The term anti-vaccer is not appropriate; it does not convey the lack of justification and rationality of the anti-vaccine movement.
Pro-plaguer, a term making rounds on social media, more properly describes those who accept a person’s right not to vaccinate over the right of everyone else to live healthily.
Pro-plaguer acknowledges the movement for what it truly is, and does not use ill-placed political correctness to describe what’s fully incorrect.
Pro-plaguer embodies the net result of the movement.
For the sake of everyone everywhere, replace the neutral term, anti-vaccer, with the accurate term, pro-plaguer, in your everyday vocabulary. Renaming discredited The Affordable Care Act, so maybe it will work here, too.
The pro-plaguer movement is as old as vaccines. However, opposition to the measles, mumps, and rubella vaccine (MMR) did not gain widespread traction until the end of the twentieth century when British doctor Andrew Wakefield falsified data linking MMR to autism. Wakefield was found to have financial motivations.
For more information on the Wakefield scandal, which ultimately led to the revocation of his medical license, refer to Brian Deer of “The Sunday Times,” who spearheaded the exposure.
Despite real medical professionals’ research discrediting these findings countless times (e.g. Kathleen Stratton, Institute of Medicine), and despite the fact that Wakefield’s research was falsified, many pro-plaguers still can’t shake the idea that MMR causes autism.
Just like with many other instances of science-denial and belligerent ignorance, this fraudulent belief has repercussions for other people.
Infants who have not yet received their double-doses of the vaccine and people with autoimmune diseases, who cannot get the vaccine, are most notably at risk. They rely on herd vaccination to limit their likelihood of coming into contact with the virus.
Those who receive MMR, while mostly immune, still have a small risk of contracting measles if exposed to it.
When people refuse to get vaccines for contagious viruses like measles, then, they inadvertently become vessels capable of infecting the innocent.
Similarly, reckless drivers sometimes unintentionally cause accidents. Unlike with this case, though, we don’t wait for reckless drivers to kill or injure someone before stepping in. We either fine them or take them off the road entirely.
Also, when a reckless driver kills someone, it’s not considered a mistake in most states. Depending on the situation, individuals responsible for a death due to reckless driving can face charges as serious as second-degree murder.
More importantly, when people recklessly cause a serious incident, we don’t typically just allow them to drive off and keep acting recklessly.
So why are pro-plaguers allowed to put everyone else at risk?
Some would argue driving is an option whereas simply living is not. Those who wish not to abide by the rules of the road simply do not drive.
That’s a fair point only if one ignores circumstantial necessity. By the same arguments made proving that people need not drive, we can clearly argue away the medium through which pro-plaguers put everyone at risk: leaving tightly concealed premises.
One does not absolutely need to leave his home. Pro-plaguers are putting no one at risk if locked up tight. We could simply lock them up or grossly fine them if found in public. Problem solved, right?
Or, as a nation, we could simply acknowledge that pro-plaguing is not a right, and require everyone to get vaccinated. That would work.
Email the Stroud Courier at: