It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

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

Thank you.


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


Help ATS via PayPal:
learn more

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

page: 5
<< 2  3  4   >>

log in


posted on Feb, 5 2015 @ 08:54 PM
a reply to: GogoVicMorrow

We are looking at doing away with the electoral college, but of course those in power are trying to make it more stringent.

Who is we.

Are there more like you?

So either some random lower candidate wins or the corrupt the vote and it's obvious to the world and the system ends.

I like the sound of it but again i find it to be a moot point.

The world especially the usa is aware of the fraud in the system as shown over and over. They are ok with it. Everything you mention can be negated by them simply increasing and extending the earned income tax credit.
edit on 5-2-2015 by deadeyedick because: (no reason given)

posted on Feb, 5 2015 @ 10:39 PM
a reply to: GogoVicMorrow

I heard that there was a correlation between vaccines and autism, but I still got all of my vaccines...

about your thread, the media loves to take a topic like this and blow it out of proportion, often tarnishing reputations in the process.
edit on 05pmThu, 05 Feb 2015 22:39:16 -0600kbpmkAmerica/Chicago by darkbake because: (no reason given)

posted on Feb, 5 2015 @ 10:45 PM
a reply to: darkbake

Yeah of course, but we have seen how FOX an allegedly conservative station treated Ron Paul last election.

I just have a feeling about his, can't really know until it either sees fruition (and it will be blatant) or it doesn't.

posted on Feb, 5 2015 @ 10:51 PM

originally posted by: deadeyedick
a reply to: GogoVicMorrow

We are looking at doing away with the electoral college, but of course those in power are trying to make it more stringent.

Who is we.

Are there more like you?

So either some random lower candidate wins or the corrupt the vote and it's obvious to the world and the system ends.

I like the sound of it but again i find it to be a moot point.

The world especially the usa is aware of the fraud in the system as shown over and over. They are ok with it. Everything you mention can be negated by them simply increasing and extending the earned income tax credit.

We, the people.
Nantional Popular Vote Interstate Compact
Could 2016 be the Electoral College' last hurrah?

You keep saying "moot point," but they are not "moot points," most of the world does not suspect fraud in our electorate system. When I was taking Mandarin in college my Chinese teachers didn't like to talk about free elections because there was nothing they could do about it back home. They truly believed our president was exactly what the people wanted.

Many of the older American's still believe in elections, many of them are still voting for the sham candidates!

So not a "moot point."

We are off topic again though.

posted on Feb, 5 2015 @ 11:01 PM
a reply to: deadeyedick

No, you just won't listen to anything said to you.
No matter how much they shell out, or appear to shell out, they have to keep the illusion that the majority of people in each state voted for their guy. Once that illusion is broken it's over. Once people say, no, we know for a fact he did not get 51 percent, once it's split more than 50/50 and there are multiple real candidates it's over. The two party system works for them because they choose the candidate and then they can simply flip the vote in states they lose. The margins are small no one can say for sure.

However, the system is outdated and they haven't figured how to rig the next one which is live vote counting online with each vote tied to a social security number. Basically real time counting that any individual can look up or agree to show who they voted for for the sake of transparency. Monitored via multiple independent groups, media stations, private citizens and other countries.

We are still voting on paper ballets and sh*t machines for a reason.

posted on Feb, 6 2015 @ 08:17 AM
Top story on Yahoo today is the story of Roald Dahl's daughter who died of measles.

I think I may have mentioned it in the OP or somewhere throughout the post, but I read this story along with the tragedy about his son being hit by a bus/taxi while in a pram/stroller with the nanny a few months ago.

His letter (he wrote his thoughts down immediately after she died - they are disjointed and sad) is sad still, but just wanted to note another unrelated measles tragedy in the news.

This is one of the stories that I cite as the reason why I DO BELIEVE people should get the MMR vaccine. Again, I had it, when I have kids i'll have them get it, and all the children in my extended families have had it with no complications.
That's not the issue. Despite supporting it, I believe in people's right to choose not to vaccinate if that's what they want. I created this thread to see if this issue continues and becomes an election issue in the future.

The story if you don't know is that he heard of a measles outbreak in NYC schools where he lived (he was from the UK - doesn't matter just informing). He asked a doctor friend to bring three vaccines for his children (i believe three, a baby and young girl and boy or maybe the boy was the baby and it was two daughters, i forget). The doctor agrees, but when he shows up he only brings one dose for the baby. He says if the older children catch it their bodies will fight it off and they will be stronger/healthier for it. Unfortunately the exact opposite happened, the young girl caught measles shortly after, and developed a complication (i believe a measles type meningitis) and she died very quickly.

It's sad, it's part of why I support people getting the MMR despite being a libertarian and also believing people should have the right to choose. Also, some might note that it is a measles vaccine not a combination vaccine (i believe) whether that's of consequence, I have no idea.

Link to Katie Couric discussing measles outbreak with Dahl's surviving daughter.

Is it normal media hype or is there an agenda to create an idea to vote against?

posted on Feb, 6 2015 @ 12:12 PM
The OP isnt to blame because its a lefit new site, but this is a story I simply dont believe. Beyond maybe a guy claiming he wasnt getting his dog vaccinated.

I mean I hope listing these absurd stories will help you see and outline the creation of this phony "antivaxxer" movement.
Disclaimer I have to make in every post on this issue : I support and suggest the mmr I had it as well as all the kids in my family with no complications or incidences of cognitive dysfunction. I will have my kids vaccinated if I have them.

That said this is a made up news article and im gonna keep piling them.

"antivaxxers" (theres that label again - more labels = less thought) are now extended to dogs.

They are saying this (at least currently) fictional organized movement are now moving to pets. Why would they? It certainly makes this allegedly real movement look pretty crazy.
Again not pro or ant vax, I just dont believe this is a real movement. Actual people against vaccines are generally personal freedom natural lifers, amish, and other religions. They werent a roving group bullhorning theae beliefs until the media hit an elecrion cycle and coined a term "antivaxxers."

posted on Feb, 6 2015 @ 12:16 PM
Everyone, feel free to post te measles and antivax stories here as the come in. We can look back over the evolution when they start using the term on political candidates who arent the two establishment candidates.

I also suggest watching the bush interview part of a video another poster posted on I believe page 2 or 3 here. Its short and has Bush admitting to the gov handing out fake news stories without disclaimers, that the media runs.

posted on Feb, 11 2015 @ 12:56 PM
People holding Measles parties to infect their kids. Do we believe this? If so do we believe it beyond one or maybe two instances? Is it just an chickenpox thing applied to measles to keep measles in the spotlight for politics.

I am not so sure I believe it.

Measles party.

posted on Feb, 11 2015 @ 01:38 PM
a reply to: GogoVicMorrow

you might want to actually look at the history of anti-vaxers - they are neither new or invented

the only thing you have got correct is the fact that antivax opinion is being used as a stick to beat politial candidates

the question i ask is - are you surprised ?

posted on Feb, 11 2015 @ 01:39 PM
a reply to: GogoVicMorrow

You have an interesting take on the issue in your OP but I think it would have been batter if you had done some research into the history and roots of the term.

Ant-Vaccer is not a new term nor was it placed on groups by people who are for vaccines.

History of Anti-vaccination Movements

Some of the first anti vaccers go back pretty far.

Such as National Anti-Vaccination League and the Anti-Compulsory Vaccination League or The Anti Vaccination Society of America

Anti-vaccers date back to the early 1800s when they had inoculation then later when they developed vaccines the movement really gained followers and that was for smallpox in the 1970s there were antivaccine groups against the Diphtheria, Tetanus, and Pertussis (DTP) Vaccine.

The Leicester Demonstration March of 1885 was one of the most notorious anti-vaccination demonstrations. There, 80,000-100,000 anti-vaccinators led an elaborate march, complete with banners, a child’s coffin, and an effigy of Jenner

Propaganda isn't new either

So I have to disagree that this is a new terminology or issue. Historically anti-vaccers reasons have been religious, scientific, and political in nature some skeptics alleged that smallpox resulted from decaying matter in the atmosphere.

While I agree this will be a political talking point come election time I disagree that it is a manufactured talking point. It has been a hot topic in politics much longer than you or I have been alive.

posted on Feb, 11 2015 @ 01:53 PM
a reply to: Grimpachi

Well.. there's always people afraid of new science. I never doubted anti vaccination groups existed. I know they do.

What I am getting at, and what my presumption is (and I can only wait and see) is why these small breakouts that can be clearly traced to outside sources and are mostly spreading among immigrants, religious groups, and older people whose vaccinations are no longer effective are being blamed on people who choose not to get vaccinated out of fear of the vaccine itself or out of choice of a natural lifestyle or whatever.

I think it's strange that we have had these breakouts forever (a much bigger one last fall that didn't much news), but now we are being bombarded with these stories right at the start of an election cycle. Also curious to me, is the fact that it is being, seemingly, turned into a political platform by the media. The only reason at all for that is because there has been a large population turning towards libertarian ideals and we are facing an election where the two main candidates are a Clinton and a Bush and the only person who is likely capable of making a realistic third option is a libertarian who has already been questioned over his position that (while supporting vaccinations) they (vaccinations) should be a choice.

Also worth noting is a whistleblower coming out against Merck's MMR vaccine. It's going to court and I suspect it will be a big issue with the trial/whatever landing squarely in the middle of the campaigns. I actually think it will come to nothing and thus people with notions against vaccines will have no new ammunition, but the issue will be rehashed and perfectly timed to bring out against the candidates with the two primary, establishment candidates supporting vaccines for everyone and the lone libertarian candidate being honest and saying "they are good, but it's a choice."

That's just my opinion and I am using my own thread to keep track of the vaccine stories.

posted on Feb, 11 2015 @ 01:58 PM
a reply to: ignorant_ape

As in my above post. I know they exist, and have existed, but the term "anti-vaxxer" as it is being used by the media is no different than "birther" or "truther" etc. It is to invoke images of a growing movement that threaten our way of life when that isn't the reality.
The reality is a few outspoken people making wild claims about what vaccines do, but mostly people who quietly choose against vaccines for whatever reason. Those people, the quiet ones are the majority, and they aren't "antivaxxers" marching in the streets espousing their opinion and calling people child abusers for giving vaccines.

My point is neither pro no anti vaccination. It's about media deception and political manipulation. The government loves a public it can convince to vote one way with just a few frightening words.

Basically if I can get people to take one thing away from this thread it's please don't vote based on this issue if it becomes a part of the politics of the 2016 election. We are in a second cold war and people are talking about small imported measles outbreaks, Gupta has already gone after Rand Paul on the issue, and I personally don't want to see people voting Jeb or Hillary in over a libertarian given the current world climate. I don't even want them to get a few votes over the vaccination issue.
edit on 11-2-2015 by GogoVicMorrow because: (no reason given)

posted on Feb, 19 2015 @ 05:41 PM
Called it.

Disneyland outbreak linked to Phillipines

Same as the outbreak last year.

posted on Feb, 19 2015 @ 05:56 PM
And what about the nasty Adjuvants Thimerisol and the SQUALENE I got hit with in that nasty experimental Anthrax stuff.
THAT is essentially the issue.
MAYBE the havenots are being hit with a different formula?

<< 2  3  4   >>

log in