Calling the Shots

The authors of both articles start with strong sentences stating their rhetorical
situation. While Kelly King Heyworth in 2011 of Detroit, MI states We have to move
forward and be willing to accept what science tells us: Vaccines do not cause autism.
Michael Snyder in 2014 of Farmintonhills, MI says, The evidence linking vaccines and
autism continues to mount. Each writers intended audience is parents, potential parents,
researchers in the medical field and the vaccine movement. Each author also mentions
vaccinating in general, Heyworth supporting the idea in order to protect the community.
While Snyder rejects vaccination, which he claims is causing an autism epidemic.
Kelly Heyworth, claiming no connection between rising rate of autism and
vaccinations, writes the most agreeable article. The argument is written from both
viewpoint of doctors and parents. The article is split into five sections opening with the
medical communities support of children being vaccinated. Then the article refutes the
claim linking autism to vaccination, supporting her statements with studies published in
medical journals. Followed with the message that vaccination is not going to be 100% side
effect free. The article also recognizes that Moms want to eliminate even a remote chance
that their child will experience side effects from a vaccine and they may fear that multiple
injections could overwhelm the immune system. (Heyworth) Last of all the article goes
back to supporting its first section, stating that vaccinating your children you dont just
protect them you help shield your entire community. (Heyworth) The language of the
article is concise, and filled with supportive facts giving the author an authoritative stance
on the topic. The author continually talks to parents recognizing that they are scared

appealing to the pathos of the reader. By explaining to the reader the original claim,
Heyworth gives the reader something to understand and start with, which he can then
disproves while giving the reader a strong safety net of supported facts to fall back on. The
author addresses the opposition by clearly noteing that their position on the topic doesnt
mean that vaccines arent capable of causing adverse effects beyond a sore arm and slight
fever. (Heyworth) Admitting that there is not a 100% unaffected rate of vaccination for
patient. The author closes the article by saying that a vaccinated population is more
beneficial, protecting children and the community.
The articles technical style is a little bit dense and hard to understand by anyone
new to the issue. However a slow and careful read through would allow the reader to best
understand the issue at hand. The strengths of the article are the strong refutation of the
issue at hand, and there attempt to broaden the readers perspective on vaccines to make
them more likely to accept the main message of the article. Also personal messages from
doctors through out the article help the reader to feel connected.
The content of the message that is least agreeable is vaccines cause autism, and that
we are endangering our children by pumping them full of mercury. The author through
five separate sections tries to logically persuade the reader into believing that autism is
directly linked to vaccination. The five separate parts of the article are not very convincing
because they just say that vaccines cause autism without addressing the accurate statistics
or refuting the opposition. The language is accusatory and Snyder attempts to use
overwhelmingly large statistics that are misleading to veil the eyes of the reader, blinding
them from the possibility of an opposing view.

The articles opening points out that pharmaceutical companies will never ever, eve,
ever admit a link between between vaccines and autism. (Snyder) The article then
announces the epidemic of rising autism rates punctuated with information noting the
correlation between the when children are being vaccinated and begin to regress with
autism. Continuing with misleading, albeit true, information about mercury being proven to
cause severely impaired neurological development. Stories are then given of people who
choose not to vaccinate their children, had them taken away by authorities. The articles
final statement is that vaccinating children is complete and utter madness.(Snyder)
The form of the article convincingly draws the reader into believing that vaccinating
your child is simply the worst thing you can do. Its main weakness is a lack of focused
information. Which sadly points to the articles strengths that are its ability to use accurate
information to lead readers into inaccurate conclusions about the issue. Attempting to
prove that this correlation is the causation.
The author does not address the opposition in their article that could draw controversy to
their statements. The reader only reads about how the epidemic is at hand and that vaccine
companies with support from the government are not going to stop causing this epidemic
by pumping children full of toxic mercury.
Heyworth most successfully fulfills her intentions of convincing readers that
vaccines do not cause autism. She does so by letting the reader make up their own mind,
and giving good evidence of both sides of the vaccination issue. Snyders opposing article
does give you a good scare though. Being a potential parent, Snyders article foreshadows

lots of research when making medical decisions for a child. Keeping in mid its not always
what is best each individual, sometime what is best will benefit the community.

Work Cited:
Heyworth, Kelley King. "Vaccines Do Not Cause Autism." Epidemics. Ed. David Haugen and
Susan Musser. Detroit: Greenhaven Press, 2011. Opposing Viewpoints. Rpt. from "Vaccines:
The Reality Behind the Debate." Parents (May 2010). Opposing Viewpoints in Context. Web. 6
Sept. 2014.
Snyder, Michael. "Vaccines Cause Autism." Behavioral Disorders. Ed. Roman Espejo. Farmington
Hills, MI: Greenhaven Press, 2014. Opposing Viewpoints. Rpt. from "Vaccines and Autism: The
Secret That You Are Not Supposed To Know." The American Dream. 2012. Opposing
Viewpoints in Context. Web. 6 Sept. 2014.
Source Citation