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

a reply to: jimmyx

Ah. I was wrong about that in this thread thinking it was Disneyworld and noting it was a red state, but I guess as your info suggests i wasn't really wrong if Disneyland is still in a red district (just land rather than world and red district rather than state).

My guess is, since it's Disneyland, it's Mexican imported Measles. Just as last years outbreak in Ohio was Philippines imported.

originally posted by: Shakawkaw
The US should do an experiment. Start two separate communities, one vaccinated, one not, and see who lasts longer.

We do it's called an Amish community.

2014: The U.S. experienced 23 measles outbreaks in 2014, including one large outbreak of 383 cases, occurring primarily among unvaccinated Amish communities in Ohio.

CDC Source

a reply to: GogoVicMorrow

Your theories are moot compared to the point i made.

Fact remains in any case that even if zero vaccines existed on earth we now have the technology to contain the vast majority of out breaks that could occur in the us. Quarrentining, contact tracing and advanced care can and will be the way we survive. It is quiete safe to say that information now spreads much more quickly than a virus outbreak.

originally posted by: jimmyx

originally posted by: kosmicjack
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...

Disneyland is in Anaheim, a suburb of Los Angeles, and it's been a conservative congressional district for decades, that's is where all this started. now if you are talking about California as a whole, yes we have a majority of democrats here.

No need to worry about the red and blue or left and right. Right now it might seem natural living lefties are the targets, but if I am correct, it will soon shift to "freedom to choose loving" conservatives (libertarians) as I suspect Rand is gonna be labeled and picked out. I don't know if there are any good left leaning/dem candidates yet. No worries though, they will make this a bi partisan hate until only Hillary and Jeb are on the playing field. She will say "I think everyone should be vaccinated, and we will pay for it!" and he will say "I think everyone should be vaccinated, but Obamacare is bad and you should pay for it."

This is gong to be a bipartisan mission to align all other contenders with a fictional problem group that will be built up over time. If I am right and not just thinking too much and having too much fun with it.

a reply to: GogoVicMorrow

The art of click-baiting

a reply to: JAY1980

Do you know of any accurate stats on amish and autism? I know they do have some sicknesses that are common in their children.

originally posted by: deadeyedick
a reply to: GogoVicMorrow

Your theories are moot compared to the point i made.

Fact remains in any case that even if zero vaccines existed on earth we now have the technology to contain the vast majority of out breaks that could occur in the us. Quarrentining, contact tracing and advanced care can and will be the way we survive. It is quiete safe to say that information now spreads much more quickly than a virus outbreak.

What theories are moot compared to what point you made?

It looks like you are pulling a switcheroo. I corrected you about the threat (or lack thereof) of Ebola outside of Africa. What are you talking about now? What are you trying to say?

originally posted by: JAY1980

originally posted by: Shakawkaw
The US should do an experiment. Start two separate communities, one vaccinated, one not, and see who lasts longer.

We do it's called an Amish community.

2014: The U.S. experienced 23 measles outbreaks in 2014, including one large outbreak of 383 cases, occurring primarily among unvaccinated Amish communities in Ohio.

CDC Source

Important fact left out the outbreak in the Amish community was caused by an infection received while they were on a missionary trip to the Philippines. I don't think there were any deaths.

With the exception of outbreaks due to imported viruses, we've averaged about 100 cases a year for the last ten years. That's not bad considering a population of over 300 million.

(i want to say another outbreak in 2014 was linked to the Philippines, but I am not sure).

originally posted by: GogoVicMorrow

originally posted by: deadeyedick

a reply to: GogoVicMorrow



Your theories are moot compared to the point i made.



Fact remains in any case that even if zero vaccines existed on earth we now have the technology to contain the vast majority of out breaks that could occur in the us. Quarrentining, contact tracing and advanced care can and will be the way we survive. It is quiete safe to say that information now spreads much more quickly than a virus outbreak.

What theories are moot compared to what point you made?



It looks like you are pulling a switcheroo. I corrected you about the threat (or lack thereof) of Ebola outside of Africa. What are you talking about now? What are you trying to say?

Fact remains in any case that even if zero vaccines existed on earth we now have the technology to contain the vast majority of out breaks that could occur in the us. Quarrentining, contact tracing and advanced care can and will be the way we survive. It is quiete safe to say that information now spreads much more quickly than a virus outbreak.

I made my point the first time. you got caught up on the first sentence that shows i disagree with you on ebola. We can put the dis agreement to the side for a moment and focus on the main point i have been making?

originally posted by: deadeyedick

originally posted by: GogoVicMorrow

originally posted by: deadeyedick

a reply to: GogoVicMorrow



Your theories are moot compared to the point i made.



Fact remains in any case that even if zero vaccines existed on earth we now have the technology to contain the vast majority of out breaks that could occur in the us. Quarrentining, contact tracing and advanced care can and will be the way we survive. It is quiete safe to say that information now spreads much more quickly than a virus outbreak.

What theories are moot compared to what point you made?



It looks like you are pulling a switcheroo. I corrected you about the threat (or lack thereof) of Ebola outside of Africa. What are you talking about now? What are you trying to say?

Fact remains in any case that even if zero vaccines existed on earth we now have the technology to contain the vast majority of out breaks that could occur in the us. Quarrentining, contact tracing and advanced care can and will be the way we survive. It is quiete safe to say that information now spreads much more quickly than a virus outbreak.

I made my point the first time. you got caught up on the first sentence that shows i disagree with you on ebola. We can put the dis agreement to the side for a moment and focus on the main point i have been making?

I guess the main point you have been making is that we can contain viruses without vaccines. That's silly though and not true. What you are using as evidence is that Ebola didn't outbreak in the US because it was contained. That's not why it didn't outbreak. It didn't outbreak because it's not that contagious and there were very few people who were infected but well enough to travel. It wasn't a bang up job by our government, it was just what happened.

I even said multiple times before the first case in the US that it wouldn't spread here, here on this very site.

Your argument, now that I understand it, is pretty absurd. Virus tracing does nothing to stop infections, and it's not exactly exact science where they catch everyone that was in contact. Quarantining wont work either. Nor advance care. Vaccines are necessary, they just shouldn't be forced on anyone.

Do you know how I know that your concept of Virus tracing, quarantine, and advanced care isn't the way we survive? Because we have those PLUS vaccines and we still have viruses running amok. It's not like your theory can't be put to the test because vaccinations exist. All those methods are attempted all the time, and none are full proof or always particularly effective.

You were very wrong about Ebola, and you are further incorrect about the rest. Hate to be so blunt, but you were pretty blunt yourself when you declared my point moot in favor of yours. Thing is mine is based in reality and observable and it negates yours.

Do you want to concede or keep going? Can we get back to the topic at hand?

a reply to: GogoVicMorrow

You just see things from a different view.

The hype being put forth is that the world will end if we do not vaccinate and that is just false.

Yes we have virsus that infect us and through the methods i mention we manage to survive them. The shots are completly unecessary and fail to stop the virsus.

The ebola is a great example even if you personally do not see it the same way.

Another great example is the flu. Somehow we manage to survive even though millions of worthless shots that are not effective in doing their job are injected into arms everyday as people are being led to believe they will help.

You are completly irrational if you really believe that quarrentining infectious people does not work.

You are mental if you believe that monitoring and quarrentining contacts of those infected does not work.

You have to be institutionalized if you believe that great health care tech and skilled professionals in the nursing field do not save lives every day.

A step by step debunking of your faulty beliefs. I hope you don't just ignore these and change your thinking. I hate taking someone to school so late in the evening, but you are getting out there and are way off topic.

I am going to step by step prove your post wrong in hopes you will see the light.

originally posted by: deadeyedick
a reply to: GogoVicMorrow

You just see things from a different view.

The hype being put forth is that the world will end if we do not vaccinate and that is just false.

We aren't just disagreeing here, it's not a matter of point of views, you are just wrong.
The only point I agree with is that they are hyping up a fictional organized group of "antivaxxers" the reason I presume is political. That is where are agreements end.

Yes we have virsus that infect us and through the methods i mention we manage to survive them. The shots are completly unecessary and fail to stop the virsus.

Wrong. The shots do stop many viruses for example MEASLES, MUMPS, RUBELLA, POLIO, and SMALLPOX. Smallpox vaccinations eradicated it from the Earth. Who is WE? We don't survive them. Humanity does, but alot of people didn't. You haven't survived smallpox, and you probably haven't had measles, mumps, rubella, or polio either. Surviving through reproduction and luck aren't quite as comfortable on a personal level as getting a shot and not getting a virus. You mean me surviving via my cousin's daughter, I mean me surviving and not suffering a miserable disease.

The ebola is a great example even if you personally do not see it the same way.

Ebola is not a great example and you don't explain why you think it is. It is not airborne and kills very quickly (less time to spread person to person), and only occurs naturally in a few countries. That is why it can't get a foothold in other countries. You seem to think our government did a great job. Well it hasn't gotten a foothold in India yet either and that's a third world country that still has polio. You think they are keeping Ebola out? No, wrong, Ebola just isn't that good at sustaining and getting out of it's home. Without planes it never would.

Another great example is the flu. Somehow we manage to survive even though millions of worthless shots that are not effective in doing their job are injected into arms everyday as people are being led to believe they will help.

This is because there are dozens if not hundreds of different flu strains flying around each year. The shots generally only cover three types. This year they admitted that the strain that was hitting hardest wasn't included in the vaccine. I personally don't get the flu shot because of the above reasons (knock on wood), but swine flu killed a good friend of mine last year, age 33.

You are completly irrational if you really believe that quarrentining infectious people does not work.

I didn't say it doesn't work. I said it isn't an answer and it doesn't work completely. Want an example look anywhere there is a contagious virus outbreak and they are trying but failing to contain it via quarantine (QUARANTINE is the spelling). Here you call me irrational, but in reality you are being irrational throughout this entire post and i'm making that clear by being rational.

You are mental if you believe that monitoring and quarrentining contacts of those infected does not work.

I didn't say it doesn't work or wouldn't help, again it's just not effective enough. You will have people that didn't know they were exposed, people who can't communicate or die before they can say where they have been. To think this is a viable option as opposed to immunizing the body to a disease is - mental.

You have to be institutionalized if you believe that great health care tech and skilled professionals in the nursing field do not save lives every day.

Of course they do, what does that have to do with your flawed views on pathology?

Reposted to bottom to get the thread back on track.

a reply to: deadeyedick

And here in GA the ones I know who are anti-vax are libertarian, religious or anti-science in general.

I'm delayed or slow vax and I'm the only moderate dem I know like that IRL.

Back to topic, this isn't an anti or pro vax thread.

It's to expose the media perpetuated idea that there was an organized and growing antivax group causing outbreaks of measles in America. In reality the case numbers have hovered around a hundred out of more than 300 million for ten years.

There was an exception last year and this year that the media is using to perpetuate this "antivaxxer" lie.

Measles broke out last year and the final tally was around 500 cases. The reason was not growing "antivaxxers" it was mostly (over 300 of the cases) due to Amish people infected during a missionary trip to the Phillippines. Another outbreak last year was also likely linked to the Phillippines.

This year there has been an outbreak. It is being blamed on a growing "antivaxxer" movement in the media INCLUDING NLBS here at ATS in their newest episode. This is also likely false. This break out occurred at Disneyland an international tourist hotspot, that happens to be in 116 miles from Mexico in southern California. So rather than the vile and fictional "antivaxxer" movement, it is more likely a foreigner or even Mexican immigrant caused this outbreak.

The reason this is popping up in the news so much lately and they are coining a term to be used in mudslinging is because we have officially entered the 2016 election cycle and the two chosen candidates are both from dynasty families, a Clinton and a Bush.

So almost any third candidate looks good and a good third candidate has a chance to break the left/right paradigm (and bust this free election scam right open).

So basically we will see more stories and hear more about "antivaxxers" and a few more will probably spring up because the media brings things to life some (just never in the quantity the claim).

The alternative candidates will then be incorrectly and forcefully aligned by the media with a fictional hated group created by that same media. Honest candidates who believe in freedom of choice will say they support and have taken vaccines for themselves and their children, but they support the right of individuals to choose.

They will be bashed relentlessly as "antivaxxers" in a bipartisan play to open the playing field up to the two candidates required to keep the fraudulent elections alive.

At least that's my opinion, and though I may be being a bit dramatic for the sake of entertainment, I think it's a pretty damn good one.

Carry on.

a reply to: GogoVicMorrow

You have some merit behind the thoughts but overall they are outweighed by the truth.

The truth is that the office of the president cost this round about a billion dollars.

A third party cantidate would likely have to spend even more than that.

None of them have that type of bank.

It is just another moot point outweighed by a bigger truth.

Taking into account the electoral collage we can see that a 3rd wheel in the system is really just used to take support away from others and guide the outcome.

The sure fire way to at the least make a mark on the scene would be to run a well financed campaign and before it got real serious just come out and announce that you just donated all of the remaining funds to chairity and that you want that to be your message throughout the debates and will reflect the intention that one has to run the country with.

originally posted by: deadeyedick
a reply to: GogoVicMorrow

You have some merit behind the thoughts but overall they are outweighed by the truth.

The truth is that the office of the president cost this round about a billion dollars.

A third party cantidate would likely have to spend even more than that.

None of them have that type of bank.

It is just another moot point outweighed by a bigger truth.

They aren't thoughts, they are facts, and what you are describing aren't truths.

As for the money, candidates are funded. I said third party sometimes, but always gave a "'/contender" or something to that effect because I believe Rand will be running GOP and then if he is inexplicably hated due to propaganda, he may go third party, but he will have garnered enough for a legitimate run at the internet.

Also, they throw lots of money at elections sure, but now, because the internet, people are an equal asset. Having a huge grassroots bass spreading your message works too. Facebook and people.

There are plenty with "that type of bank." This whole thread I have made it pretty clear I am talking primarily about Rand Paul.

So no, there was no first moot point, and this is not a moot point either. Refer to my back on track post.

originally posted by: deadeyedick
Taking into account the electoral collage we can see that a 3rd wheel in the system is really just used to take support away from others and guide the outcome.

The sure fire way to at the least make a mark on the scene would be to run a well financed campaign and before it got real serious just come out and announce that you just donated all of the remaining funds to chairity and that you want that to be your message throughout the debates and will reflect the intention that one has to run the country with.

We are looking at doing away with the electoral college, but of course those in power are trying to make it more stringent. Last year Paul was cheated out of the first state win in the primary and it wasn't corrected until mid summer. That was fraud. They did that because had they announced him the winner he would likely have been the candidate. Then he had enough electoral college votes to go to the convention, and they have since tried to change the number.

The electoral college is one more good fraudulant election away from extinction and this upcoming internet generation understands computers, and numbers and connecting them to people if they understand anything.

The best bet is to end the electoral college, but barring that, you bust it up with as many good candidates as possible. You organize voting blocks to support two candidates equally and simultaneously to hurt the establishment candidates or expose voter fraud.

I don't think you understand the change that's about to come.

Once this last generation of elderly voters that don't understand that sham is gone the action begins. We don't focus on voting someone in, we focus on assuring the establishment candidate doesn't get enough votes. We vote in negative. So either some random lower candidate wins or the corrupt the vote and it's obvious to the world and the system ends.

a reply to: GogoVicMorrow

You are too full of yourself to communicate on an ordinary level.

Hussian spent around 700 million dollars for the white house.

Spin it however you want to but it is all about the money when it comes to the usa.

Already the kochs put in i think around 800 or 900 million. All of them will have to compete with that.

You reference grass roots movements but at the end of the day you are referencing money collecting when you say that.

What you out line will have a minor effect while the money aspect has major impact. moot point

Perhaps you could say it is being done now at this erly stage to prevent a third party from collecting enough to compete but even that is not likely because of all the other divicive issues that exist.

The vaccine talk has other meaning you likely have not pondered yet and would not believe.