Can a vaccine be responsible for the profoundly stupid?

It is a question I have been pondering for the past week or two. Could a vaccine, specifically, the polio vaccine, have caused us to become profoundly stupid? Looking for evidence, like so many troubled young parents of today faced with a vaccination schedule, I turned to Google to find out. What I discovered was deeply disturbing.

John Glenn, the first American to orbit Earth on Feb. 20, 1962, consumed an orange drink, known here on Earth as Tang. At least it became known—prior to Glenn's flight, Tang was a struggling member of the new class of convenience foods developed by General Mills.

It gained overnight popularity in the United States, as mothers flocked to the supermarkets to purchase this brand-new powered drink mix that offered busy moms greater convenience in breakfast preparation. Because clearly, dumping a frozen can of orange juice concentrate into a pitcher of water was far too time-consuming.

Besides, if it was good enough for our brave astronauts in space, it was good enough for Johnny and Sally here at home. Apparently no one stopped to think that astronauts, floating 200 miles above the Earth in a claustrophobic capsule, may have been a little short on freezer space. And a little distant from an orange grove. Or a supermarket. The fact that this powdered drink mix was a very strange shade of orange with a vaguely chemical taste did not stop American children from gulping it down as fast as moms could stir it up.

But that was only the beginning. In 1968 a book by a German hotelier took the country by storm. Chariot of the Gods? by Erich von Daniken claimed that Earth was visited by ancient astronauts from an unknown planet who lent a helping hand to early man before traveling back into the sky. His books became international bestsellers despite the absence of the faintest taint of science or any apparent connection to reality.

They were so popular here in the states, that in 1973, NBC broadcast a documentary, In Search of Ancient Astronauts, narrated by Rod Serling. Based on a German documentary that shared the title of von Daniken's book, it boasted an appearance by astrophysicist Carl Sagan (which is why I watched it on YouTube the other day). His single line was one declaring that there was no evidence for von Daniken's theory.  

Within a couple of years, the Flat Earth Society claimed that the United States had never landed on the moon, that the whole thing was filmed on a Hollywood sound stage and this was proven by the lack of dust when the lunar landing module touched down on the moon. Although led by the Flat Earth Society, which was a real thing, the conspiracy spread across the nation without the benefit of the Internet or Fox News. People studied photographs which they claimed showed the American flag waving in a breeze that should not have been present on the moon. And stars. There were no stars. Clearly a sound stage. (Wikipedia has an interesting article on the conspiracy claims.) NASA had to issue a statement in 1977 (re-issued in 2001), that stated clearly, "Yes. Astronauts did land on the moon."

So, we were willing to believe that ancient astronauts landed repeatedly on the Earth, but we were not willing to believe that man had reached the moon. It had to be the PSSEVP at work. I suspect that if NASA had claimed we traveled to the moon based on technology that was secretly left behind by the ancient astronauts, no one would have doubted the landing.

Just stupid or profoundly stupid?

Introduced in 1975, Pet Rocks retailed for $3.95. They came in a cardboard box with ventilation holes, on a bed of straw, and with a 32-page instruction manual. On the box was a clear warning to read the instruction manual before attempting to remove the rock. Over a million and a half were sold. People actually went to stores and paid money for a stone. They gave them as gifts and proudly displayed them to friends, recounting the efforts made to train the pet rocks. Seriously. They made a brief comeback in 2013, just in time for Christmas gift season, selling for $19.95.

Stupid or profoundly stupid?

During the 1980s the profoundly stupid didn't so much slow down as it moved into the White House where astrologers determined the timing of public events, and conspiracies stopped being theories and became Iran-contra. This was the era that invented an epidemic of crack in order to re-institute Jim Crow laws. It was a decade when the American public preferred flying in skies controlled by those who barely knew what the blips on their radar screens meant rather than allow experienced air-traffic controllers decent working conditions.

In addition to big hair and seriously padded shoulders, lotteries became popular in states across the country, which may have given hope to those more likely to be struck by lightning, that they could possibly, someday, acquire enormous wealth, and so it made sense to reduce the tax rate of the very wealthy. But until they reaped in their millions, they resented the wages and benefits paid to those who were members of unions. Those resentments were encouraged and inflamed by those unafflicted by the profoundly stupid but simply born greedy.

For the last 25 years, science has been relentlessly attacked as being unreliable and subject to political debate and individual belief—as if wishing hard enough could repeal the laws of gravity and allow us to fly by running hard and flapping our arms. Who knew a polio vaccine could be so strong?

Speaking of flying, apparently some Americans—yes, more victims of the dreaded PSSEVP—looked up at the sky and noticed that jets, criss-crossing the country, left vapor trails behind them. Refusing to believe there was a simple scientific explanation for these condensation trails, they armed themselves with spray bottles of vinegar and went out to do battle against the dangerous chemicals that were falling from the sky. Or changing the weather. Or controlling minds.

I found this video by one of my all-time favorite snarky weather writers, Dennis Mersereau. In it, a woman stands in her backyard and sprays vinegar from a plastic bottle at the contrails some 30,000 feet over her head and claims victory when they dissipate. Now this is a woman who has the technical ability to use a spray bottle and a camera, who still believes that a mist of vinegar affords her some protection from the mysteries overhead. Sadly, the presence of her son, at one point during the filming, indicates that she also possesses the ability to reproduce.

Mersereau dissects the insanity further in Why I write about and debunk the chemtrail conspiracy. Not that it will do much good for those who suffer the severest cases of the profoundly stupid. They are also the ones who believe that the HAARP research project in Alaska was designed to control the weather, minds and the movement of the Earth's tectonic plates.

Stupid or profoundly stupid?

While we can enjoy a certain amusement from some of the silly delusions of the profoundly stupid, lately their impact is spreading into our schools and society in a far more concerning manner. In particular, they are infecting science with their stupid.

In 2006, Zogby allowed this profoundly stupid thinking about science to invade its polling with the following questions on evolution:

5. Which of the following two statements come closest to your own opinion?
Statement B: Biology teachers should teach Darwin’s theory of evolution, but also the scientific evidence against it.		69%
Statement A: Biology teachers should teach only Darwin’s theory of evolution and the scientific evidence that supports it.		21%
Neither/Not Sure		10%

6. Do you strongly agree, somewhat agree, somewhat disagree, or strongly disagree with the following statement: “When Darwin’s theory of evolution is taught in school, students should also be able to learn about scientific evidence that points to an intelligent design of life.”
Strongly agree 51%	Somewhat agree 26%	Total agree 77%
Strongly disagree 6%	Somewhat disagree 13%	Total disagree 19%
Not sure 4%

In order to answer either question, one must accept the premise of the question—that there is scientific evidence against Darwin's theory of evolution and/or that there is scientific evidence that points to an intelligent design of life. The problem with that, at least for those of us unaffected by the profoundly stupid, is that there is no scientific evidence against Darwin's theory or in support of an intelligent design. Did they really think that if they threw the word "intelligent" into their description of creationism that they could make it so? Or did they think it would fool anyone else?

Here is what the scientists think about evolution:

attribution: Pew Research Center

The relentless attacks on science have distorted the public's perception of scientists' views on climate change as well.

And this is what scientists actually believe:

Stupid or profoundly stupid?

The biggest flare-up seemed to coincide with the election of an African American as president of the United States. Birthers and death panels and Benghazi. The stupid became an increasingly painful thing to behold.

In September 2012, 41 percent of Americans believed the Affordable Care Act included death panels.

In February 2014, 38 percent of the public believed President Obama was not born in the United States.

In June 2014, 58 percent of the American public believed the Obama administration tried to cover up the facts of the Sept. 11, 2013, attack in Benghazi.

Now, whether you consider these stupid or profoundly stupid, you have to agree that they all have one thing in common: they all occurred after we started receiving polio vaccines.

Using a highly complex statistical calculation involving lots of equations with figures like ß and ∂ and √, I have been able to assign numbers based on the level of stupid, and its influence, to these events to determine their impact on our society. My findings are in the chart below.

The trend seems to reflect an increase in stupid over time, which makes sense as the ingredients in the vaccine have the ability to alter our DNA which is then passed on to our children and grandchildren who are also exposed to the vaccine. The effect is increased exponentially within each succeeding generation leading to grave concern about the future.

Now these results are only preliminary, but they do point in an ominous direction that requires further study. I think it is time that parents demand that the federal government and the pharmaceutical industry come clean about what ingredients they are injecting into our children that have made us so stupid. Until they do, every parent will have to weigh the possibility that their child may be one of those who suffer from profound stupidity if they accept the vaccine, against the almost 40-percent chance that their child may become paralyzed, or die, if they should contract polio. It is a hard call, indeed.

Especially for the profoundly stupid.