It's time everybody stopped worrying about what the LIBz call us. Yes I'm AntiVax, and Anti going to the hospital where all the sick people and disease are. Anti going to the doctor unless absolutely necessary because they might try to get me to do something stupid. Like get a rabies shot after I broke up a dog fight last year. There is less than 1 in a 10 billion chances either of my dogs had rabies (I know why the fight started), and rabies shots can have side effects, just like any other shot, or any other surgery or procedures. I'm in perfect health, not changing a thing. I'm anti doing stupid things (Anti DST). Call me whatever you want, I don't have myocarditis and I can run really fast. My immune system works perfect.
I had no idea the number of vaccines that were given to kids until CV. 10 years ago, I likely would have said why wouldn't you get your kids vaccinated but I was operating under the assumption that the schedule was the same that I had received. (I don't have kids, so I wasn't exposed to this.)
I am at the point now where I would like to take the amount of mercury in those ~70 shots, put it in a shot glass and offer it up as a drink to those trying to paint an anti-vax picture as a neans to shut people up. Go on, drink up - it is the same amount being given to the kids and we are told is considered safe. You are what, 10x their size, what are you waiting for?
There’s an idiotic Twitter account that claims to monitor antivaxxers. It said antivaxxers always say they want safe vaccines.
To want safe vaccines is to suggest some are unsafe— and that position isn’t acceptable—only getting everyone to take them matters, even if the vaccines are unsafe.
It’s really not the individual’s stance that should be in question here, so much as the framing. The entire paradigm that uses labels like ‘anti-vax’ ought to be deconstructed.
At its essence, it is no different than any of the other thought-terminating labels that bifurcate discussion into dipoles or ‘teams’. The label’s very nature attempts to eradicate complexity, nuance, and critical thought. It’s manipulative and has a clear agenda—it ought to be eschewed and ripped apart to make plain how ridiculous and coercive it is. It’s a false paradigm.
Nearly every person who questions the vaccine edifice at all will go through a path which follows their exposure to the deceptions and propaganda that riddle the available information on the subject. Hardly anyone starts out in one position and stays fixed; a critical thinker will investigate, consider, and evaluate new information, and their position will move with new realizations.
People often feel that they have to respond to these thought-terminating clichés in order to validate themselves, but that is the very nature of the linguistic snare. Responding within the framing is no different than putting your foot into the jaws of a bear trap and expecting it not to snap shut on your leg. Question the framing, and use that as the lever to introduce real consideration into the debate.
"I think vaccines should be subject to the same level of rigorous testing as other medications." — That's pretty funny, considering the weakness of the FDA. In fact, vaccines should be tested more rigorously, as they are given to huge numbers of healthy people.
In this day and age, it's not hard to be labeled as "anti-vax". All you need to do is question the safety or efficacy of any vaccine, and voila, you're now a bona fide anti-vaxxer in the mind of many.
He got interested in vaccines after the incredible rise of autism. Rise in autism was dramatic and correlated directly with change in regulation in 1989.
I would very much enjoy seeing someone familiar with pharmacokinetics go deep on the ethyl vs methyl Hg issue. Particularly, the subject of its clearance half-life and blood/brain ratio. Although it seems a small part of a larger issue, I believe it to be at the crux of the issues around our regulation of vaccine safety and the journal/peer-review system that, in theory, provides the scientific basis for policy. I'm a Physics guy with just some college course work in inorg/org chem, so it's not my field, but I can read the papers and understand them enough to see this is not remotely a "settled issue," as much as everyone likes to say it is. I don't have any preconceived result (e.g. thiomersal causes autism, which may be quite untrue) but it is clear the topic is complex, not well understood, and that those complexities have been swept away as if we know exacty what's going on. The hand-waiving dismissal of these issues, and mischaracterization of RFKs position on them, even if thiomersal is indeed not causal of any significant neurological morbidity, reveals, IMO, an obvious attempt to shut down *any* study that might discover any safety signal, at all.
Where did he get the $5.4 billion Pharma investment in the media? I’d like to track that down, and to promote it. It’s the single worst development for our country the last decade. It is the cause of much of the bullshit we now endure from corporatist media. We need to fight back.
It's time everybody stopped worrying about what the LIBz call us. Yes I'm AntiVax, and Anti going to the hospital where all the sick people and disease are. Anti going to the doctor unless absolutely necessary because they might try to get me to do something stupid. Like get a rabies shot after I broke up a dog fight last year. There is less than 1 in a 10 billion chances either of my dogs had rabies (I know why the fight started), and rabies shots can have side effects, just like any other shot, or any other surgery or procedures. I'm in perfect health, not changing a thing. I'm anti doing stupid things (Anti DST). Call me whatever you want, I don't have myocarditis and I can run really fast. My immune system works perfect.
Now, as for Jamie Foxx?
https://moneymike.substack.com/p/the-matrix-wants-jamie-foxx-in-a
I had no idea the number of vaccines that were given to kids until CV. 10 years ago, I likely would have said why wouldn't you get your kids vaccinated but I was operating under the assumption that the schedule was the same that I had received. (I don't have kids, so I wasn't exposed to this.)
I am at the point now where I would like to take the amount of mercury in those ~70 shots, put it in a shot glass and offer it up as a drink to those trying to paint an anti-vax picture as a neans to shut people up. Go on, drink up - it is the same amount being given to the kids and we are told is considered safe. You are what, 10x their size, what are you waiting for?
There’s an idiotic Twitter account that claims to monitor antivaxxers. It said antivaxxers always say they want safe vaccines.
To want safe vaccines is to suggest some are unsafe— and that position isn’t acceptable—only getting everyone to take them matters, even if the vaccines are unsafe.
It’s a religion.
Im anti vax, just as with anti war, it means you have a brain and use it for at least some independent though once in a while.
It’s really not the individual’s stance that should be in question here, so much as the framing. The entire paradigm that uses labels like ‘anti-vax’ ought to be deconstructed.
At its essence, it is no different than any of the other thought-terminating labels that bifurcate discussion into dipoles or ‘teams’. The label’s very nature attempts to eradicate complexity, nuance, and critical thought. It’s manipulative and has a clear agenda—it ought to be eschewed and ripped apart to make plain how ridiculous and coercive it is. It’s a false paradigm.
Nearly every person who questions the vaccine edifice at all will go through a path which follows their exposure to the deceptions and propaganda that riddle the available information on the subject. Hardly anyone starts out in one position and stays fixed; a critical thinker will investigate, consider, and evaluate new information, and their position will move with new realizations.
People often feel that they have to respond to these thought-terminating clichés in order to validate themselves, but that is the very nature of the linguistic snare. Responding within the framing is no different than putting your foot into the jaws of a bear trap and expecting it not to snap shut on your leg. Question the framing, and use that as the lever to introduce real consideration into the debate.
"I think vaccines should be subject to the same level of rigorous testing as other medications." — That's pretty funny, considering the weakness of the FDA. In fact, vaccines should be tested more rigorously, as they are given to huge numbers of healthy people.
We can only hope he (secretly already) is or quickly becomes fully anti-vax.
Thanks for publishing this. Almost no one is reporting his position on vaccines in his own words.
In this day and age, it's not hard to be labeled as "anti-vax". All you need to do is question the safety or efficacy of any vaccine, and voila, you're now a bona fide anti-vaxxer in the mind of many.
He’s an intriguing candidate and makes compelling points. On this day, he’s got my vote.
He got interested in vaccines after the incredible rise of autism. Rise in autism was dramatic and correlated directly with change in regulation in 1989.
I would very much enjoy seeing someone familiar with pharmacokinetics go deep on the ethyl vs methyl Hg issue. Particularly, the subject of its clearance half-life and blood/brain ratio. Although it seems a small part of a larger issue, I believe it to be at the crux of the issues around our regulation of vaccine safety and the journal/peer-review system that, in theory, provides the scientific basis for policy. I'm a Physics guy with just some college course work in inorg/org chem, so it's not my field, but I can read the papers and understand them enough to see this is not remotely a "settled issue," as much as everyone likes to say it is. I don't have any preconceived result (e.g. thiomersal causes autism, which may be quite untrue) but it is clear the topic is complex, not well understood, and that those complexities have been swept away as if we know exacty what's going on. The hand-waiving dismissal of these issues, and mischaracterization of RFKs position on them, even if thiomersal is indeed not causal of any significant neurological morbidity, reveals, IMO, an obvious attempt to shut down *any* study that might discover any safety signal, at all.
Where did he get the $5.4 billion Pharma investment in the media? I’d like to track that down, and to promote it. It’s the single worst development for our country the last decade. It is the cause of much of the bullshit we now endure from corporatist media. We need to fight back.
.
They're In Trouble Now.
There Is Nothing In The Air.
- Not With Gain Of Function.
That's The Hoax.
- And You Figured It Out.
.
Here is the referenced Pediatrics article for free: https://sci-hub.hkvisa.net/10.1542/peds.106.6.1307
Are there any vaccines that RFKj recommends?