On Sunday, an anti-vaxxer group called Crazymothers claimed the label as "inflammatory" and "derogatory."
A recent post made by an anti-vaxxer group asking people to stop calling them "anti-vaxxers" has landed them on the receiving end of mockery. Although the term in question literally defines what they are, (i.e. people who claim vaccines are dangerous without any evidence), Crazymothers regarded the label as "inflammatory" and "derogatory." Additionally, they urged everyone to accept their suggested replacement—wait for it—Vaccine Risk Aware. Taking to Twitter on Sunday, the group wrote: Dear Media, Please retire the use of the term “Anti-vaxxer.” It is derogatory, inflammatory, and marginalizes both women and their experiences. It is dismissively simplistic, highly offensive and largely false.
Hard pass. I shall keep reporting what you are: anti-science zealots creating biohazards and public health emergencies and bringing back formerly eradicated diseases with your dangerous, malevolent quackery.— Victoria Brownworth (@VABVOX) 3 December 2019
We politely request that you refer to us as the Vaccine Risk Aware, continued the post, which was also shared on their Instagram account. Such people, who don't believe that vaccines are in fact safe, have time and again challenged the protective measure despite studies have claimed otherwise. According to reports, a study claims that vaccines help at building herd immunity while diminishing the risk of disease for sensitive populations. Debunking an anti-vaxxer myth that vaccines cause autism, a decade-long study published in March revealed that there wasn't any link between vaccines and autism.
This practice of not getting children vaccinated is directly responsible for contributing to the re-emergence of cured illnesses around the world including in Samoa, which claimed the lives of 62 people in the past two months, reports The Independent. The dramatic outbreak of measles in the U.S. this year was deemed as the highest and worst resurgence of the disease in 25 years. It surpassed 1,000 breaking the record of 963 cases in 1994, according to a report by Huffington Post. Others, who know that their beliefs are simply spreading a pandemic of false information, naturally, didn't hesitate to tell the group why no one would be accepting this change.
Deaf guy here. For deaf people of my generation, the #1 cause of *permanent* deafness was measles. When you see an older person signing in ASL, just remember they spent a lifetime like that because there WAS NO VACCINE. Now it's happening again because of DELIBERATE anti-vax BS.— Openly Ray 🌈 (@RayHarwick) 2 December 2019
Twitter user BradBelmont explained that the term "anti-vaxxer" is actually meant to be an insult. It’s supposed to be derogatory. Anti-vaxxers threaten the lives of children, their own & more importantly other children. Their anti-science extremists who ignore experts & have a delusional sense of their own of their own intellectual & moral significance. They should be mocked, he wrote. Then there were others who provided other terms to accurately define the disastrous effect their views have in this matter. @Felix Vasquez shared: How about Child Cemetery Advocates? @rahaeli suggested: I'm willing to compromise on "manslaughter enthusiasts", "infant infectors", or "plague spreaders", your choice. Another, @TheRiverWanders wrote: Agreed; anti-vaxxer doesn't quite capture the nuance. Pro-epidemic, pro-death-from-preventable-illness does.
"Anti-vaxxer" is biased and simplistic in the same way as "flat-earther" or "birther" - it suggests a defensible logical position that a reasonable person can hold.— Jeremy Ray Jenkins (@JeremyRJenkins) 2 December 2019
"Self-indulgent conspiracy theorist divorced from objective reality" would be more accurate.
Ok boomer— David M. Perry (@Lollardfish) 3 December 2019
You can politely take a long, long walk off a short, short pier, anti-vaxxer loons.— Benjamin Dreyer (@BCDreyer) 3 December 2019
You're right.— Posthuman (@posthuman) 3 December 2019
"Pro-disease" is much more accurate.
You dangerous, absolute fucking morons.
Thank you for your input. We will henceforth use the term “child-endangerer.”— jere⛄️my (@jere7my) 3 December 2019
Among these commentators, there were a few doctors who accepted that vaccines did come with risks, however, noted that their benefits are way more than its potential dangers. @DennisEckmeier revealed: If you actually were "Risk Aware" you'd not be anti-vaxxers, because the risk of vaccine side-effects is tiny, especially compared to the risk we all face because you undermine herd immunity. So... calling you "risk aware" would be a lie. Then there was @jaxcarys who bluntely wrote: Immunologist here. The answer is: NO You are not "Vaccine Risk Aware", you are "Dangerously uninformed and insisting that public health experts indulge your fantasies" If you don't want Anti-vax, the only thing left is Self-Indulgent And Irresponsible Crazyperson Pick one.
Vaccine risk biased. No vaccine is without risk, but the risk of a severe reaction is vanishingly small:https://t.co/dXtUGPtckG— Dr Benjamin Janaway 🧠 (@drjanaway) 2 December 2019
There is no link with autism https://t.co/Gfz5H5O6Qt
But huge evidence of benefit:https://t.co/YA4xu1CUuX
Sources:— Dr Benjamin Janaway 🧠 (@drjanaway) 2 December 2019
World Health Organisation (WHO)
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC)
All based on the latest research:https://t.co/u19py8v7Sr (Autism)https://t.co/1sYUu8JO3N (Autism/Mercury/Vaccines)
If you want to read for yourself.
If you’re “not antivaccine” then you should be able to answer a simple question: Which vaccine(s) do you consider sufficiently safe and effective to recommend in general for children without a medical contraindication?— David Gorski, MD, PhD (@gorskon) 2 December 2019