Right now, many States require kids to be vaxed before starting school. If somehow the GOP and the Supreme Court invalidates that requirement, then in maybe 10 years we will be back to the 1930s.
I can see this happening if Kennedy is allowed into this position.
> I can see this happening if Kennedy is allowed into this position.
Kennedy has already caused damage:
> Appearing in Shot in the Arm, a 2023 documentary about vaccine opposition, Robert F. Kennedy Jr. was asked about the deadly measles outbreak that occurred in Samoa in 2019 and claimed the lives of 83 people, mostly children. Kennedy, a leading anti-vaxxer who had visited the Pacific island nation a few months before the outbreak, replied, “I’m aware there was a measles outbreak…I had nothing to do with people not vaccinating in Samoa. I never told anybody not to vaccinate. I didn’t go there with any reason to do with that.”
> Kennedy was being disingenuous, sidestepping his connection to that tragedy. Children’s Health Defense, the nonprofit anti-vax outfit he led until becoming a presidential candidate, had helped spread misinformation that contributed to the decline in measles vaccination that preceded the lethal eruption. And during his trip to Samoa, Kennedy had publicly supported leading vaccination opponents there, lending credibility to anti-vaxxers who were succeeding in increasing vaccine hesitation among Samoans. Moreover, in early 2021, Kennedy, in a little-noticed blog post, hailed one of those vaccination foes as a “hero.”
And if it happens I'll bet it right now, it'll somehow be blamed on "the left" and the response will be to get more of these conspiracy nutjobs in positions of power
I'm sympathetic but I wouldn't trust that his personal views on the matter will prevail over the party's inertia to simply deregulate everything. I think his reasonable takes are the left hand grabbing your attention while the right hand does the work.
It is already, in effective terms, completely deregulated.
Big food are making large profits poisoning the population, and then along comes big pharma taking a second helping "cleaning up" the mess. Tinkering around the edges is not going to fix this.
Why is there a need to present a fake "balanced" perspective on every such topic or person. At least on a forum like this it should be ok to call out pseudoscience and straight up quackery.
Also just because some information is gleaned from corporate media, doesn't make it wrong. Facts and analysis can stand on their own.
RFK agrees with you. His book is so dense with references it makes for heavy (and often shocking) reading.
But you wont know that if you get your information from corporate media.
Density of references isn't a metric of quality, particularly when, as a peer comment listed, so many are references to people "Just asking" about well established medical links (eg. the HIV|AIDS debate).
Stephen C. Meyer's books on Intelligent Design are also dense with references.
> But you wont know that if you get your information from corporate media.
We should avoid books that are
#1 on AMAZON, TWENTY WEEKS on the NEW YORK TIMES BESTSELLER LIST, and a WALL STREET JOURNAL, USA TODAY and PUBLISHERS WEEKLY NATIONAL BESTSELLER
Is this the book where he denies the HIV-AIDS link?
> In his book The Real Anthony Fauci: Bill Gates, Big Pharma, and the War on Democracy and Public Health, Kennedy writes that he takes "no position on the relationship between HIV and AIDS,"[292]: 347 but spends over 100 pages quoting HIV denialists such as Peter Duesberg who question the isolation of HIV and the etiology of AIDS.[311] Kennedy refers to the "orthodoxy that HIV alone causes AIDS"[292]: 348 and the "theology that HIV is the sole cause of AIDS,"[292]: 351 and repeats the false HIV/AIDS denialist claim that no one has isolated the HIV particle and "No one has been able to point to a study that demonstrates their hypothesis using accepted scientific proofs.": 348 He also repeats the false claim that the early AIDS drug AZT is "absolutely fatal"[292]: 332 due to its "horrendous toxicity."[292]: 298 Molecular biologist Dan Wilson points out that Kennedy falsely claims that Luc Montagnier, the discoverer of HIV, was a "convert" to Duesberg's fringe hypothesis. Wilson concludes that Kennedy is a "full blown" HIV/AIDS denialist.[311][292] Epidemiologist Tara C. Smith suggests that Kennedy's book "even flirts with outright germ theory denial," quoting a portion where Kennedy contrasts germ theory with terrain theory.[312]
What I see from this is a person that has seen so much malfeasance and corruption right across the health sector that he maintains an open mind on issues and reflexively questions the status quo. But of course, any mention of something outside the bounds of conventional thought is immediately "RFK is an xxxx-denier!!!"
People are so desperate to attack the credibility of RFK, to defend the status quo but have nothing to say about the govt institutions that in recent decades, have overseen an utterly, catastrophic failure in their duties.
> People are so desperate to attack the credibility of RFK, to defend the status quo but have nothing to say about the govt institutions that in recent decades, have overseen an utterly, catastrophic failure in their duties.
Perhaps he should then focus on the pertinent issues of improving institutions and forget about things that are the medical equivalent of Flat Earth theory.
Appointing a Flat Earther to NASA, or a Young Earther to the US Geological Survey, would be roughly equivalent to what is happening with RFK.
> The CDC estimates that six in ten adults in the United States currently live with a chronic disease such as cancer, heart disease, or diabetes.
For the latter two: perhaps they should eat less garbage (food is relatively cheap in the US (which can be a good thing), but it makes it easier to overdue it) and exercise more (which is harder to do when you have to drive everywhere).
For the first: maybe the US should get a health (insurance) system that isn't so crazy, so less-preventable diseases (like cancer) aren't so traumatic, cost-wise. Of course the GOP has tried to get rid of the largest improvement (the ACA/Obamacare) in decades.
I dunno....I am happy to give him a go. If 60% of NASA rockets were blowing up on launch for decades, arguing for continuing the status quo is not rational. People are tired of "respectable mediocrity" where leaders make all the right speeches, express all the right concerns but nothing changes, nothing improves, ever.
We need an outsider to come in and shake things up. Even if RFK crashes and burns he will still at least have reset the agenda on health in a way not seen for a very long time. And its impossible for anyone (even a trained chimpanzee) to do worse than the current leadership in this area.
In-depth interviews by who? And who is being interviewed?
You seem to be skating around the important details. RFK Jr. has a lot to say, but with little to no evidence to back up his opinions. Just because it's different doesn't mean it's better.
There is a sibling comment that matches what GP replied to. The longer threads get, the longer it takes until you can reply. I guess GP replied to their own comment instead.
Listen to an interview where Kennedy can speak for himself and then decide for yourself. You can find these on YouTube and Spotify among others.
Instead what most people are doing by accident is reading negative opinions about Kennedy on platforms that refuse to interview him- getting their news via censorship.
This is a self correcting problem. These diseases will strike down weak people and antivaxxers. So more diseases means less demagoguery against 300 years of scientific discoveries.
RFK is quite misunderstood. He is not going to start banning vaccines unless they really do more harm. He may however focus on their toxic ingredients which get a free pass. People get a kick out of spreading FUD.
