Home > Get Involved, Preventable Diseases > Help Give A Child A Healthy Shot At Life

Help Give A Child A Healthy Shot At Life

As I was preparing to leave for a brief business trip on Sunday evening I heard these words:

“God comes to us disguised as our life.”

Little did I know that over the next two days I would come to a fuller understanding of what these words mean to me in regards to my life at this moment.

In my faith, I believe that the choices we make and the actions we take should be guided by our love for our neighbor who encompasses all of humanity.  With that vision, it’s my personal opinion that there’s nothing more compassionate than saving the life of a child.

While parents in the United States often have the luxury of waiting for hours in line for that magical Dumbo ride at Disney, the reality remains that in many other countries mothers walk for miles and wait for hours for a simple vaccine in hopes that their own princes and princesses will have the hope of a healthier life.  While many of us readily acknowledge that such disparity exists, children all over the globe continue to suffer and die from vaccine preventable diseases.  As individuals we often feel powerless to do anything about it.   However, by supporting global vaccination programs we can save the life of a child every 20 seconds and stop the nearly 2 million unnecessary deaths that happen every year.

One way in which I personally plan to evoke change is through supporting a new campaign called Shot@Life.  By helping to educate, connect and empower people, Shot@Life is launching a powerful initiative that promotes vaccines as one of the most cost-effective ways to save the lives of children in developing countries.  This new UN Foundation project focuses on ways in which every day people can help give children around the world the shot at life they deserve, no matter where they live.  As you can see in the video below, some children may never experience the milestones that many of us take for granted; like saying their first words, losing their first tooth, or even getting their first vaccine.

After attending a special Shot@Life volunteer summit earlier this week, it became quite clear to me – as well as to each of the other volunteer champions in attendance – that there are as many ways to help, as there are people who want to be a part of the solution.

Whether you are a high school freshman, like Julia Clark, who will be making a presentation to her Model UN class in California, or a high school science teacher and Mom Congress delegate, like Marilyn Zaragoza, who plans to educate her students about the importance of global health and vaccines in Florida, it’s obvious that we each have a unique role to fill in helping to accomplish the Shot@Life mission.  Bloggers like Jennifer Burden will highlight the cause through her World Moms Blog that is certain to trigger an abundance of support from moms all across the globe.  And men like John Wargo of Lions Club International will share the vision at upcoming meetings and discuss ways in which his group can engage their local communities to join these global efforts for a healthier world.  For others it may mean signing the Shot@Life pledge, making a $20 donation that will protect a single child from four vaccine preventable diseases, or simply sharing the movement with friends, family and neighbors.

Today I recall the inspirational words from the many volunteers I’ve met so far and realize we all have the power to be the part of the change.

Chrysula Winegar led the charge by declaring,

“When you wake up a mother, you wake up a world.”

Wendy Smith, from Give a Little Now, assured us that

 “Small donations can transform our world” as we were given examples of how everyday Americans are joining together to make combined contributions that are helping to make signficant impact on social issues around the world.

Portia Mount, from Boss Mom Online, summed it up by saying,

“Leadership leads to social change.”

So now I’ve arrived home, ready to be a leader charged with waking up the world in an effort to make a huge contribution to the Shot@Life campaign.  In the months ahead I plan to highlight the stories of the many volunteers I had the pleasure of meeting earlier this week.  Their experiences will illustrate how each of us can become living examples of love in the lives of others.  As these “Champions” go out to spread the Shot@Life message in their communities, they will be helping to give kids around the world a chance for a healthier life.  They are already my inspiration, as I’m sure they will soon be yours.

  1. Sovereign man
    February 2, 2012 at 9:58 am

    Let’s see if I am reading this correctly or not. A quote:

    “While parents in the United States often have the luxury of waiting for hours in line for that magical Dumbo ride at Disney, the reality remains that in many other countries mothers walk for miles and wait for hours for a simple vaccine in hopes that their own princes and princesses will have the hope of a healthier life.”

    So what can happen when mothers from those ‘other countries’ decide that they really don’t want to be part of the great vaccine drive? They get frog marched at gun point and essentially threatened with being shot to death to ‘save’ them from disease.

    http://www.faceofmalawi.com/2011/07/131-children-vaccinated-at-gunpoint-in-malawi/

    What luxury for these parents. Not only were they ‘saved’ from walking for miles and waiting for hours, they were, according to Christine, given the opportunity for that great new ‘right of passage’ of being injected while being denied information and consent.

    So, if Christine’s philosophy is to be followed, the name should not be ‘shot@life’. The more appropriate name should be ‘getashotorgetshot@weownyou’.

    Like

  2. Nathan
    February 2, 2012 at 11:18 am

    Sovereign,

    Your news article is not indicative of what happens to vaccine refusers in all countries. It seems to me that your issues are with the Malawi penal code, not this blog, as it has not advocated forced vaccination. I would imagine that there are other non-vaccine-related laws in Malawi that you would also disagree with.

    Like

  3. Sovereign man
    February 2, 2012 at 3:36 pm

    Thank you for your comment. I think you may be looking at this a bit simplistically though. The program is one of many funded by Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation which has been held as a champion of children’s health issues. Based on Melinda’s comments about this issue it would seem that not only do they NOT object to this type of behavior, but actually see it as a model for the rest of the world. In her slide show narration, she said: “How is it that they do that? What I found was that the vision and dedication of the country’s top leadership has been absolutely instrumental in terms of making success in this area. So the country, one of the commitments that they’ve made is to build out this cadre of front line workers they call them in their country health surveillance assistants. So every month these 11,000 health surveillance assistants spend 3 weeks out in the villages, talking with the villagers providing basic vaccinations … They make sure the vaccinations happen, not only at the village level but all the way back through the system.” As a member of, at least nominally, a FREE society, I find this take on the matter quite disturbing. I am actually surprised a bit that you don’t seem to mind at all, and actually seemed to be rationalizing forced medical intervention that is explicitly illegal by US Law and many international treaties. In fact, wasn’t this type of treatment of Jews at the hands of the Nazi’s one of the things found most abhorrent about Germany in the 30’s and 40’s?

    Like

  4. Nathan
    February 2, 2012 at 3:52 pm

    Thank you for your comment. I think you may be looking at this a bit simplistically though.

    I am only looking at it as it is presented in your link. And I am unsure of the veracity of the content of the link, particularly the use of the term “gunpoint,” but I am taking it at its word for the moment.

    Based on Melinda’s comments about this issue it would seem that not only do they NOT object to this type of behavior, but actually see it as a model for the rest of the world.

    Melinda’s comments as best I can tell were well over a year before this incident and concern the strong efforts that Malawi makes to ensure that even the small villages are provided with vaccinations. Nothing in your quote suggests support for forced vaccinations, and certainly not at gunpoint.

    I am actually surprised a bit that you don’t seem to mind at all, and actually seemed to be rationalizing forced medical intervention that is explicitly illegal by US Law and many international treaties.

    By no means. I am against forced vaccination. However, I don’t see how you connect that incident in Malawi to this blog post. The article in Malawi Voice makes it clear that they broke Malawi penal code. That is where the issue lies.

    Like

  5. Jennifer Burden
    February 3, 2012 at 9:58 pm

    Christine,

    It was great to meet you in DC at the UN Foundation Volunteer Summit for Shot@Life. I’m still in awe of Dr. Meg Fisher’s (of the American Academy of Pediatrics) presentation — really interesting!

    Jen 🙂

    Like

  6. February 4, 2012 at 4:26 pm

    Of course, the other possibility, is that “this type of behavior” did not, in fact happen. From the original article (which seems to be the ONLY reference to the incident that is not a blog citing this article):

    “The children, belonging to Zion and Atumwi Churches were taken into
    Mozambique by their parents to hide them from officials fearing they
    might get vaccinated.

    According to Dr Medison Matchaya District Health Officer for Nsanje,
    medics went to vaccine the children in Nsanje under police escort.

    “We were alerted that some children who were hiding in Mozambique were
    back in the country and we asked police to escort the health officials
    in order to vaccinate them and we have managed to vaccinate about 131
    children,” said Matchaya.”

    The first paragraph of the article does indeed, say that the children were vaccinated at gunpoint, but the eye witness said simply that the police were there to escort the doctors. I am, of course, not claiming more knowledge of what happened that Mr Langa-Lulanga. I am only saying that this one story, unconfirmed (but parroted and embellished upon by the lunatic blog o-sphere) does not justify attributing the claimed actions to Mr Gates, either.

    “In fact, wasn’t this type of treatment of Jews at the hands of the Nazi’s one of the things found most abhorrent about Germany in the 30′s and 40′s?”
    No. Forcing preventative medicine for diseases which were running rampant (and causing deaths) among those forced was NOT one of the things found most abhorrent about the final solution.

    Like

  7. Sovereign man
    February 4, 2012 at 9:02 pm

    Mr Gattarian I appreciate your input on the issue. I take issue with your view that forced vaccination is okay. “Forcing preventative medicine for diseases which were running rampant (and causing deaths) among those forced was NOT one of the things found most abhorrent about the final solution.”

    Whether the police had guns drawn or not, the threat was there that they could, and maybe would, be shot if they resisted is “at gun point”. I can see from your comment that you believe that the ‘ends justify the means” and you would disagree with Nathan’s disagreement with forced vaccination. I have taken the time to read some of the other articles and comments on this particular site now and can see that lip service is paid to the potential harms and reported adverse reactions to vaccinations, but vehemently denied if anyone says that they or their children were actual victims. In fact, it would seem that there are two very distinct sides on the comments. People oppose vaccines for various reasons from witnessed reactions to illnesses after vaccination to a failure to believe the objectivity of the evidence presented in support of vaccines. On the other side, people support vaccines and blindly accept anything and everything the medical establishment provides as ‘proof’ of vaccine safety and efficacy. Interestingly, this latter side also accuses the former of putting their children and the general population at risk because some people cannot be vaccinated and most vaccines are not 100% effective. So if vaccines are potentially dangerous (the Vaccine Injury Court accepts this) and vaccines are not 100% effective, which both sides of this debate accept, then how on Earth can you possibly justify force to ensure compliance with a program that is so rife with controversy? No, the Nazi’s didn’t force vaccinations on the Jews. They just practiced various medical experiments and procedures such as organ transplants and dental surgeries without anesthesia to see what would happen…at gun point. I am sure that some medical benefits were derived from these experiments but to condone them is subhuman. Life has survived on this planet for millions of years, and humans for at least thousands, without medical interventions. If these people’s religious beliefs prohibited medical intervention then that should have been honored. To do otherwise is to treat them as animals. Or do you believe that you have some divine knowledge and authority? Do you believe that poor blacks in Malawi are not worthy of dignity and self determination? Or is individual sovereignty reserved only for you and those who agree with you?

    Like

  8. Nathan
    February 5, 2012 at 2:03 am

    Mr Gattarian I appreciate your input on the issue. I take issue with your view that forced vaccination is okay.

    I hate to speak for Mr. Gattarian, but I noticed that he did not say that forced vaccination was okay – that was your error. He said it was not the equivalent of “type of treatment of Jews at the hands of the Nazi’s,” and it was not “one of the things found most abhorrent about the final solution (the “final solution” being the plan to annihilate the Jewish race), and I certanly agree with him on that. There is no comparison. In fact, it’s extremely offensive to compare the two. The rest of your questions about self determination and individual sovereignity are pretty much rendered moot by this mistake in reading.

    Whether the police had guns drawn or not, the threat was there that they could, and maybe would, be shot if they resisted is “at gun point”.

    How so? If you jaywalk, and a police sees you, he may very well escort you back to the curb to wait for the light. And many police carry a gun. This does not mean that the policeman is going to shoot you if you jaywalk again.

    I have taken the time to read some of the other articles and comments on this particular site now and can see that lip service is paid to the potential harms and reported adverse reactions to vaccinations, but vehemently denied if anyone says that they or their children were actual victims.

    Then you are taking a most superficial and biased look at the posts on this site. What is, and is not, considered a vaccine reaction is dependent upon what the consensus of scientific study has determined is, and is not, a vaccine reaction. If someone claims they had an anaphylactic reaction to a vaccine, which is rare, I highly doubt anyone would dispute that. On the other hand, if someone says that their child developed autism at some point after a vaccine, that will not be believed as a vaccine reaction, since numerous studies have found no link between autism and vaccines.

    On the other side, people support vaccines and blindly accept anything and everything the medical establishment provides as ‘proof’ of vaccine safety and efficacy.

    The thing is, that this is not a blind acceptance. The efficacy and safety of vaccines is established by numerous sources in the industry, but also in government bodies around the world and independent organizations as well. To deny this is blind denial, since there is precious little evidence to support the opposing viewpoint.

    Like

  9. February 5, 2012 at 2:20 pm

    Sovereign man :
    Mr Gattarian I appreciate your input on the issue. I take issue with your view that forced vaccination is okay. “Forcing preventative medicine for diseases which were running rampant (and causing deaths) among those forced was NOT one of the things found most abhorrent about the final solution.”

    I never suggested or hinted that forced vaccination is ok. As Nathan pointed out, I merely tried to disabused you of the link you drew between what MAY have happened in Malawi and Nazi Atrocities. They are not equivalent in any sense.

    Whether the police had guns drawn or not, the threat was there that they could, and maybe would, be shot if they resisted is “at gun point”.

    This is not true in any way. The only threat present due to the fact that the police had guns is that one of the guns might have been used. There is not indication that the guns were there specifically to enforce vaccination policy (excepting the first paragraph of the one article). They just as easily could have been there to defend the vaccinators.

    I can see from your comment that you believe that the ‘ends justify the means” and you would disagree with Nathan’s disagreement with forced vaccination.

    This is not true. And there is nothing in any of my statements which supports this opinion.

    That’s twice you have tried to put words in my mouth in the course of a single post. If I didn’t know better, I would begin to suspect that you are simply a fake profile for stevie.

    So if vaccines are potentially dangerous (the Vaccine Injury Court accepts this) and vaccines are not 100% effective, which both sides of this debate accept, then how on Earth can you possibly justify force to ensure compliance with a program that is so rife with controversy?

    No one here has tried to justify force in regards to vaccine policy compliance. Certainly not what you mean by force.

    No, the Nazi’s didn’t force vaccinations on the Jews. They just practiced various medical experiments and procedures such as organ transplants and dental surgeries without anesthesia to see what would happen…at gun point.

    The point I was making being that the Nazi medical procedures were experimental, not needed for the individual, AND not needed for the population as a whole. AND, I was pointing out that even those travesties were not among the “worst offenses” of the NAZI regime.

    I am sure that some medical benefits were derived from these experiments

    You’d have to back that up. Even as late as the last decade, scientists were still debating whether to use the information gathered in these experiments for knowledge. That is, no discoveries or benefits of any kind that I am aware of accrued from them.

    but to condone them is subhuman.

    Indeed. Which is why I did not. I would go further to say that equating them with things which are not equivalent reduces their impact and makes them less atrocious. That too, is deplorable.

    Life has survived on this planet for millions of years, and humans for at least thousands, without medical interventions. If these people’s religious beliefs prohibited medical intervention then that should have been honored. To do otherwise is to treat them as animals.

    Life has survived on this planet for millions of years without religion too. And more most of those years when religion was the primary driver of human politics, life was short, brutish, and painful. This is not a record I would stand on myself. Having said that, I agree that people’s religious beliefs should be honored. Just and any sort of beliefs should be honored. But honoring a belief, and allowing it to endanger others are not the same thing. Some worshipers of Kali used to believe in a religious ceremony which consisted of accosting and killing travelers on the road. Is it your position that we should “honor” their beliefs by allowing them to continue? No, I am not drawing a parallel between vaccine refusal and murder. Merely trying to point out that honoring a religious belief has limits. And that it is the legitimate province of political debate as to what precisely those limits are.

    In Malawi, it seems that refusing vaccination for measles is considered by at least one judge as “failing to supply the necessities of life”. Did you note the part of the article which is making the rounds of the blog o-sphere where a man was put in prison for denying a child in his care medical care? Said child died from the measles. Is this really the sort of religious belief that you think should be allowed to continue unhindered?

    Or do you believe that you have some divine knowledge and authority?

    No, not at all.

    Do you believe that poor blacks in Malawi are not worthy of dignity and self determination?

    I’m sorry, but you are the one trying to pass judgement on the activities of a duly constituted government in Malawi. They have made political decisions that you disagree with and are attempting to equate them with the Nazis. I am the one suggesting that their self determination should be respected.

    Or is individual sovereignty reserved only for you and those who agree with you?

    Again, you are the one lambasting Malawians for the way they run their government. Not me.

    For the record, I believe in the libertarian principle that individual sovereignty is inviolate so long as it does not interfere with the individual sovereignty of another. Peoples all around the world come together in nations traditionally or by choice in order to protect that individual sovereignty. Some such nations do a good job of it, and others do not. I wonder by what “divine knowledge” you purport to know more about the situation in Malawi than those who live there?

    Like

  10. Sovereign man
    February 6, 2012 at 3:13 am

    I can see from here and other posts that Nathan and Gattarian are a bit of a double act. Nathan comes across as the defender of logic and science while Gattarian is a bit of a loose cannon who likes to attack people when he disagrees with them. Nathan has the gall to constantly quote his scientific support for his views and then make an inane comment like

    “What is, and is not, considered a vaccine reaction is dependent upon what the consensus of scientific study has determined is, and is not, a vaccine reaction.”

    I don’t know about you Nathan, but the science the I learned was an objective search for truth, not a consensus which is used to subjectively create a desired reality. We have all heard for years now, primarily from PSU and East Anglia University in England that we are all doomed due to co2 and global warming. We were all told that there was a consensus which supported this ‘fact’. Now, neither one is backing away from their created version of reality even though they both admit that there has been no warming in 15 years, even as co2 outputs have continued to rise. Now, a new consensus has appeared claiming that an ice age cometh. I am not arguing the ins and outs of global warming, however, vaccine research and global warming have something in common. A whole lot of money is being made by the industries surrounding these fields of study. When objective inquiry is replaced by consensus driven research upon which massive amounts of funding, both public and private, depend on certain outcomes, then it is right and proper to question the objectivity of the research itself.

    It would seem that Gattarian is a bit of a follower of yours Nathan. You mention governmental issues and then he/she latches on. Not much of an independent thinker, I suspect. You both like to blame governments for their laws when a private charity comes in and enlists the brute force of government to force people to do something against their will. The ‘duly’ elected government says it is okay, so it is okay. What kind of moral code do you subscribe to that says if it is ‘legal’ it is ‘moral’? Gattarian, you have probably offended a great many people when you make such glib statements like

    “Life has survived on this planet for millions of years without religion too. And more most of those years when religion was the primary driver of human politics, life was short, brutish, and painful. This is not a record I would stand on myself. Having said that, I agree that people’s religious beliefs should be honored.”

    I suppose you are aware that a lack of religious belief is also a religious belief. I am glad that you can see that totalitarianism and human suffering resulted from oppressive government when it was driven by your definition of religion. I am a little more concerned that you cannot see that the real issue is oppressive government and not the philosophical underpinning of the justification for oppressive government. The entire vaccine schedule here in the US is based on the same basic premise as Malawi. That is that somehow, the government has the right to force you to take medical treatment of any sort by compulsion. You may like to split hairs about degrees of heinousness in the crimes of the Nazis. You may pay lip service to belief in individual sovereignty. The blindingly clear fact is that you use hair splitting definitions to try and morally justify the unjustifiable. Use of force isn’t use of force if the guns are not drawn. Don’t blame the charity for enlisting the force of the government to further it’s agenda, blame the government. The Nazi’s killed millions of people, so we can ignore the fact that they exercised the exact same claim to force people to undergo any sort of medical intervention without their consent. And then you accuse me of being someone else when you know absolutely nothing about me!

    Like

  11. Nathan
    February 6, 2012 at 4:18 am

    I can see from here and other posts that Nathan and Gattarian are a bit of a double act.

    You’re kind of coming across as a double act yourself, Sovereign man. I swear you sound familiar.

    I don’t know about you Nathan, but the science the I learned was an objective search for truth, not a consensus which is used to subjectively create a desired reality.

    You seem to prefer the latter. The truth is plain in the thousands of studies that show vaccines to be safe and effective. The scientific consensus reflects this truth. Your position does not.

    When objective inquiry is replaced by consensus driven research upon which massive amounts of funding, both public and private, depend on certain outcomes, then it is right and proper to question the objectivity of the research itself.

    You are welcome to question it. I question it regularly. It holds up, in terms of the quality of the studies themselves, and replication of their results. Virtually all scientists around the world agree, even the ones who don’t have a financial stake in the results. I’m sorry, SM, but there is a snowflake’s chance that all the studies are wrong, and the opposite is true, reguardless of your opinion of the funding sources. No amount of money can buy that scale of research fraud. There are too many people who would jump out and say “yeah, we faked that study. Didn’t happen.” In contrast, there are plenty of examples where the science showed a significant risk to a vaccine, and it was pulled. This hardly would happen if all of science was held in shackles by big pharma as you insinuate.

    It would seem that Gattarian is a bit of a follower of yours Nathan. You mention governmental issues and then he/she latches on. Not much of an independent thinker, I suspect.

    It’s not a lack of independence that makes Mr. Gattarian come to the same conclusion as I. It’s because the hole in your assertion is so glaring that one cannot miss it.

    You both like to blame governments for their laws when a private charity comes in and enlists the brute force of government to force people to do something against their will.

    Which they didn’t. The charity dd not “enlist the brute force of government” and bring those people back. I don’t see that they had anything to do with it at all. It is only you trying toimply that they did.

    The ‘duly’ elected government says it is okay, so it is okay.

    Again, no one said it was okay. How is it that you can so confidently make the same mistake over and over again? Beggars belief, as some might say.

    What kind of moral code do you subscribe to that says if it is ‘legal’ it is ‘moral’?

    Who said it was moral? This post is about providing vaccinations to those who need it most. It is not about forced vaccination. You are making it about forced vaccination, and putting words in everyone’s mouth.

    Oh, and go ahead and grandstand more for us about your impression of us and Nazis and whatnot. It makes it clear that your position is not based on evidence and also how bizarre your side of the fence really is.

    Like

  12. February 6, 2012 at 3:36 pm

    “”

    Sovereign man :
    What kind of moral code do you subscribe to that says if it is ‘legal’ it is ‘moral’?

    No one has suggested this. You don’t seem able to discuss what people actually say, preferring to argue against things they did not say. I’m sure there is a specific name for this tactic.

    Gattarian, you have probably offended a great many people when you make such glib statements like
    “Life has survived on this planet for millions of years without religion too. And more most of those years when religion was the primary driver of human politics, life was short, brutish, and painful. This is not a record I would stand on myself. Having said that, I agree that people’s religious beliefs should be honored.”

    Possibly, but only if it is taken out of context. It was directed specifically at your attempt at anti science here:

    Life has survived on this planet for millions of years, and humans for at least thousands, without medical interventions. If these people’s religious beliefs prohibited medical intervention then that should have been honored. To do otherwise is to treat them as animals.

    Specifically, it was meant to counter your claims that somehow an old religious belief is just as valid as a proven scientific belief when it comes to maintaining human health.

    I am a little more concerned that you cannot see that the real issue is oppressive government and not the philosophical underpinning of the justification for oppressive government.

    No, the issue is what constitutes an oppressive government. You seem to take an extreme anarchists view as evidenced by your next sentence:

    The entire vaccine schedule here in the US is based on the same basic premise as Malawi. That is that somehow, the government has the right to force you to take medical treatment of any sort by compulsion.

    No, not in the least. There is no principle that the government can force any treatment whatsoever. The principle involved has to do with public health. That is, your right to individual sovereignty ends when it begins to interfere with my right to the same. You have a right to conduct whatever activities you like on your property, for instance, but if those activities pose a public health hazard (open sewers, for instance), then I have some right to protect myself. Rather than relying on anarchistic brute force, civilized societies constitute themselves in such a way that the state is granted the use of force for the explicit protection of everyone’s rights. If your actions endanger others, then the state has the right to use force against you in order to protect these others.

    In Malawi, these religious fanatics were barricading themselves in compounds preventing each other from seeking medical treatment for actual measles infections. To the point of death. That is, they were locking their children inside their compounds and allowing them to die from measles. In effect, they were perpetrating measles factories on the rest of the population. This posed a serious and deadly health risk for the rest of the community.

    IMHO I simply don’t know if the authorities over reacted or not. I understand they negotiated with these people for more than a year to try to get them to comply with the law. I do know, however, that no broad “force … medical treatment of any sort” principle is claims by either the Malawi government nor the US government. That is a fabrication on your part.

    You may like to split hairs about degrees of heinousness in the crimes of the Nazis. You may pay lip service to belief in individual sovereignty. The blindingly clear fact is that you use hair splitting definitions to try and morally justify the unjustifiable. Use of force isn’t use of force if the guns are not drawn. Don’t blame the charity for enlisting the force of the government to further it’s agenda, blame the government. The Nazi’s killed millions of people, so we can ignore the fact that they exercised the exact same claim to force people to undergo any sort of medical intervention without their consent. And then you accuse me of being someone else when you know absolutely nothing about me!

    But you see, it is not a hair split if the facts simply don’t back you up. The Nazi’s did claim the right to treat some members of their society in truly inhuman ways. The Malawi government has asserted no such right. Neither has the US government. Meanwhile, the difference between gas chambers and protection from measles is so far from a hair split that I feel compelled to link this site:

    http://chem.tufts.edu/AnswersInScience/RelativityofWrong.htm

    Enforcing vaccination policy while guns are close at hand is wrong. Herding people into gas chambers is wrong. But if you think that herding people into gas chambers is just as wrong as threatening force in order to vaccinate, then your view is wronger than both of them put together.

    Like

  13. Sovereign man
    February 9, 2012 at 4:44 pm

    I came to this site as a matter of trying to look for a balance between the pro and anti vaccine camps. A friend recommended this site as a good place to go because, all other agendas to the side, it allows conversation between both sides. I fully applaud the obvious fact that there is little or no censoring on either side of the issues. I can also see that this site, like many others on both sides, has their attack dogs. I don’t even believe that these attack dogs are part of the site, but rather, people who think they are doing their cause (whichever side they take) a favor by defending their side of the conversation.

    All I have done, is simply point out a logical fallacy. I started to defend myself against the attack dogs by names of Gattarian and Nathan, but I can see where this road leads. One thing I can say about these two is that they make statements that when challenged, they deny they have said or claim that they have been misunderstood. Then they launch into personal attacks and purposely use inflammatory language to shut down any rational conversation about the subject matter. It really is a shame.

    I have spent the last several days researching with a view to understand how each side presents their views. In doing this, the most rational explanation I could find was on a site called Age of Autism. Now I am sure that there will be reasons given as to why this site should not be given any credence, just as it is possible to rationalize why this site should not be given any credence. I am not looking at the source or its particular agenda, I am looking at the logic of the author and how it compares to my experience on here. I find that I am not the only one to question anything about vaccines and be viciously attacked with personal insults, innuendo and challenges to my morals and ethics. I have not taken a side on this site with regard to vaccines, I only questioned one element of the article and have already been pigeon holed. So much for the open minds and intelligent debate that I was looking for. I would suggest everybody read the article I have linked to and just ask yourselves this one question: Are the author’s descriptions of how this issue is argued accurate in the context of reading the comments on Shot of Prevention? If you are intellectually honest, the answer is clear.

    http://www.ageofautism.com/2012/02/the-trouble-with-the-anti-anti-vaccine-movement-how-they-hijack-the-issue-distort-the-facts-and-tota.html

    Like

  14. Chris
  15. February 9, 2012 at 11:10 pm

    “If you are intellectually honest, the answer is clear.”

    Indeed it is. Just not in the way you mean. You are the one who started with the “getashotorgetshot” and Nazi nonsense. Combine that behavior with putting words into others keyboards and you, sir are the one committing the sins of which you complain.

    And, BTW, you did not attempt to point out any logical fallacy. You attempted to accuse others of advocating the initiation of force without any evidence. You attempted to stain the entire program of vaccination with fascist rhetoric based on a single easily misinterpreted article from Malawi. All in some bizarre attempt to suggest that the original post was inaccurate in claiming that some people in the world greatly desire vaccines.

    Like

  16. Nathan
    February 9, 2012 at 11:16 pm

    I’m sorry, but I just can’t bite my lip to suppress my laughter any more, “Sovereign Man.” You are clearly SOP’s resident troll Steve Michaels posting under another name. Your content, tone, grammar, and fallacies (strawmen in particular) are identical. And you both have the same propensity to place inappropriate apostrophes in the word “Nazi’s.” Such as:

    https://shotofprevention.com/2011/04/07/listing-vaccine-ingredients-and-understanding-them-theres-a-difference/#comment-2422

    It ain’t possessive, Steve. Also:

    https://shotofprevention.com/2011/03/02/measles-outbreaks-underscores-the-critical-role-of-public-health/#comment-2102

    I mean, really, who needs to bring up Nazis that often? Not to mention the numerous times you bring up that exact same global warming argument:

    https://shotofprevention.com/2011/03/25/immunization-budget-cuts-come-with-consequences/#comment-2346

    We’ve had enough conversations that I can recognize your work. Fess up, Steve. Now is your chance to demonstrate that honesty you are talking about, intellectual or otherwise.

    Like

  17. Chris
    February 10, 2012 at 12:12 am

    Well that explains much. I mostly ignored this thread, but I did not see the despicable behavior he seemed to have an issue with.

    Also, I finally clicked on the link he provided. After having my laptops display filled with a red scare screen, it has been doing a full anti-virus scan for a few hours.

    Like

  1. September 10, 2013 at 2:06 pm

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s