To Someone I Used to Consider a Friend

There's been a discussion on the Jay Gordon piece (here) that garnered my interest. The gist of the comment is that anyone who is "anti-vacc" is comparable to a Birther or Tea-bagger. Gotta love that Medieval Catholic Church mindset.

My response was my usual; mocking and sarcastic. In it, I accused people like him as being akin to the Medieval Catholic Church accusing anyone who disagrees with them of being a heretic (this is all just a recap, mind you).

The whole point of my comment was mockery. First of all, if you're going to demonize parents who have reason to believe that their children may have been injured by vaccines, you'd better expect someone to say something. I've come up with my own way of demonizing these people in the same vein that they demonize people like me; by calling them Vaccine Injury and Death Promoters. Is it a tu quoque fallacy? Yep. Two wrongs don't make a right? You betcha. Do I care? Nope, not a fucking bit. I'm tired of dealing with people who have no concept of common courtesy or who have no intention of being courteous. If you want to speak to me like a human being, then I'm all for it. And, I can often have very pleasant disagreements as a result, like I did with Cable1977 on the Jenny McCarthy HuffPo piece.

Essentially, to these people, it doesn't really matter that some children are potentially getting injured by vaccines. It's all necessary, you see....for the good of the herd. The studies they pray to are riddled with Conficts of Interest and bias; so riddled, in fact, that the prestigious Cochrane Review was appalled. But it's ok...they defend vaccines. The VIDP's always get so bent out of shape when you bring this up to them, you see, because the Vaccine is Sacred! It's Holy! It's the Mohammed of the Medical world...how DARE you question it!

So, in response to my mocking retort about how everyone has the right to choose what to put into their bodies or their children's bodies, a former friend went into histrionics about how horrible and over the top my comment was. The whole, "Oh no, he di-nt!!!" And then, I'm sure she slithered over to her own blogsite and said something scathing and derogatory toward me. Really, Kim....I would be wounded, but all I have to do is consider the source. The lady doth protest too much, methinks.

Kim, my grandmother once told me that if you're gonna wallow with the pigs, don't be shocked when you get dirty.

You see, Kim, you give the impression that you're above all of that. You come across as being superior to the unwashed masses, when in truth you are simply one of them. You get all appalled and melodramatic when a person whom you disagree with says something that you perceive as over the top; but it's ok when someone you agree with says something just as bad or worse. Because, as your comment on Huffpo implies, since you are "Science-Based," you and people you agree with get to make off-color comments without fear of retaliation. Because, by golly, you're "Science-Based!"

You get to mock and ridicule fathers who write about how they felt when their non-verbal child said their first word in 5 years. You get to make off-color comments about how all of these stories about vaccine injuries are similar. This is the very reason I quit visiting your site. I saw the comment about me by Kathleen, and I saw your response. That told me everything I needed to know about who you really are. But when I call you out on it, you get all huffy about it? Riiiight. Smell the shit you're shoveling, dear.

Hypocrite:
1 : a person who puts on a false appearance of virtue or religion


2 : a person who acts in contradiction to his or her stated beliefs or feelings.
 
You claim to be a critical thinker. Well, you give the impression that either I agree with you, totally, or I'm anti-science. The world doesn't work like that, Kim. If you truly were able to think critically, you'd know that.
 
You know you're right, and that's all that matters to you. Which is exactly what you accuse me of. The thing is, I accept the possibility that I could be wrong, and it's obvious that you do not do the same thing. I don't WANT to be right, you see? I would give ANYTHING to not be right. But, seeing what happened to my son within 6 hours of his vaccinations kind of gives me the impression that I might be right. And, the fact that science refuses to look at children like my son further enforces that belief. And such vehement and vitiolic attacks from people who claim to be "science-based" enforces that belief even further. Science should never be defended so religiously. It's not science anymore when that happens.
 
I just don't want any other children to end up like my son. If there's even a small chance that vaccines can cause injuries like my son's, then people need to know.
 
Oh, and Kim...Orac is about the furthest thing from being "Science-based" as John Best. You see, being science based means that you don't make such definitive claims as he does without having all available evidence. You don't make these sweeping generalizations about a person or a condition without evidence. You don't pretend to be an expert in something when you really are not. You also admit when you're wrong. You know, like he did with Hannah Poling?
 
Where did he admit his error there? Has he admitted his error about Dental amalgams? No? What about admitting the error about his claim that Dr. Wakefield was fired from Thoughtful House?

Look, if you want to be looped in with the Westboro Baptist Church of the scientific community, be my guest. But, I guaranty you that it isn't a compliment.