RFK Jr. pledges to gut agencies that regulate vaccines and order the DOJ to investigate medical journals if he becomes president

submitted by stickdog from businessinsider.com

all 40 comments
sorted by:
new (suggested)
topinsightfulfun

[–]FThumbStay thirsty, my friends 6 insightful - 1 fun6 insightful - 0 fun7 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

This is good enough to earn my vote.

[–]bootylicious 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (31 children)

A significant nail in the coffin of his presidential campaign: the stupid assumption that a lack of regulation of the corporate abuses of vaccines is somehow addressed by removing all regulation of said companies. I hope he gets A LOT of attention for this, because it will put an end to him taking votes from electable Democrats.

[–]stickdog[S] 7 insightful - 1 fun7 insightful - 0 fun8 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Except he never said anything like that. He's actually a champion of government regulation. He just against the corporate regulatory capture that we currently have.

[–]FThumbStay thirsty, my friends 3 insightful - 2 fun3 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

"He's finished now, for sure!"

Lather, rinse, repeat.

[–]tomatopotato★ Free Assange ★ 6 insightful - 1 fun6 insightful - 0 fun7 insightful - 1 fun -  (28 children)

He didn't actually say that in the NBC news article being quoted. Those were the words of the NBC writer.

What he has been saying though, is that he will hold them to account. Is that not a good thing?

[–]bootylicious 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (27 children)

I 100% agree with most of what he says, though cannot agree regarding anti-vaccine theories.. So - absolutely - hold BigCorp and the government agencies to account.

[–]tomatopotato★ Free Assange ★ 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (5 children)

What specific theory or theories do you disagree with?

[–]bootylicious 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (4 children)

I note anti-vaccine theories

[–]FThumbStay thirsty, my friends 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

It's no longer a 'theory' that the mRNA vax is neither safe nor effective.

[–]bootylicious 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

It's never been anything more than a dumb theory. Look up the facts.

[–]FThumbStay thirsty, my friends 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

The facts are in, the more shots you take the higher your likelihood of catching covid. That's a fact.

[–]tomatopotato★ Free Assange ★ 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Yeah, I mean, what specifically has he said that you disagree with?

[–]FThumbStay thirsty, my friends 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (20 children)

though cannot agree regarding anti-vaccine theories..

This isn't a theory, it's data!

[–]bootylicious 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (19 children)

That's part of a disinformation campaign led by highly funded anti-vax websites. Search:

japan excess deaths booster shots

Long before November 2021, the last booster shots were taken in other countries. In general, boosters were not necessary in November 2021. Japan did not conduct sufficient COVID studies of the causes of deaths throughout the COVID period and thereafter. It's thus not known at all if causes of death were related to COVID or indeed to booster shots.

[–]FThumbStay thirsty, my friends 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

They didn't have to be. It's a graph of raw data, shots and total excess deaths.

That's part of a disinformation campaign led by highly funded anti-vax websites

You're falling for a major disinformation campaign funded by pharmaceutical interests.

[–]bootylicious 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

You're falling for a major disinformation campaign funded by pharmaceutical interests.

You linked to misinformation and I told you how it's misinformation. So your response of - 'No You' - is ridiculous.

[–]FThumbStay thirsty, my friends 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

So your response of - 'No You' - is ridiculous.

The shoe fit. You're spreading government sponsored misinformation.

[–]tomatopotato★ Free Assange ★ 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (15 children)

The data from the Japanese Ministry of Health is just as damning:

https://twitter.com/You3_JP/status/1615011156741214208

Purple = "Covid" deaths

Green = non-"Covid" deaths

[–]bootylicious 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (14 children)

That's an opinion, not a fact. It's also wrong. Japan has a massive aging population. In 2020, 28.6% of Japan's population was aged 65 years old and over.

[–]tomatopotato★ Free Assange ★ 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (13 children)

How is it an opinion? It's just numbers.

Aging population doesn't explain the sharp rise coinciding with the vaccination program, in contrast with no significant change in 2020, the year before the "vaccine".

[–]bootylicious 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (12 children)

It's an opinion, by someone who made a graph to display that opinion. (I'm surprised I have to explain this.)

That opinion is that the distribution of booster shots, as well as deaths were somehow in similar peaks and troughs, which is impossible. Booster shots and deaths are not periodic, they're in broader trends that are not punctuated. Booster shots have been offered over a long 2 year period in Japan, without interrruptions. Deaths are also not interrupted.

Look at reliable sources for those broad trajectories of development (not OPINION), such as these:

https://www.statista.com/statistics/1074732/japan-number-senility-diseases-deaths/

https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/country/japan/

https://www.statista.com/statistics/580199/death-rate-in-japan/

https://www.statista.com/statistics/622984/number-of-suicides-per-100-000-inhabitants-japan-age/

https://www.statista.com/statistics/1074868/japan-number-tuberculosis-deaths/

https://www.statista.com/statistics/1074712/japan-number-heart-diseases-deaths/

[–]tomatopotato★ Free Assange ★ 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (4 children)

Also, regarding shots in Japan, people here have not been getting them at a constant rate. Instead people are getting them in conjunction with timed government recommendations and campaigns, which explains the unevenness.

[–]tomatopotato★ Free Assange ★ 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (6 children)

Did you look at the correct link? The one I posted has no peaks and troughs. It's just a simple rolling tally using government data. You don't even need to read their opinion. You can just look at the numbers, which speak for themselves:

https://twitter.com/You3_JP/status/1615011156741214208

Purple = "Covid" deaths

Green = non-"Covid" deaths

And I'm not sure it's a good idea to take statista or worldometer at face value either, but okay. The link I shared is data pulled from a government source. Are you saying that is also not reliable? I mean, I would agree that many government sources are in fact unreliable and often suppress data that makes them look bad. But despite that sort of scale-tipping, the results are still terrible. I can't check the Statista links without an account unfortunately, but even the worldometer link shows remarkable increases in cases and deaths coinciding with the vaccine rollout.

[–]BerryBoy1969It's not red vs. blue - It's capital vs. you 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Since when did a president have any say in how our owners choose to use their government?

When you own all three branches of government, and your military leaders are politicians instead of patriots, the president of the Corporate States of America is just a face reading the script they're handed by the company's PR department.

They're never going to let Jr. anywhere near the White House, and if they do, it means he's been vetted, and found to be acceptable to the people who select the candidates voters are allowed to "elect" in their representative demockracy.

[–]Centaurea 8 insightful - 1 fun8 insightful - 0 fun9 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

The son of US Attorney General Robert Kennedy and nephew of President John F. Kennedy also said that if he became president, he would order the Justice Department to investigate the editors and publishers of medical journals for "lying to the public."

Needless to say, there would be obvious First Amendment concerns to such an investigation.

Got to laugh at the irony -- or is it hypocrisy? -- in this statement by the so-called "journalist" who wrote this bit of propaganda.

Over the past few years, we've been inundated with government and media fear-mongering about "misinformation" and "disinformation", and have seen numerous ongoing attempts by both the federal government and the corporate media to shut people up in order to keep them from "lying to the public".

Where was the author and her concern about the First Amendment then?

[–]FThumbStay thirsty, my friends 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Needless to say, there would be obvious First Amendment concerns to such an investigation.

The 1st Am would only apply if he pledged to shut them down, like they did to vax skeptics.

[–]MeganDelacroix🤡🌎 detainee 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

I think US v. Alvarez clearly demonstrated that Alito, Kagan, and Thomas wouldn't have a problem here. That's 3 already.

edit: let me revise my initial optimism. Sadly I think a hypothetical US v. JAMA goes down 5-4 on the wrong side. (We'd prolly only get Barrett.)

edit 2: Y'know, another case impinging on First Amendment interpretations and criminal conduct was recently decided 7-2. Skimming Jackson's dissent, looks like I was right to place her (and Sotomayor) against RFK Jr; she's avoiding constitutional avoidance (heh) in a thoroughly unconvincing manner to reach her position.

[–]stickdog[S] 5 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 0 fun6 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

Excerpt:

Robert F. Kennedy Jr., a noted anti-vaccine activist who is running for the Democratic presidential nomination, told NBC News that he would gut funding for federal health agencies that monitor and recommend schedules for childhood vaccines.

Kennedy told NBC News' Brandy Zadrozny that he believes agencies such as the Food and Drug Administration, the National Institutes of Health, and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the advisory panels that recommend policies are "sock puppets" for the pharmaceutical and other industries they are tasked with regulating.

The son of US Attorney General Robert Kennedy and nephew of President John F. Kennedy also said that if he became president, he would order the Justice Department to investigate the editors and publishers of medical journals for "lying to the public."

Needless to say, there would be obvious First Amendment concerns to such an investigation.

Kennedy also pledged to stock the agencies with people he views as "good guys" but declined to name any possible appointees.

...

[–]tomatopotato★ Free Assange ★ 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

We should note that Kennedy didn't actually say that he would "gut the agencies". The linked article claims:

Robert F. Kennedy Jr., a noted anti-vaccine activist who is running for the Democratic presidential nomination, told NBC News that he would gut >>>funding<<< for federal health agencies that monitor and recommend schedules for childhood vaccines.

Yet, there is no direct quote of RFK Jr. making such a statement. If we look at the NBC News article being referred to, we find the following:

President Kennedy would order childhood vaccines, which have already gone through clinical trials and constant safety studies, to undergo bigger, double-blind controlled trials. That sounds scientific, but those studies, health professionals say, would needlessly and unethically deny children vaccines, offering them a placebo instead, in a quest to find out what we already know: that vaccines are safe and prevent myriad illnesses.

President Kennedy would gut the agencies that currently regulate, monitor and recommend schedules for childhood vaccines — the Food and Drug Administration, the National Institutes of Health and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention — and the expert advisory panels of doctors, scientists and professors they rely on. The agencies have become “sock puppets” for the industries they regulate, he says, so he’ll impose more stringent conflict-of-interest qualifications and replace the bad guys with good ones. Kennedy won’t tell me who he’s got in mind (“not until they’re vetted”) but says he’s got many names.

There is no apparent quote or even description of the interaction between the writer and RFK Jr. to even suggest that. And notice how the word "funding" has disappeared. It appears to be purely... interpretation (to put it kindly) on the part of both writers. Although, perhaps they interpret excising corrupt individuals from their agency posts as "gutting". In that case, please gut away.

[–]stickdog[S] 6 insightful - 1 fun6 insightful - 0 fun7 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

President Kennedy would order childhood vaccines, which have already gone through clinical trials and constant safety studies, to undergo bigger, double-blind controlled trials. That sounds scientific, but those studies, health professionals say, would needlessly and unethically deny children vaccines, offering them a placebo instead, in a quest to find out what we already know: that vaccines are safe and prevent myriad illnesses.

Ah, the vaccine ontological argument:

"It would be totally unethical to test whether any specific vaccine is safe and effective since we all already know that all vaccines are inherently safe and effective!"

[–]FThumbStay thirsty, my friends 5 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 0 fun6 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

but those studies, health professionals say, would needlessly and unethically deny children vaccines, offering them a placebo instead, in a quest to find out what we already know: that vaccines are safe and prevent myriad illnesses.

"We don't need to test these, we already know they're safe and effective!!" ~ ThE ScIenCe!!

and the expert advisory panels of doctors, scientists and professors they rely on.

I also recall that these agencies would play Musical Chairs with these 'advisory' committee members until they got the approval they wanted.