| | | What’s wrong with your post isn’t just tone, it’s fundamental misunderstanding of infectious-disease control, wrapped in an aggressive style that guarantees rejection.
False equivalence (Native Americans analogy) Comparing modern measles dynamics to Native Americans encountering Europeans is inaccurate and inflammatory.
- Indigenous populations had no prior exposure or immunity, no vaccines, no antibiotics, and no public-health infrastructure.
- Modern populations do have immune memory, vaccines, surveillance, and outbreak control.
- The analogy exaggerates risk and undermines credibility.
Problem: It replaces analysis with shock value.
Incorrect claim about eradication vs vaccination This is the biggest factual error:
“Once it is eradicated globally, like smallpox, then you stop vaccinating.” - Smallpox vaccination stopped after eradication, not before.
- Measles is not eradicated globally, so stopping vaccination would cause resurgence, not prevent it.
- Herd immunity depends on continued vaccination as long as the virus circulates anywhere.
Problem: The logic is backwards.
Misuse of “pandemic” Measles outbreaks ? pandemics.
- Measles is highly contagious but well understood, surveilled, and controllable.
- Outbreaks occur due to local immunity gaps, not because vaccination continues.
- Calling this a “pandemic setup” is medically inaccurate.
Problem: Alarmist language without precision.
Straw-man framing (“go all North Korea”) This implies only two options:
- Total border closure or
- Catastrophic disease vulnerability
That’s false.
Modern public health uses:- Targeted vaccination
- Travel screening
- Rapid outbreak response
- Booster campaigns
Problem: Oversimplifies a complex system into a binary choice.
Condescending and ad hominem tone The final line:
“That you don't understand this simple and very obvious fact explains a lot…” - Attacks the person, not the argument
- Signals ideology rather than confidence
- Ensures the reader stops listening—even if you were right
Problem: Rhetorical self-sabotage.
Internal contradiction The post argues:
- Humans move freely
- Therefore vaccination is dangerous
- But also claims eradication requires not vaccinating
That contradicts how eradication actually happens (vaccination first, cessation last).
Problem: The conclusion doesn’t follow the premises. |
|
