How about a nice game of chess?

Remember at the end of the early-80’s movie, War Games, when Matthew Broderick’s character David showed the WOPR how to play tic-tac-toe, and then how the WOPR learned the futility of global thermonuclear war by comparing it to tic-tac-toe?  And how WOPR (or Joshua) then commented on the futility of a game that can not be won (except by not playing), and asked David if he would like to play a “nice game of chess”?

I can’t help wondering if the whole vaccine / autism thing is an exercise in futility for both sides, a game of unwinnable tic-tac-toe, or if it is a game of chess, still in the opening phase with the middle-and end-games left to come.  And if it is a game that can be won, what exactly is it that the victors will win?

2 thoughts on “How about a nice game of chess?

  1. I think it all depends on how you look at it.

    If you look at it as an argument of “Do vaccines cause autism?” then it’s a no win game. However, if the question is “Are autistics ‘damaged goods’, or are they fellow human beings with neurological differences that need to be accepted and supported, then I think there is something to be had there”.



  2. No it’s not chess. Nor is it a game. It’s real life and it affects kids psyches to tell them (without 100% solid proof) that they have been “damaged; “poisoned”; “harmed” by vaccines. I know from personal experience — one of my own family members being labeled as “poisoned” by someone at a former school and the detrimental psychological impact of those words. Further, as someone who has a structural birth defect from a pharmaceutical med, I can tell you that US ‘Big Pharma’ is quick to own up to and try to solve problems, as is the US Gov’t — esp. when it comes to kids.


Comments are closed.