On goals, strategies and Shelley's post

[Guest guest]

>

> Yes, those are our ultimate goals but the question of how to

achieve them

> remains unresolved. I think Jenna has the answer.

Yes, Bob this is the right process you address. Before we create

strategies and tactics, we have to be very clear on what our goals

are first. About six months ago I asked people on the list what their

goals were in all of this business. Almost everyone listed strategies

they would like to see implemented, but not goals. Getting mercury out

of vaccines is a strategy. Educating young parents is a strategy.

Getting more research done, strategy. Ridding the world of vaccines

altogther is still just a strategy, not a goal (and not an effective

strategy, either). It is important to know the difference so that we

do not become obsessed with implimenting strategies (like obsessing

over vaccines) to the point of forgetting the goals. We can't get

from here to there unless we are clear what " there " is.

If

1. Justice for the injured.

2. And reform of public health

are not the goals to pursue, we should continue to educate ourselves

and discuss what better or other goals we should have. From there we

develop strategies.

Why do we not support the CAA? Because it does not advance us much

towards either goal, for the price we have to pay and the risk to take

to support it. It is also argued by some that it can work against

those goals by offering false solutions (poisoned apple metaphor).

Now to address 's latest essay. It may be a good strategy to

support the CAA because the AAP and Pharma oppose it. Question is, is

that strategy effective? First, I would need some confirmation of

facts. Who says the AAP and & oppose it, and why, and do they do so

publicly?

's essay is silly. We don't support something simply because

our opponent is against it -- but we can still do so if there is good

reason and it accomplishes something -- like getting closer to our

goals. 's essay provides no particular good reasons to support

the CAA, just knee-jerk naysaying. also sets up a false

dichotomy. Either we do this and pick our side, or we do that and

pick their side. There is no good reason to accept her either-or set

up as valid.

I love and she is an angel and not the devil, but she is a

naive angel -- and that can be dangerous.

Lenny