Poisoned Chalice?

Vaccinations are a wonderful thing and quite cost effective in a modern industrial/technological society. After all who wants the workforce to die off before it actually has a chance to work? However vaccinations in a struggling, debt ridden, drought ridden and overpopulated might not be the wisest choice on spending our money, yet that is what David Cameron is choosing to do.


DAVID Cameron announced that Britain is to donate £814million to vaccinate children against diseases in the developing world today.

More 80 million children are to benefit from the cash over the next five years, in a bid to protect them from diseases such as pneumonia and diarrhoea.

Speaking at the Global Alliance for Vaccines and Immunisation conference, Cameron announced that Britain was to play its full part in helping the world’s poorest children.

World leaders, charities, private companies and philanthropists including Microsoft’s Bill Gates all attended the event in a bid to generate the funds to ensure children receive protection against the potentially fatal diseases.

Yes, I know this is going to make me sound as if I’m coming from somewhere to the right of Attilla the Hun, however what is the point of vaccinating children in societies which may be unable to support the additional mouths to feed? Surely if we must spend this cash it would be better to improve the the countries infrastructure to the stage where they can grow enough food and provide enough work for them?

Are we actually just giving these kids a poisoned chalice in which they’ll live longer only to either have to migrate causing pressure elsewhere or die of starvation at a later date? One of the reasons so many Africans have such big families is that the die off rate is fairly high, in this country we overcame that problem by having smaller families, but contraception does not appear to be on the cards for the moment where the vaccinations are going. Same with aid, we can feed a starving nation through our generosity for a while, but what happens when the food./aid/money runs out? We’re simply delaying the inevitable, or so it seems to me.

No-one likes to see kids or people starving, but, are we simply by our choices making starvation an inevitable outcome of making sure more people live?

Give a man a fish and you feed him for a day, teach a man to fish… Trite, but true, perhaps we ought to be looking for the equivalent means to teach these kids to keep themselves fed, rather than simply keeping them alive on charity, because that’s where this program is potentially heading.

13 comments for “Poisoned Chalice?

  1. David Capman
    June 16, 2011 at 10:38 am

    In a sense, I think what Cameron is up to is a bit of sly mis-direction.

    I remember, fifteen or twenty years ago, Stephen Fry and Hugh Laurie fronted the TV advertising campaign for Alliance and Leicester Bank. Fry, the dim-witted banker with ‘Sproggit and Sylvester’, sensible Laurie with Alliance and Leicester. One ad featured Laurie contesting that A&L had introduced a new telephone banking facility. …’Sproggit and Sylvester have phones coming out of their EARS!!’.. retorts Fry.

    This is what I see here from this Prime Minister. A proud boast that aid spending has been pegged at a high level. Naturally, there will be scrutiny as how to ensure it’s spent ‘wisely’. Spending directly on vaccines and medicines gives that direct manifest link. It’s provably not being spent on the Limousines of Dictators nor on local projects which will be hijacked by drug gangs nor to buy a collection of shoes to rival Imelda Marcos.

    The point is well-made, you’re keeping children alive to die early at a point where conveniently they’re no longer an age that pulls the heart-strings too taut if it happens on screen.

    It’s just another feature of Cameron’s new Camelot. Responsibility to Protect (R2P) – a doctrine which puts the bank accounts of all Britons within the reach of the rest of the world. Fighting distant international wars while denuding the Armed Forces of international fighting capabilities. Paying aid money at increasing rates into regions which are not set up to absorb the amounts. Taking actions over the EU which are in diametric opposition to the mandate given under the declared manifesto.

    I didn’t vote for him, didn’t trust him. To this day I’m still astonished that so many were taken in by him. I’m also somewhat aggrieved that the only likely alternative to him at the next election will be a witless cardboard cut-out.

    What have I done about it? Legally, I’m precluded from options popular during the French Revolution or from placing explosives in public buildings. Well, I’ve retired early. I don’t draw a pension in full amount as yet but I have enough saved, and live a sufficiently austere lifestyle to make little difference. So the nation no longer has my tax money (the very greater bulk of my investments are in gold and overseas interests). I don’t really have to complain any more because I no longer pay for any of this nonsense. Practically every penny I ever paid in Tax was wasted in the past fifteen years, and the political system which facilitated that wastage has hit on the generous solution of kicking the Taxpayer even harder, during an ever-extending working life.

    If my tax money is to be frittered away in grandiose self-gratification for a Prime Minister to strut the world stage, then this is my solution. My personal tax strike, and there ‘aint nobody who can force me to work to provide the cash for them to waste.

    • David
      June 16, 2011 at 12:02 pm

      Good for you. I intend to start drawing my pension asap for exactly the same reason. I’m currently starving the beast by not buying anything – apart from food and paying utilities. But I’m planning on getting a multi fuel stove to do away with a big chunk of my cash going into someone elses pocket, and I’m growing some of my own food. If money is the only thing they care about then that’s where we need to hit them. 😡

      • June 16, 2011 at 1:39 pm

        David Capman,

        I think I know who you are, John Galt?

        • David Capman
          June 16, 2011 at 2:41 pm

          Now there’s a compliment….!!

          • June 16, 2011 at 5:20 pm


  2. Sue
    June 16, 2011 at 10:41 am

    We´ll see what occurs. I tend to concur with James on this one, although the effects may be long term rather than an obvious genocide.

  3. dearieme
    June 16, 2011 at 10:46 am

    Give a man a fish and you feed him for a day, teach a man to fish ad he’ll ram the rod up your arse.

  4. Lord T
    June 16, 2011 at 10:52 am

    He isn’t the first to do this and he won’t be the last.

    I said last time that the problem with life in third world countries is it is a set of jumps in a steeplechase. All this does is get then over one jump. That isn’t the full course. Then you need to feed the people that you have saved when many are already starving. So all you do is replace dying young from a disease or dying young of starvation or being chopped up because you are in a different village.

    Piece meal solutions never solve problems but for politicians it gets their name in the papers and they get to brag about how generous they are so that is the sole reason for this.

    Another problem that needs to be looked at and throwing money at the problem as politicians do is not the way to do it.

  5. David
    June 16, 2011 at 11:56 am

    The myth perpetuates that women in these countries have lots of children because of the die off rate. In fact, it’s down to zero contraception and, traditionally, the more children a man has the more he proves his virility. I’ve seen this admitted to by such a man, in a documentary. Yes of course some of these children die because of medical issues or lack of food, but the reason they have so many in the first place is NOT because they die – they die because there are too many of them; a subtle difference.

  6. June 16, 2011 at 5:19 pm

    “Yes, I know this is going to make me sound as if I’m coming from somewhere to the right of Attilla the Hun, however what is the point of vaccinating children in societies which may be unable to support the additional mouths to feed? “

    You’ll be in good company. 😉

  7. Voice of Reason
    June 16, 2011 at 6:17 pm

    A student in our department years ago wrote a paper that showed that the problems with overpopulation in Mexico (and thus illegal immigration to the US) was partly due to the help that came from the US in the 1920’s during a famine.

  8. Ian F4
    June 16, 2011 at 8:23 pm

    It’s always the phrase “developing world” that raises a red flag for me.

    Is that the “developing world” who exist in perpetual starvation due to incompetent tyrannical leadership that is crying out for a “regime change” not vaccines, or the other type of “developing world” that have nukes, aircraft carriers, a big share of the world’s billionaires, and an active space program ?

    The other point here is that a few charitable types are already on board spending their own money by their own choice, and iDave is happily committing other people’s money to the cause as well !

  9. June 16, 2011 at 9:52 pm

    I don’t think this vaccination programme is got anything to do with saving lives, and my advice is, when the UN/Gates Foundation team comes to your village, run and hide.

Comments are closed.