FWIW, the WSJ isn’t on board …
he could also disrupt access to life-saving medicines and the innovation ecosystem that creates them.
I guess they can say whatever they want. They’re probably being paid a huge amount of money from Pharma and it keeps the paper going. Trump was for the right to try and he did warp speed, so I think he’s not against technology. We spend 5 trillion a year on medicine in this country? Why are we so sick? Maybe the additives in the food? Maybe the untested vaccines? I’m interested in seeing a view that is not paid for by pfizer.
If they hadn’t mandated the Covid vaccine this would never have come up. Nobody would have cheered RFK. He’s an environmental lawyer and did you see the republican crowd cheer when he came on board? Pharma has gone way too far, offering an untested (drug or vaccine) is not the same as forcing an untested (drug or vaccine). When it comes to interrupting their revenue stream, I’ll chance it.
4 Likes
Why are we so sick? Maybe the additives in the food? Maybe the untested vaccines? I’m interested in seeing a view that is not paid for by pfizer.
For a vaccine that was supposed to kill all of us, it sure is inefficient as US life expectancy is on the rise again. And the reason why people are unhealthy surely has nothing to do with high calorie consumption and lack of physical movement.
8 Likes
This article is nothing more than a hit piece by a media publication that knows exactly who its audience is. It’s one thing to call out RFK Jr. for his questionable claims about seed oils, but to suggest that people will no longer have access to vaccines and medications is political propaganda. Spreading fear so that Trump’s cabinet picks don’t get confirmed is the name of the game here.
3 Likes
So weird that an article about RFK would say that the brain worm anti vaxxer getting power might mean the US government would also get some anti vaxx leanings. Oh it’s propaganda.
In July 2023, speaking to podcast host Lex Fridman, Kennedy was asked if any vaccines were “good.” He replied, “I think some of the live virus vaccines are probably averting more problems than they’re causing,” but then said, “There’s no vaccine that is, you know, safe and effective.”
That RFK is such a propagandist, making sure people think he’s an anti-vax kook.
2 Likes
You have to believe that the NIH scientists will be able to convince RFK of some sane policies regarding vaccines once they have a chance to sit down an share good data with him… but who knows?
5 Likes
As far as I can tell, the only thing RFK is for is freedom of choice. He also wants a reasonable trial of vaccines. He has repeatedly stated to deaf ears that he is not an anti-vaxer.
I, for one, do not want the government threatening me to take a vaccine or else.
5 Likes
Good to see political attack posts are now an approved thing, since rapadmins team no longer in charge.
In the end, it doesn’t really matter who the politicians are since the institutions, corporations, non-profits, if they are successful attract people with a specific type of human capital that’s high in openness. These are the ones building things, making discoveries, and reporting the news. No matter the administration. They are the Praetorian Guard.
RFK is going to get some high dose SSRI’s right before he learns the truth about vaccines, seed oils and everything else, just like CIA operatives get before they learn we’re living in a sim. 
Anyone cheering for deranged RFK is not objective and have chosen to join a cult.
Good point, thank you.
To make an analogy – the government dictates which side of the road cars drive on. If anyone had “freedom of choice” to drive anywhere they want on the roads, there would be a lot of accidents & people getting killed or maimed.
People who could give others infectious diseases are also imperiling the public health – & so, it is reasonable to insist that they avoid giving others infections if possible. The public health concern is not so much the health of the person who doesn’t get the vaccine as that of all those who could be infected by them.
3 Likes
One cannot make an analogy of a hypothetical situation and then provide a definite answer for the outcome. “There would be a lot of accidents” is only one of potential outcomes, while another is “there will be way less accidents”, whereas another one could also be “there will be no accidents at all”. Well, we may never find out the outcome, but one thing is certain though: Never underestimate the ability of humans to adapt to changing situations, and never underestimate their ability to making the right choice, when given the opportunity and freedom to choose for themselves.
Things tend to go astray fast when “I know better (than you) what is best for YOU”. and “YOU know better (than I) what is best for I”. If we respected the free will of “I for I”, and “YOU for YOU” most likely than not we would be in a much better shape as a whole. Just thinking out loud.
1 Like
I can think of something else that should never be underestimated.