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

a reply to: GogoVicMorrow

Read my post. I've been to Disney World. There are plenty of foreign visitors there. Not nearly as many poor Americans.

a reply to: ketsuko

None of the hows and whys and whos of it matter its a non issue of no change. A hundred or few hundred cases every year, when it spikes its generally discovered it was imported from out of country. Chicken before the egg before the chicken - want to stop the amall outbreak clusters I guess you require measles vax for anyone entering. Even thats overboard and ailly for how small numbers we are talking.

Its a non issue is the message. Its put out to attack the freedom candidate and keep people voting between two parties. First they gotta try to make Rand look bad to GOP. They will raise the vax issue and church ladies will faint and they will say Jeb doesn't have that. If that works Rand may continue then its both Jeb and Hillary hammering him with this non issue., never having to answer a real question til they day they become the newest member of their family is President.

And Ketsuko, I think mostly we are on the same track, I am just trying to stick to the core idea and not wander off too much.

a reply to: ketsuko

Talking about Disneyland and truat me millions of lower middle class and poor visit every year ap the majority, but thats not the point millions of foriegners do toand thats where the measles outbreaks come from.

This is becoming an offtopic strand. Its not about Disneyland or anything like that. The cases juat pop up in melting pot areas red and blue. Its about the use of a false "antivax" label and movement to destroy opposition to Jeb abd Hillarys bids.

Can we please get back on topic. Not to be rude, I just made the op pretty clear and we are naturally going to have these tangents but they shouldnt overtake the class Iif you get me.

If we can be forced to vaccinate there's no telling what could happen. I've been vaccinated, as have my children, but I would like an option to opt out if necessary.

I'm not saying this will end up being forced on us, however, making vaccinations mandatory sets the stage for a future scenerio that maybe you or l don't agree with, but in an emergency situation such as the Ebola outbreak, it is possible that we could be forced into vaccinating even if we don't want it.

Yes l would suggest vaccinating for the measles, but making vaccinations mandatory opens a door we may not be able to pass through again.

Anyways, l thought this was interesting read considering all the hype surrounding this issue.

Source

The institute is currently working on two vaccines and is hoping to get them to the stage of human trials by the end of 2015, BBC reported. One of the vaccines is reportedly a modification of a measles vaccine. If proved successful, the vaccine could potentially protect against both measles and Ebola.

a reply to: GogoVicMorrow

"Anti-vaxxer"

Is a fabricated PR construct designed to form the narrative into a binary framework. Few things in life are binary. Science is certainly not. Each vaccine has it's own history and cost/benefit ratio.

Whenever you see someone using the term in a provocative way, you've either go a paid shill or an indoctrinated automaton.
In all seriousness.

a reply to: Daedal

Yep. It is a step backwards and sets a precedence with the potential for terrifying results.

originally posted by: InverseLookingGlass
a reply to: GogoVicMorrow

"Anti-vaxxer"

Is a fabricated PR construct designed to form the narrative into a binary framework. Few things in life are binary. Science is certainly not. Each vaccine has it's own history and cost/benefit ratio.

Whenever you see someone using the term in a provocative way, you've either go a paid shill or an indoctrinated automaton.
In all seriousness.

That's pretty much what this entire thread is about. If you read I discuss grinding entire issues down from discussions to one or two words, usually labels, like "antivaxxer" or "truther" or whatever. They want you associating candidates and people with hateful labels not mindful discussions.

The whole thread is about the "antivaxxer" movement being a false movement as a tool to turn voters against certain candidates more easily.

Also, just for fun. Has anyone hears of the alleged merck whistleblower who blew the whistle on vaccines. Very convenient timing. Whistleblowers are good, but it could be to firw up the small number of real antivax people to help create the appearance of this movement.

Conspiracy theory, but interesting.

Some people are missing the point. Whether or not this issue is a valid concern is beside the point. Even if it is a valid concern, it always has been. It's a lot like the "But roads and bridges and police and firefighters!" cry that comes out of the big government people any time you make a peep about big government getting too big and intrusive.

It's all or nothing with these people because little things like vaccinations are not really what they're worried about. They're worried about having any kinds of limits placed on government power and expansion. Kind of an "give them an inch and they take ten miles" kind of thing.

This kind of thing usually comes up when they want a few more miles. And they'll get what they want or they'll keep on with these shenanigans. Setting up these little scenarios to get their foot in the door.

a reply to: BrianFlanders

I honestly believe if it's anything, and I think there is something afoot, it's an attempt to have the public label and dismiss any candidate that has a chance against Bush and Clinton.

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...

I heard fox news saying something like that.

They claim the ones against vaccinations are the fringe of the left wing.

You know we have an issue if fox news is pro vaccine along with the white house.

We proved that when it comes to a fast spreading life threatening virus that the cdc actually has steps that can be taken to stop the spread without vaccines. We would all be dead from ebola if that were not true.

a reply to: deadeyedick

The latest outbreak is in a red state though. In reality the outbreaks are generally in cities or attractions that are melting pots and the cases are imported from other countries.

a reply to: GogoVicMorrow

I know.
They were trying to mix not wanting a vaccine into being a hippie or holding views that are in line with pot smokers.

It was a dumb cheap shot and they alienaited much of their audience because much of the republicans are not wanting forced shots and many in the bible belt fear doctors much.

That is what raised many flags for me cuase i know this really is not a party line issue but being used as such.

Do you think the ebola success is proof enough that we can handle the spread of fatal virsus without forced vaccines? From my pov it is the perfect example of how tracing and monitoring contacs is the answer along with our new aged managed care methods and just limit forced vaccines to incomers to the country.

a reply to: deadeyedick

Ebola wasnt even a success. It wouldnt have spread here beyond a handful of cases anyway. Ebola is highly infectious but not very contagious (they sound like the same thing, but arent).

We couldve done nothing and it wouldnt have spread. Measles and norovirus and stuff like that however are both highly infectious and highly contagious. They dloat in rooms dor hours and juat walking through can infect you. Ebola you had to come into contact with infectes blood, saliva, vomit, feces, etc. Direct contact.

a reply to: GogoVicMorrow

I do not agree with that and the numbers in other countries shows how it can spread and is much more lethel than most things we discuss here.

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.

Just an observation - I'd never in my life seen the term "anti-vaxxer" & now suddenly in the last week I've seen in 100 times from 50 different sources.

Why do you think that is?

a reply to: deadeyedick

You may disagree, but I assure you, in this instance, you are wrong.

It is spreading in three countries, but it's an unusual case. It has had breakouts for decades, but never been on that west coast so it's a little fishy, but without going in to that let me explain.

It is not likely to infect other countries because it is not highly contagious (it's not that easy to come in contact with), and the natural reservoirs for it (the reason it pops up in the first place) only exist in Africa.
Also it kills quickly and is very noticeable. So basically cases in countries with decent medical standards can easily contain an infected person. You can stand next to one and not get sick unless the vomit or spit on you, etc,. If someone goes unnoticed they don't generally infect many people because it kills so quickly they die before they can infect many others. The people they usually infect are family or caretakers.

If you come into contact with it, it is highly infectious, but because it's not incredibly contagious you are not likely to come into contact with it.
Also Africa is the only country where it exists in animal reservoirs that can infect people.

You have nothing to worry about concerning Ebola, unless you are going to Africa. It usually pops up in the Congo and other parts of Africa. This newest outbreak is weird because it's the largest in history and happened in a place that had never had Ebola before. That is why some conspiracy minded people have suggested it came from the US lab set up there (in the last few years) specifically to study Ebola and similar diseases, but that's getting a little far out there for me.

originally posted by: coldkidc
Just an observation - I'd never in my life seen the term "anti-vaxxer" & now suddenly in the last week I've seen in 100 times from 50 different sources.

Why do you think that is?

I think that is because, exactly as I said in my OP, they are creating a new group and label that will be universally hated to align with political contenders to assure they don't have a chance in this election against Bush and Clinton, because let's be honest, it's a Bush and a Clinton; people are going to be wanting and looking for another option. They are creating a false movement that's basically a trojan political platform. They get people to focus on it and vote only on it so they don't realize where the candidate they voted in really stands on all the real and important political issues.

Also.. that is a great video. Whoever created it used a screen grab of insane news cleavage that I don't think is actually in the video haha.

a reply to: coldkidc

You can trust if my theory is correct, and at this point it is really just a theory, we will see those types of repeated news stories in mass regarding the newly minted "antivaxxers." They will lead people to believe they are the cause of outbreaks (never relating the facts of the outbreaks - usually caused by someone infected out of the country and then entering), and then they will start to attempt assign that label to candidates that are running against the two main candidates.

At least I think this is the angle that will be used to help Jeb and Hillary. They will need people to really hate the third main candidate because people aren't going to want another Clinton or Bush.


Time will tell.