It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

ANTIVAXXERS "movement" is likely a scam to polarize voters against the freedom candidate.

page: 1
16
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 5 2015 @ 04:33 AM
link   
Don't let them suck you in. If you vote for the person that promises a guaranteed vaccination for every person, or the person who gives you the choice, or the candidate who bans them all together and adds mumps to the jowls of MT Rushmore, it won't change a damn thing about vaccination practices in reality, it will have just affected who you voted for for the wrong reason. Don't realize that at the same time you realize the other policies you voted in.

Yes I was vaccinated for MMR as was my bro and all the rest of the family. I will do the same for my kids, this is NOT about whether or not you should vaccinate, it's to hopefully pre empt the incoming propaganda against candidates that like me, think vaccines are good, but would never force one on anyone.

My original title btw (too long) was "ANTIVAXXERS 'movement' is likely a scam to polarize voters against the freedom candidate .(Clinton and Bush opposition)."

My own words from a comment on the NLBS (can I even actually say the title of the show on this site?) page.




The anti vaccination movement is not real, at least it wasn't until politicians and media got ahold of it. Like the little kids book about the girl getting the measles and being happy about it. COME ON that was definitely made by people trying to make anti vax people look really insane. I mean, I can't imagine even someone against vaccines making that. Also until this year or the last few years people who didn't want to vaccinate would share a little information (a few louder than others), but they weren't militant and I don't think they are trying to end vaccinations right?

Let me clear the air so people can understand I am not on either side of this really. Im at the much deeper core: this is a b.s. issue to polarize people in 2016. I had an MMR Vax, as did my bro and cousins and etc etc. If I had kids I'd get them vaccinated, and I believe in vaccinations. HOWEVER, I am also smart and observant. "ANTIVAXXERS" are the new "birthers," "truthers," etc. Except this time they aren't real, at least not in the numbers we are lead to believe. There aren't or at least weren't (it will grow now that it has a name) as many "antivaxxers" as there were vocal birthers or truthers - also those issues weren't taken as seriously by the public and so likely didn't effect elections. they need to get everyone one the same side against the freedom candidate. So the main GOP and DEM candidate will agree on this topic (both say vaccines for all choice for none).

What's happening is an anti vax idea and a small measles outbreak (both of which have been happening in America forever) have suddenly become a battlefield. Why? 2016. It is the super polarizing issue that loses you the election if you get on the wrong side of. Sample from the future: Debate mod: What is your position on vaccinations? 3rd party/libertarian/freedom candidate: Well I support vaccines, I was vaccinated, and my kids were vaccinated. That said I cannot deny anyone the freedom to choose for themselves and their families. So despite supporting vaccines I couldn't support forcing mandatory vaccines on the public, it could set a terrible precedence." Debate mod/Hillary and Jeb in unison: "ANTIVAXXER!" Hillary and Jeb in unison: Everyone should have the vaccine as a moral and ethical obligation to society blah blah.

Can't you guys see this is being pumped up before your eyes as THE polarizing topic. It's the new best way to get the people to vote on one issue that is useless and wont change anything without looking at the real platforms of the candidates. ITS A SCAM GUYS. I think vaccines are mostly good but do effect some people negatively and am open to research (never hurts). I am not going to vote based on this! Just like I wouldn't base a vote on the abortion topic with a looming depression, or gay rights in the midst of a depression. It should be up to the people.


Vaccines shouldn't be a presidential platform issue. We know vaccines are useful, but do carry risks for some. The real story is that the dems and gop are creating a super polarizing topic and label "antivaxxers" that they can use against third parties and freedom candidates. Extremely polarizing issues are created so voters vote in ignorant indignation rather than real issues. Expect the chosen gop and dem candidate to agree on this topic and the candidate that says they believe in freedom to choose despite believing in vaccines usefulness to be labeles "antivaxxer."

Basically it's a mixture of dismissive political labeling (used to kill discussion) with the personal fervor of issues like abortion and gay rights, but engineered to polarize against not left or right, but one guy, the honest candidate that will say "Of course I suggest vaccines, but I would never take away your right to choose for yourself as it could set a devastating precedence."

If you read this all the way through, I hope that you see, despite the headline, that I am proposing a logical and realistic possibility. Sanjay Gupta already went after Rand Paul (one of the targets of this i suspect as a freedom candidate) on vaccinations.

I will end it with a bit of my post from the Sanjay/Gupta thread (and then after that for fun - the insane Melanie's Marvelous Measles antivax childrens book, that I almost have to believe was made by people wanting to making people against vaccinations crazy - and maybe they are crazy, but it's not my or your place to make choices for them.)




"Truther" "Birther" "antivaxxer" people hear those and automatically believe whoever is labeled as such is vehemently waving that banner. when in reality they might've gotten labeled "antivax" because they believe people should have the right to choose vaccination for better or worse, or they might be labeled a "truther" just because they think 9/11 has some unanswered questions. In the label makers mind that "truther" doesn't have questions, no, they believe holograms hit buildings which were then detonated. They are dismissed and their discussions, which may be very well reasoned and mild, are ignored because there are rich people who want you to vote with the least amount of words in your mind as possible, preferably just one or two, not tons of information regarding the candidates and platforms.
I REPEAT
Do NOT let them suck you in. If you vote for the person that promises a guaranteed vaccination for every person, or the someone who gives you the choice, or the candidate who bans vaccinations all together and adds mumps to the jowls of MT Rushmore, it won't change a damn thing about vaccination practices in reality, it will have just affected who you voted for for the wrong reason. Don't realize that at the same time you realize the other policies you voted in.

Eff labels don't buy them, choose conversation, choose as many words instead of the fewest, and deny ignorance.


Freaky antivax book Melanie's Marvelous Measles
edit on 5-2-2015 by GogoVicMorrow because: (no reason given)

edit on 5-2-2015 by GogoVicMorrow because: (no reason given)

edit on 5-2-2015 by GogoVicMorrow because: (no reason given)




posted on Feb, 5 2015 @ 04:46 AM
link   
This is something i would like to know more about just because it sorta came out of nowhere for me (granted i don't live in america)
This whole anti vaccine thing... wasn't that from years ago, a buzz generated by Jenny McCarthy? (i had to google her name and she is still incredibly hot...low IQ reverses the aging process?
)

so now the story is back?
and you think it's just a label being tossed around as a sort of derision campaign to reduce the likability of some people running for a political position?
Personally i feel vaccinations should be mandatory for small children at least, but that shouldn't mean we can be careless. There ARE side effects, but proper management and competent administration can reduce to risks to a zero.



posted on Feb, 5 2015 @ 04:48 AM
link   
a reply to: IShotMyLastMuse

A outbreak of measles in the US has pushed the topic right up there.
Same thing happened in Wales a year or so ago.



posted on Feb, 5 2015 @ 05:03 AM
link   
a reply to: boymonkey74

Thank you for the info, i am on the cdc website reading this:

102 cases in the month of January alone,

The majority of the people who got measles were unvaccinated.
Measles is still common in many parts of the world including some countries in Europe, Asia, the Pacific, and Africa.
Travelers with measles continue to bring the disease into the U.S.
Measles can spread when it reaches a community in the U.S. where groups of people are unvaccinated.

Here is the link for the sake of transparency
www.cdc.gov...



posted on Feb, 5 2015 @ 05:06 AM
link   
a reply to: IShotMyLastMuse

Yeah, it's back, but with a vengeance. Now the outbreaks are blamed on people against vaccines instead of the virus. Even though the same people and probably about the same number of people of actually been vocal about "anti vaccine" they are calling this an anti-vaccination movement and call them "antivaxxers."

Though I doubt they have linked any outbreaks to a kid from an anti vax family who got measles from another kids from an antivax family who got his measles from the chicken or the egg (i forget which came first).

The reason it's being grabbed onto (even here on ATS their show Next Level Bull # - isn't it funny that I can't actually say the title of ATS premier show?) says anti vax families are being blamed "and for good reason." How do they know it's for good reason?

So what I am proposing is that the reason it's being pumped up and a group is being created to hate is because that group will easily be tied to a candidate (ahem Rand Paul) through his Freedom of choice/libertarian platform (he's not anti vax nor am i). He is likely the only real contender against Hillary Clinton and Jeb Bush, who will both be loud in their support of mandatory vaccinations (Hillary we will buy it for you/Jeb you gotta get it, but we ain'ta payin' - those are their differences haha).

If they can tie Paul or any libertarian or just any candidate to a group hated as much as the perfectly and freshly engineered "antivaxxers" it will hurt.

So I am here doing my part to preempt that.
edit on 5-2-2015 by GogoVicMorrow because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 5 2015 @ 05:13 AM
link   
a reply to: IShotMyLastMuse

I personally doubt cases are actually changing because of less people vaccinating. Over 100 kids in the same area and none were vaccinated? Prob not.

The thing is, many times measles is brought in from out of the country and it's so infectious it infects even those who are young and have had vaccinations.

Nothing was changing about people opposed to vaccines and measles outbreaks, but now that the media has grabbed it, it is likely to become a self fulfilling prophecy as they use it for their political purposes.



posted on Feb, 5 2015 @ 05:19 AM
link   
A little sad historical footnote. The great author Roald Dahl once heard there was a measles outbreak in NYC schools so he asked a doctor friend to bring three vaccine doses for his three children. However, and very unfortunately the doctor arrived with only a dose for the baby. He said the older and stronger children will be fine and it will be good for their immune systems to fight it off naturally. Dahl's daughter caught it, developed a complication (i believe a rare measles related meningitis) and died.

That's why I personally support vaccination (and my family and I all have had the MMR and have zero cases of autism ,in the family period, but especially of, the 10 or so of us born since the 80's (of which I am a part).

Dahl's story is as fascinating as his books. Lots of tragedy.



posted on Feb, 5 2015 @ 05:23 AM
link   
a reply to: GogoVicMorrow

Yeah I read about that.

Here is the letter.

roalddahl.com...

Worth its own thread that.



posted on Feb, 5 2015 @ 05:25 AM
link   

originally posted by: IShotMyLastMuse
a reply to: boymonkey74

Thank you for the info, i am on the cdc website reading this:

102 cases in the month of January alone,

The majority of the people who got measles were unvaccinated.
Measles is still common in many parts of the world including some countries in Europe, Asia, the Pacific, and Africa.
Travelers with measles continue to bring the disease into the U.S.
Measles can spread when it reaches a community in the U.S. where groups of people are unvaccinated.

Here is the link for the sake of transparency
www.cdc.gov...



Worth noting, the large count of measles cases in 2014 were associated with measles infected people coming in from the Philippines. I would say the latest outbreak is something similar since I believe it was a tourist spot (was it Disney? people from all over the world go there), rather than anti vaxers as the media (including ATS NLBS) persist.

Also worth noting it wasn't propagandized in 2014, why? My guess? The moment 2015 hit, so did the election cycle (throwing myself a bone as it supports my proposed theory that this is all some sort of upper echelon hog wash or UEHW).



posted on Feb, 5 2015 @ 05:29 AM
link   
Exactly! They do this kind of underhanded sabotage all the time. It's really subtle and yet really obvious once you've noticed it.



posted on Feb, 5 2015 @ 05:34 AM
link   
a reply to: BrianFlanders

Yes. Fortunately this time we can see it 2 years in advance. Can see part of the tactic and the likely target. I mean McCarthy and others have been saying anti vax stuff for years, and measles outbreaks are imported from out of the country yearly (which is what happened in Ohio last year from the Philippines and likely this year as well).

Yet this year I am seeing FIERCE hate for some people known as "antivaxxers" who I don't believe really exist (at least not in the numbers you'd expect from the stories and hate) all over my facebook feed.

Not to mention someone posted that book I linked to above which I really don't believe came from someone opposed to vaccines, but rather someone opposed to people who are opposed to vaccines.



posted on Feb, 5 2015 @ 05:35 AM
link   
The US should do an experiment. Start two separate communities, one vaccinated, one not, and see who lasts longer.
edit on 2905amkam4kam4 by Shakawkaw because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 5 2015 @ 05:42 AM
link   
a reply to: Shakawkaw


They would both last the same. Measles is dangerous, but it's not smallpox and non vaccinated people don't just spontaneously get Measles AND Measles vaccines are less effective in young freshly vaccinated people because measles is incredibly infectious(we just honestly aren't exposed often in the US).

They don't have to, they have pretty accurate info on how many people are vaccinated and who is. This is the US, your private life is not private. They would both last the same.

What they should really do is just find the patient zero of each outbreak. Large outbreaks usually stem from one person. In most cases the patient zero is from a foreign country. The outbreak last year in Ohio was started by a child from the Philippines, as I have already stated and my money is on a similar scenario for the most recent outbreak.

This thread isn't about the effectiveness of vaccines or whether or not someone should be vaccinated. It's about vaccination being used to manipulate voters.
edit on 5-2-2015 by GogoVicMorrow because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 5 2015 @ 05:52 AM
link   
I like how Rand Paul made sure a camera was there when he got vaccinated


a reply to: GogoVicMorrow



posted on Feb, 5 2015 @ 06:03 AM
link   

originally posted by: bottleslingguy
I like how Rand Paul made sure a camera was there when he got vaccinated


a reply to: GogoVicMorrow



He did for good reason. He knew this was coming. There has already been a media attack on him on the topic.
This is likely a tactic specifically to hurt his campaign because hes the only candidate we know of he will say " I believe in choice and not setting dangerous precedent of mandatory innoculation" rather than what the majority (who the media is convincing now that it shouls be mandatory) of candidates will say which is whatever the voters want to hear (which of course what they want to hear is what the media is telling them now). Thats what Hil and Jeb will do so its likely against Rand. Sick seeing the media and the chosen candidates work together ao well.



posted on Feb, 5 2015 @ 06:06 AM
link   
Well, with all these nasty diseases being so dangerous one has to wonder how the human race ever made it this far!
But we did, and without the need for vaccinations! And once we'd learnt about hygiene all the nasty diseases all but vanished! It was only when the vaccinations started up that peoples immune systems started to become too week to cope on its own!

Not hard to figure out is it!



posted on Feb, 5 2015 @ 08:02 AM
link   
a reply to: VoidHawk

please stop pulling crap out of your arse - its undignified

despite your delusions " learning about hygine " did not caused infectious desieses to " all but vanish "

please google the morbidity rates for the vaccine preventable desieses in the UK during the 20th century

bearing in mind that municiple dinking water treament , piped water , municiple sewerage treatment , sewers etc [ remember joseph bazalgette ???? ] were all introduced during the 19th century

as was - medical hand washing etc etc

we [ the UK ] - " learned about hygine " in the 19th century - and put its lessons into effect

but " amazingly "
vaccine preventable desies figures all show the ` big drop ` in the peroid IMMEDIATLY following vaccine introduction and widescale vaccination

why did " hygine " fail untill the year vaccines were introduced ?????????????? for so many desieses ???

edit on 5-2-2015 by ignorant_ape because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 5 2015 @ 08:05 AM
link   
I thought it very odd the other day when, in an interview, Ben Carson made the comment that the majority of measles cases are in Democratic districts.
Really? Come on...



posted on Feb, 5 2015 @ 08:07 AM
link   
a reply to: kosmicjack

tell mr carlson : citation needed



posted on Feb, 5 2015 @ 08:15 AM
link   

originally posted by: IShotMyLastMuse
a reply to: boymonkey74

Thank you for the info, i am on the cdc website reading this:

102 cases in the month of January alone,

The majority of the people who got measles were unvaccinated.
Measles is still common in many parts of the world including some countries in Europe, Asia, the Pacific, and Africa.
Travelers with measles continue to bring the disease into the U.S.
Measles can spread when it reaches a community in the U.S. where groups of people are unvaccinated.

Here is the link for the sake of transparency
www.cdc.gov...



I think the ironic thing is that they are using this to tar and feather the freedom candidates in the GOP people who are basically saying "I think you should do it but I won't force you." Or even people like Paul who seem to buy a little bit into the vaccines are "teh debil" idea but still won't prohibit people from getting them when the people who are suffering most from this outbreak are the wealthy, upper middle class fruits and nuts in Cali. The people most like to listen to Jenny McCarthy.



new topics

top topics



 
16
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join