagine to be who you are and what you represent, except for the times you need to Ted Bundy a woman and sleep with her decaying corpse. You do what you need to do and all need is blind to the degree that it is needed.



Making everyone feel bad is what objectified women do. Period. But they wouldn't make their children sick. That would make them feel bad. Oh what kind of a mother do you think they are? Mothers who spend all their time making children feel bad (to get their full potential) would be so horrified at the suggestion they would intentionally make their children feel bad.



The judging of vices is revealed by the understanding of objectified women's need to live her life as a non-stop lie. Polite Society conceals everything but the need to conceal, the need for lies instead of rude truth, the need for insulting faux caring instead of genuine, honest interest or disinterest. Objectified women exist to make people feel bad so all their judging is for show. They don't care about smokers or whether they live or die. Shit like this is to make you feel bad. If you feel guilt, or shame, or sadness or depression, they win. In pain you need. Your need they can exploit. Need-free, you are happy. They cannot exploit or control or otherwise profit from that.



Mothers love their children. That is why they make them feel bad. Or they would just love themselves.



Making men feel bad to induce artificial desire they can manipulate and extort (so that men realise their true worth, underneath their clothes) is normal. But they would never make their children suffer. That's a horrible thing to say about mothers.



When you open your eyes you realise that there is one (1) source of all the misery, suffering, agony, horror, death, war, violence and bad feelings. And what's more, there's no need for it. Girls must be protected from their mothers. Boys even more so. The girls are treated worse. It's the boys who protect their abusers. We have to stop children from being abused by their mothers. Crazy, right? The guy that discovered autism said the same thing. You remove objectified mothers from their children and you take away the only reason they're having children. They don't want children. They want to fuck. Children are what happens when men no longer want to fuck them. Children are what women breed for survival, they need dependents. Children are brought here to be the victims of MSbP, to suffer to please their mothers, who breed to hijack men into paying continued Whore Support.




Maria von Trapp had MSbP. She needs to manage the Children's ongoing suffering so that she has an ongoing role to play. Pain for pain relief. No £€$ in happiness.

What women want isn't the important question. The important question is why does anyone give a Fuck. When you understand how objectified women make men and children give a Fuck (by hijacking biology to inflict pain), the idea that the anti-vaxxers have Munchausen Syndrome by Proxy will be patently obvious.



What women want is what they want. And women earn what they want? If they can't get it for themselves through hard work and contributing meaningfully then how do they get it? War, theft, deceit, violence, rape, imposition, slavery. These are all the direct contribution of objectified women who are selling themselves for Christ's sake. If we all did that, who would buy us? Not just the daughters of women are viciously abused. Some of their sons are reduced unto sociopaths who cannot feel empathy for shame, which stunted the development of the frontal lobes of their brain. Anyone who wants to leech has a deformed brain: Priests, mothers, wives, generals, sovereigns, slaveowners. Exempted from NEED to be sociopathic: (anyone willing to work, contribute value).

Painkillers are prohibited because objectified women need a world of pain or there would be no demand for their services (sex, comfort, companionship, validation, approval). Without pain, who would value their pain relief?

Now I'm not suggesting that 10-20% of mothers have MSbP just because they're anti-vaxxers. That's ridiculous. You need to be objective and pragmatic. If you get exuberant and carried away, you cheapen the argument. I'm not saying 20% of all mothers have one of the sickest, most horrific mental disorders imaginable. That's ridiculous.

We are all wearing clothes.