Originally Posted by prosciencemum
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. "