or Connect
Mothering › Mothering Forums › Baby › Baby Health › Vaccinations › Gates Foundation Funds Surveillance of Anti-Vaccine Groups
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Gates Foundation Funds Surveillance of Anti-Vaccine Groups

post #1 of 11
Thread Starter 

http://www.greenmedinfo.com/blog/gates-foundation-funds-surveillance-anti-vaccine-groups

 

[A] $100K grant was recently disbursed to Seth C. Kalichman, professor at the Department of Psychology, University of Connecticut, for "Establishing an Anti-Vaccine Surveillance and Alert System," which intends to "establish an internet-based global monitoring and rapid alert system for finding, analyzing, and counteracting misinformation communication campaigns regarding vaccines to support global immunization efforts." [emphasis added]

post #2 of 11

bigeyes.gif

post #3 of 11
A grant to a PSYCHOLOGIST to fund propaganda????

That's downright chilling.
post #4 of 11

Step by step, they move closer toward a goal. Some believe that goal is honest, pure, humanitarian. I do not believe it for a minute.

post #5 of 11

Sorry I don't think I understand.

 

 What's the problem with funding someone to have time to correct misinformation posted on websites. If it's wrong shouldn't it be corrected so that the research people do online to make their vaccination choices is more likely to be correct? 

 

 The assumption seems to be that the correction itself will be misinformation, but I'm sure that's not the intention of the Gates Foundation. 

post #6 of 11

Prosciencemum, the fact that it's being run by psychologists, and that one of their goals is "to support global immunization efforts." makes it sound like accurate information isn't really their goal.   In other words, it sounds suspiciously like a propaganda campaign.

post #7 of 11
Quote:
Originally Posted by prosciencemum View Post

Sorry I don't think I understand.

 

 What's the problem with funding someone to have time to correct misinformation posted on websites. If it's wrong shouldn't it be corrected so that the research people do online to make their vaccination choices is more likely to be correct? 

 

 The assumption seems to be that the correction itself will be misinformation, but I'm sure that's not the intention of the Gates Foundation. 

 

 

You yourself are making assumptions.  You are assuming that anything criticizing the validity of the current vaccine program is misinformation.

 

Since there is peer-reviewed science on both sides, there is obviously valid reason for debate.

 

The Gates Foundation may have nothing but good intentions, but if those intentions are based on misinformation (like, vaccines are perfectly safe and effective) or on debatable ethics (it's worth killing one child to save 1000), then those good intentions may be paving the road to hell.

 

Mirzam posted something something  very thought-provoking:

"The concept of doing no harm is fundamental to Buddhist teaching, as it is within other Indian religions (Hinduism, Jainism), and is known as ahimsa, literally "the avoidance of violence – himsa." One would not, for example, justify killing an animal in order to save one's own life, which is one reason why Buddhists are vegetarians.

Nor would one justify the killing of one child in order to save 1,000,000, as is often done by regulators in evaluating the costs/benefits of vaccines (which are known on rare occasion to maim or kill) to society as a whole. Simply, do no harm. This principle is no more open to negotiation to a Buddhist than Jesus being the Son of God is open to negotiation to a Christian.

The Dalai Lama himself once said

If you can, help others; if you cannot do that, at least do not harm them. "

 

post #8 of 11
Quote:
Originally Posted by prosciencemum View Post

Sorry I don't think I understand.

 

 What's the problem with funding someone to have time to correct misinformation posted on websites. If it's wrong shouldn't it be corrected so that the research people do online to make their vaccination choices is more likely to be correct? 

 

 

 

 

I think it depends on how it is played out.  If they are reading anit-vax websites so they can compile lists of issues that concern them, and then creating their own webpages or brochure that counteract that info - have at it.

 

If the information is used in any sort of way to invade websites (particularly without disclosing the posters purpose on a website/board) or is being used in any sort of censorship way - then that is less acceptable.

post #9 of 11

Proscience, where will this 'correct' information be coming from? Are psychologists normally trained to recognize, treat, and prevent the spread of communicable diseases? Are they trained to study the efficacy of vaccines? To recognize and report potential side effects? 


Edited by fruitfulmomma - 9/6/12 at 7:55am
post #10 of 11
Thread Starter 

It will likely be a smear campaign, because when it comes to debating the science, that is the best they have got.

 

"This writer has no credentials..." "This person is spreading dangerous information that could potentially harm children." "The evidence for the safety and effectiveness of vaccines is overwhelming"

 

Or.....

 

"This author is obviously mentally ill. He wants you to stop vaccinating your children, so that they catch life-threatening diseases."

 

"This person is a conspiracy theorist and is spreading outragious lies about vaccines."

 

How about an open honest debate instead?

post #11 of 11
Thread Starter 

I am going to quote Taxi now, from the AB 2109 thread, as an example of what Seth Kalichman's grant will enable more of:

 

 

 

 

Quote:

"A few months ago, Pan met in the Capitol with Schneider. Brian O’Hara, a spokesman for Pan, said the conversation didn’t go well.

“It stalled out at times just because they’re really working off two different sets of data, one that comes from worldwide scientific opinion and the other that comes from a collection of celebrities,” he said."

No, the "other" set of data does not come from a collection of celebrities.  It also comes from worldwide scientific opinion--and it just happens to be the set of data from studies that were not funded by, directed by, interpreted by, tweaked by, and marketed by the vaccine industry itself.

If the only way for Pan to criticize the set of data that shows clear damage from vaccines is to LIE, and say that that data comes from celebrities when it actually from the mainstream scientists, is published in peer-reviewed journals, etc., then that tells us everything we need to know about Assemblyman Richard Pan.  

 
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Vaccinations
Mothering › Mothering Forums › Baby › Baby Health › Vaccinations › Gates Foundation Funds Surveillance of Anti-Vaccine Groups