Anti-vaccine movies disappear from Amazon after CNN Business report.

originally posted by: gladtobehere
a reply to: Phage

Phage, seriously, how is it that you appear almost instantly the moment someone posts an anti-vaccine related thread?

Whether someone is pro or anti vaccine, there shouldnt be a prohibition on opinions, articles, alternative perspectives etc.

How would we create new Phages without vaccines ?

Any good parent would look out for the species.

originally posted by: purplemer
a reply to: paraphi

They are not. They are making a commercial decision. They won't stock and sell this particular pseudo-science film, just like they don't stock porn. So in this regard, they do have the right not to engage in activities they deem outside of what they want to do.

You are endorsing non democratic censorship. Well done. Would you like it your mobile company vetted your phone calls and erased comments it deemed unfit.

The corporate dictatorship is controlling your free speech and your happy with that through the revolving door of government.

They got you just where they want you.

The nazies burned books. Now we just blacklist websites and ideas. An idea you are evidently at comfort with.

At the pace this Nazi fascism nutter censorship is going I think we got till summer's end to decide when WW3 begins.

No longer than that or nothing but a horrible existence is a comin.

a reply to: gladtobehere

They're choosing not to sell books. Not the same as book burning. Sensationalize much? Librarys also dont stock porn, and it's probably more beneficial to society than anti-vax garbage.

originally posted by: Jubei42
a reply to: purplemer

I didn't make any mistake, you did. By confusing what commercial companies offer to sell with free speech.
There's nothing to support, it's just business and idiots as usual

Business is just business. Gassing people in gas chambers was just business. Do you consider that ok. Use your noggin please!

My point is clear. I made no mistake.
You are endorsing the censorship of free citizens by private companies. The corporate dictatorship is rife and going from strength to strength.

Good riddance to the pro-plaguers. I don't see why my Amazon subscription should subsidise their lethal stupidity.

originally posted by: purplemer
a reply to: paraphi

They are not. They are making a commercial decision. They won't stock and sell this particular pseudo-science film, just like they don't stock porn. So in this regard, they do have the right not to engage in activities they deem outside of what they want to do.

You are endorsing non democratic censorship. Well done. Would you like it your mobile company vetted your phone calls and erased comments it deemed unfit.

The corporate dictatorship is controlling your free speech and your happy with that through the revolving door of government.

They got you just where they want you.

The nazies burned books. Now we just blacklist websites and ideas. An idea you are evidently at comfort with.

You are endorsing interfering with the way a publicly traded corporation operates and falling foul of Godwin's Law. Assuming you genuinely do not understand the difference between censorship and commercial decisions. between democracy and business, that's still an irony the size of an iceberg.

originally posted by: purplemer

originally posted by: Jubei42
a reply to: purplemer

I didn't make any mistake, you did. By confusing what commercial companies offer to sell with free speech.
There's nothing to support, it's just business and idiots as usual

Business is just business. Gassing people in gas chambers was just business. Do you consider that ok. Use your noggin please!

My point is clear. I made no mistake.
You are endorsing the censorship of free citizens by private companies. The corporate dictatorship is rife and going from strength to strength.

The alternative is what? Government control of Amazon? Courts telling business what they can and cannot sell?

a reply to: ignorant_ape

Officially not censoring, but let's be real.

a reply to: paraphi

I haven't been to ATS in quite awhile, but it still blows my mind that people on ATS, people I would imagine would have the wherewithal to scrutinize things a little more closely, do not seem to be aware that people like myself who don't vaccinate, don't STRICTLY based on the science.

Current measles outbreaks: overall, over 65% of cases are in fully vaccinated people, depending on which outbreak (yes, of course there are some that are mostly unvaccinated. But the sheer amount of fully vaccinated people getting the measles is far more than the "once in awhile" we're told the vaccine doesn't work. So, since getting measles when you're an adult actually IS more serious sometimes, you could be an adult, and you will STILL have to get vaccinated at LEAST every 7 years, and even then, most people's immunity wanes before that. Even people with full titors STILL get the measles. Me? I had them when I was six months old and am now immune for life, no risk of getting vaccinated over and over again for it, no risk of getting them in adulthood.

People may want to get vaccinated, and that's fine. But my reasons for not wanting to are not foolish. What I described above is a reasonable, valid reason for not wanting to. If I could do it over again, I'd rather risk getting the measles and recovering, than getting vaccinated over and over and over again, and STILL be able to get them as an adult when it's more dangerous to. Screw that!

a reply to: wdkirk

Right, well check out the NYC breakout in 2011, traced to a recently vaccinated 22 year old female. It ain't black and white by a mile. Those who think it is, are the ignorant ones.

a reply to: thebtheb

It's pretty black and white: vaccines prevent disease. Not vaccinating allows preventable diseases to flourish. Not vaccinating is selfish irresponsible and anti-social. Promoting the idea that vaccination is bad is moronic and ignorant.

a reply to: purplemer

what utter bollox

what is really happening - is that amazon has denied the anti vaxx cult thier access to the cash cow of the idiots who fall for such nonsense

thats why they are howling like babies

they can no longer profit from outher peoples gullability

its not cencorship - its cutting of thier scam profit

a reply to: thebtheb

officcially - NOT cencorship

actually not cencorship

reality check - money - the anti vaxx cult has had a revenue stream axed - and thats why they are pissed

no other reason

originally posted by: gladtobehere
Whether someone is pro or anti vaccine, there shouldnt be a prohibition on opinions, articles, alternative perspectives etc.

Yes, there should be. There should be a prohibition on ideas that cause danger or spread incorrect, flat out lies and increase the spread of diseases, which is what the morons of the anti-vaccine brigade spread without evidence. Only fear and stupidity.

Anti-vaccination, flat earth theory -- both of which are categorically untrue should not have a platform to bellow their lies because, sadly, there are still plenty of stupid, powerful people who will listen to that horsesh*t.

originally posted by: noonebutme
Yes, there should be. There should be a prohibition on ideas that cause danger or spread incorrect, flat out lies

You mean like the laws against 'blasphemy' the flat earthers passed back in the day that cost Galileo his freedom?

Yeah, you're in good company, aren't ya?

Here's the rub... if the truth is sound, the detractors won't have enough leverage to make much of a dent, if any.

If the pro-vaxx case was sound, there simply wouldn't be so many legitimate scientists and researchers arguing against it.

The fact is, there are no, zero, nada, randomized double-blind placebo controlled studies proving the safety, let alone efficacy, of vaccines. All you have is anecdotal evidence and statistical models based on historical data, and those can be shown to be flawed in most cases (ignoring inconvenient data that doesn't fit, etc).

originally posted by: tanstaafl

originally posted by: noonebutme
Yes, there should be. There should be a prohibition on ideas that cause danger or spread incorrect, flat out lies

You mean like the laws against 'blasphemy' the flat earthers passed back in the day that cost Galileo his freedom?

Yeah, you're in good company, aren't ya?

Here's the rub... if the truth is sound, the detractors won't have enough leverage to make much of a dent, if any.

If the pro-vaxx case was sound, there simply wouldn't be so many legitimate scientists and researchers arguing against it.

The fact is, there are no, zero, nada, randomized double-blind placebo controlled studies proving the safety, let alone efficacy, of vaccines. All you have is anecdotal evidence and statistical models based on historical data, and those can be shown to be flawed in most cases (ignoring inconvenient data that doesn't fit, etc).

Bull.

Vaccines don't come out for public use until they've had all the tests you claim don't happen. The fact that you're walking around is down to vaccines. Show us this long list of legitimate pro-disease scientists arguing that vaccination is a bad thing.

a reply to: tanstaafl

rinderpest - a classic vaccine suppressed infection - that cannot be waved away with " sanitation " " hand washing " or other specios claims for its elimination

whats your theory on the decline of rinderpest ???????????

Obviously as a parent I 100% support vaccines, but I also support freedom of speech so I feel like Amazon should be able to sell these products without backlash.

originally posted by: OneBigMonkeyToo
Vaccines don't come out for public use until they've had all the tests you claim don't happen.

So you shouldn't have any trouble pointing to just one. I'll wait - but I won't hold my breath, because there are none to point to.

The fact that you're walking around is down to vaccines.

Rotflmao! So, before vaccines, everybody died?

You must work in the medical industry? Maybe a pharma salesman?

Show us this long list of legitimate pro-disease scientists arguing that vaccination is a bad thing.

I'll be happy to - once you have provided a link to at least one real, actual study proving the safety/efficacy of just one vaccine.

originally posted by: ignorant_ape
whats your theory on the decline of rinderpest ???????????

Never heard of it, I'm not a cattle farmer.