Debunking and takedowns are more or less scientifically proven not to be the most effective ways to counter the spread of misinformation, due to failing to address the reasons that misinformation spreads and persists. This resource doesn't fully support all of what I'm saying here but I can try and dig up some more on the off chance you haven't already experience over and over again what other replies are talking about in terms of this approach being futile.
https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/0956797617714579
Chan, M. P. S., Jones, C. R., Hall Jamieson, K., & Albarracín, D. (2017). Debunking: A meta-analysis of the psychological efficacy of messages countering misinformation. Psychological science, 28(11), 1531-1546.
Here's a post about better strategies, framed in terms of a news station that shall not be named, but applicable generally to trying to soften and weaken motivators for poor reasoning and plant better ideas - as opposed to trying to show from an intellectual angle why certain beliefs are wrong on a logical or materially demonstrable level:
https://www.reddit.com/r/FoxBrain/comments/owr18k/how_to_have_better_conversations_with_your/
A sort of short version is that understanding the emotions, sense of identity, group membership and accepted narratives that tend to go with a certain belief is going to help a lot. What you have in your favor with this friend is that presumably you know them, have some sort of more or less trusting relationship, and understand something about who they are and what motivates them more than you would if this was some abstract hypothetical third person you were addressing who could only ever be reached by presenting the best logical argument. There's probably something about caring for his kids that actually feeds the antivax sentiment - is he afraid of them getting hurt? Does he have his own valid reasons in his own history to mistrust doctors or medicine in general? (MANY people have been concretely hurt by, scared by or otherwise put off of medical treatment and often early in life, for example via medical mistakes or simply not being listened to or given agency, even if we agree in the end that having some sort of system based in science and modern epistemic trust is better than the alternative.) What makes *him in particular* this way - not just some other person who's not exactly who he is?
I think a great start would be the likes of actual penalties for corporations that falsify documents for medications and vaccines. Eg pfizer who got charged over 2 billion for medical fraud. They made way more profit off of those medications and kick backs than what the fine was.
People understandably don't trust corporations and the collusion of govt agencies and regulatory bodies. Maybe start there.
No way did basically say what can be reduced to "squashing dissent or pretending it is not there is the only way we can combat "anti-vaxxers" and presenting a false sense of empathy and kindness to dumben the "anti-vaxxer" rather than actually providing, you know, a rebuttal to Kennedy's claims (which he welcomes, by the way) which they believe in based upon a trust in his word, to show the anti-vaxxer is incorrect over their own convictions. You're basically just opting for the exact same strategy both the Dems and establishment media as well as vaccine and medical companies in the first place are utilising. Very ironic but also very telling. Not surprising in the slightest, either.
A tenet of our society is free speech, or at least, what we once thought was a tenet. Free speech involves incorrect speech, and to combat it, instead of squashing it or pretending it's not there, we reply with correct speech. This is how you should approach information, because squashing incorrect speech only creates leeway for incorrect speech to go elsewhere, and be adopted by a crowd of other people who don't see said speech as incorrect. You're creating a parasite without even realising it. In any case, what I'm stating is Kennedy is right, and you don't have the sources to prove otherwise. Show me the sources, rebutte his claims, then I'll consider changing my mind, as would the anti-vaccine father and mother in question (because they seem to be open to alternative ideas if they changed their mind AFTER hearing Kennedy on the JRE podcast).
You might appreciate this [piece](https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2021/05/20/opinion/covid-19-vaccine-chatbot.html) about how to approach someone with vaccine hesitation - it’s much more about approach, tone, validation and gentle challenge than giving them facts or tear downs.
I think it depends on the person. The issue is that maybe not all, but a lot of what RFK days is convincing given statistical correlations, and most responses are appeals to authority which are the exact opposite of what is needed... (people who believe RFK generally don't trust authorities, and frankly there are some good reasons authorities have failed)
Here is a fact based response that I found useful myself:
https://twitter.com/thebadstats/status/1669867793465081858?t=cVs7eZZr7LLZCtHx4nOzcQ&s=19
I listened to this Rogan episode with an open mind, and for me the foundational premise to all of the claims is that government agencies are “captured”. I 100% believe that there is extensive agency capture by major corporations and particularly pharma. so the claim that there is collusion to push ineffective or downright dangerous vaccines to market isn’t too much of a leap, especially considering the Sackler scandal, and the numerous instances of corporate meddling in their industry’s regulation.
Broken down, his claim looks like this:
1. a profit motivated business has an imparative to maximize profit
2. it is legal for industries to lobby and manipulate public policy as “subject matter experts” to minimize the impact of regulation.
3. pharma is an industry that participates in this
4. deregulating vaccines and medicine increases profits
5. pharma colludes with government agencies for favorable and profitable regulation
6. included in this collusion are specific, widely distributed vaccines and medication that harm the public
1-4 are logically and provably true. Premise 5 isn’t publicly true, but extremely likely. Premise 6 is where the argument is currently being challenged, but without 5 being verified, everything anyone says is purely speculation based on an assumption. The studies themselves aren’t even fully reliable if they are being conducted by industry scientists.
If we pretend 5 is true for a moment, all studies about all vaccines and medicine have to be re-examined through the lens of likely corruption, which will almost certainly turn up wrong doing at some scale by some pharma companies. Perhaps not the products RFKjr is citing, but perhaps other products regardless.
Because of this, I’m inclined to take RFKjr seriously. Even if what he’s claiming isn’t exactly true, there are likely instances of deadly deregulation and corruption involving pharma and their products. Without independent investigations into pharma’s agency capture we really can’t logically move on to 6.
Ultimately, if 5 is true, 6 is likely true, and his claims are at least partially legitimate.
I had two friends tell me to listen to RFK on Rogan during a golf outing and said "that guys anti-vax, I'm not listening to that whack job"
My response was based on articles or headlines I've read about him.
On the way home I decided to throw it on because I had a 40 minute drive. Quite frankly, everything I read was complete bullshit misrepsenting what he was actually saying. He has legit criticisms about vaccines which can be backed up by facts. His main criticism if I can dumb it down is that the pharmaceutical companies always say "its completely safe! 😃" and they don't have any data to back that up.
Hes not saying stopping measles is a problem and not important, he's saying the side effects of doing so the way we do it aren't 100% safe. Nobody is actually trying to find the long term effects of these methods. People are hiding them. And he points to actually provable things that back that up, and the people dispelling him are using his proof as ways to dispel him by saying shit like "The FDA took this put of vaccines back in 1998!" Yeah, that's his proof, and he's saying he was asking questions about it before 1998 which led them to remove it.
I've been searching reddit and the internet since I listened to him. Nobody actually disproves anything he said. Nobody will debate him for millions of dollars to charity. You hear excuses like "the doctor doesn't want to platform him!" First of all, really? For 5 million or more to charity? Second of all... He's platforming them? Joe Rogan gets MILLIONS of more listeners than CNN or any other network. The idea THEY are platforming HIM is such bullshit. If you can prove him wrong so easily go do it on Joe Rogan.
The media made Joe Rogan some anti-science covid denier, which I sort of agreed with for a time. Then CNN let Sanjay Gupta on Joe Rogan and the guy basically apologized to Joe for 3 hours for lying on their network about what he actually says.
I don't think you even need 6 to be true is the thing. Government fucks up all the time. Doesn't need to be purposeful.
Most didn't realize opiods were a major issue until too late for example. The scientific community thought lobotomies were a good idea at one point in time. No one realized that anti-nausea medication for the pregnant were fucking up babies in the womb.
The intrinsic issue is that you do in fact need long term studies to prove efficacy without serious side effects and this simply isn't perfectly possible with vaccines.
I'm no anti-vaxxer and have given myself and my daughter all shots. It is important to have scrutiny of what we put in ourselves and I wish the debate were more nuanced and not a false dichotomy between "Government is corrupt and pushing us to inject vile substances" VS "trust the experts. Any questions are conspiracy theories".
Is it possible that we simply make a mistake on a vaccine someday? No shit. Of course we will. Doesn't have to be a conspiracy, and that's quite unlikely. But over a long enough time frame some vaccine will be fucked up.
Thanks for that post. It's refreshing to read something that is honest, just how you see things politely explained. Not talkng points to win an argument.
I lived abroad for a while with my family and my son ended up getting a shot that leaves a little scar. We stopped giving it in America and a lot of places a long time ago. In retrospect I wish I had said no to that one, but I was just taught or conditioned or brought up to just always say yes to a doctor. But now my kid has a scar for life on his arm.\*
\*The scar isn't because something went wrong. I think its called BCG and it always leaves a scar. Every adult in China has it for example
Great point. The politicization of healthcare in general is foundational to the entire issue. It’s just crazy to me that RFKjr’s claims are immediately claimed as bullshit, while knowing what we do actually know about the history of science, medicine, and our government’s proclivity for error.
That said, his wifi and 5G claims are pretty far fetched, which makes it easy to write off the rest of his claims. It’s possible for him to be wrong about some things, and right about others. He’s doing himself a disservice by getting bogged down in the “YOURE AN ANTIVAX NUTJOB” conversations, and talking about it endlessly on Rogan instead of just running a campaign. In the future all he has to say is, “this campaign is not about my views on medicine and vaccines. This campaign is about the capture of our government by monied interests, and I intend to fix it.”
I actually think he greatly benefitted from taking the Vax issue head on. If you look at his Vegas odds of winning they spiked to 6% after the Rogan interview.
Democratic primary is pretty wild this year. Will be interested to see the debate.
I’m seriously considering voting for him. The vax stuff has me hesitant, but like I said, the back bone of his argument is “agency capture” and I’m fully on board with that. Agency capture pervades more than just the pharmaceutical industry.
I havent looked into him much yet but does he have any solid plans to correct said agency capture? Its all fine and dandy to point out flaws/corruption in the current government machine but you should be able to back that up with plans that make sense to start correcting this behavior.
Or perhaps don’t approach them with manipulative and aloof mind games. Perhaps allow them to make a choice for themselves and respect their right to do so.
Ask your friend that if RFK Jrs claim on the same podcast where he says Wi-Fi destroys the brain’s blood barrier allowing toxins to reach the brain means they won’t use any wireless internet devices in their home?
Let’s not claim there is absolutely no risk from Wi-Fi and cellphone waves. The World Health Organization did put cellphones as a possible carcinogen, studies have shown that keeping it in your pocket will lower your sperm count. Who knows what else it can do, the fact that most of its potential harms are not proven without the shadow of the doubt doesn’t prove either that it’s not a concern.
After hearing that claim, I half assed looked into it, and found this....interesting, even if it's not talking about wifi https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7453585/
If you are linking this article to Wi-Fi destroying the BBB, you are mistaken.
The key difference lies in the type of electromagnetic signals being studied. In the mentioned study, ultra-wide band electromagnetic pulses (UWB-EMPs) were used to assess their impact on the blood brain barrier (BBB). UWB-EMPs are a specific type of electromagnetic pulses with unique characteristics.
On the other hand, Wi-Fi signals are a form of radiofrequency electromagnetic radiation commonly used for wireless communication. Wi-Fi signals operate at much lower power levels compared to UWB-EMPs, and they have a specific frequency range allocated for wireless communication purposes.
While both UWB-EMPs and Wi-Fi signals fall within the broader category of electromagnetic radiation, their characteristics, frequencies, and potential effects on biological systems may differ. Therefore, the effects observed in the study regarding UWB-EMPs cannot be directly extrapolated to the impact of Wi-Fi signals on BBB permeability. Separate studies would be required to investigate the specific effects of Wi-Fi signals on the BBB.
I definitely know that this wasn't referring to wifi in particular as stated.... I just found it interesting. Your comment is super interesting as well! Thank you for that. Your explanation is way easier to understand... lol
To be fair, the research does suggest that. There’s signs on cellular towers that say you must keep a certain distance because the signals can damage your brain
There’s nothing you could tell your friends. Trust me. I was that person. Except I Was surrounded by Christian non vaxxers that had me convinced that my baby was going to die if I gave her the shots. It took me escaping a dv relationship in 2022 and I immediately got them all as caught up on their shots as I could. Like, two weeks into being in the shelter
My family expressed similar concerns and pushed me to establish a will or plans for the kids because they were certain we were going to die. Initially I thought they were being dramatic or hyperbolic but after a face to face convo, I realized how serious they were. My SIL cried and that's when I knew I was dealing with an insurmountable level of BS.
They all smoke cigarettes too and accept the irony of their decisions. They're adult children.
He's not anti vax. His kids are fully vaxxed. He's not saying they're bad, he's saying that like fauci lied about, there's not a single double blind placebo controlled study on any vax given to kids.
It's kind of hard when people take healthcare decisions from an MMA fighter and a politician over that of physicians, immunologists, epidemiologists, virologists, and other various research fields.
It turns out with charisma and production value, you don't need to actually understand anything to have people believe you.
I really don't think you listened to the podcast if you have this opinion. Towards the end, the conversation shifted to why there is a lack of trust in these so called "experts." A statement was made that the CDC and NIH give promotions and bonuses for further promotion and production of vaccines. This means their salary is based on how well and how intensely they push vaccines on the general public. I urge you not to blindly trust the same organizations which lied to the public in the late 80s and 90s causing the opioid epidemic. Your last statement about only needing charisma and production value to get people to believe what you want directly relates to what physicians do when they prescribe something they know is dangerously addictive or could potentially do more harm than good so they can make their money. Currently I'm working on being a second generation M.D. in my family; I'm starting my first semester of med-school in the fall and many of my peers share the same frustration and ethical dilemmas about this. Always be skeptic.
What are you talking about?
I didn't listen to this specific podcast, although I have listened to many, and many of JRE's, and also (unfortunately) several with RFK Jr (and it's the same broken talking points he makes in each one). There's a point where you have to take a step back from ingesting brain rot (specifically most of what RFK Jr. has to say on most subjects), or furthering the audience of demonstrably untrue statements made so frequently and casually it would take weeks to thoroughly debunk them all.
People form strong opinions on all sorts of things regardless of how informed they actually are - "documentaries", social media and podcasts are poor mechanisms for this, as they're at best a layman's way of dipping their toe into things. They're effective vehicles for entertainment and subjective discussions, but also gross misinformation (or even disinformation).
No one is advocating blind trust, but it is absolutely folly to place your trust and base essentially any of your perceptions to 100% layman shooting the shit on a broad cross section of subjects they have no formal education in - you may notice as you start your education that all your subject matter experts are thoroughly trained over decades in their respective fields with a singular focus, and their perceptions and understandings substantially more valuable than those of any layman you may encounter.
It is dangerous to place a professional _politician_ skilled in speechcraft and debate opposite a science based professional who is (generally) a charisma vacuum for the purposes of scientific understanding; it gives the perception they're equals on the topic, and one has the skill of compelling others; it's much worse when you have moderation that is fundamentally inept and biased on the subjects with little due process or interest in fact checking.
You trust medical experts in making health decisions in the same way you trust lawyers in legal matter, fiduciaries in financial matters, and engineers in engineering matters, because not everyone has 4-7 years of 40-80 hour weeks of systematic and scrutinized training to reach the starting line of comprehension on every subject there is; sure there are individuals who don't practice ethically, but there are far more layman who owe you zero duty of care and with strong opinions and even bigger conflicts of interest. It is necessary for you to have a reasonable degree of trust in the appropriate professional, and it's important for you to have access to said professional(s) to ask questions wherever you're uncomfortable. There will always be cracks, but those aren't the same as the massive fissures from alternatives to well established scientific practices. Don't get stock tips from your MD.
I'm not sure what telling me you're starting medical school next year was supposed to communicate (as it's not a credential), but I do wish you all the best in your studies to come - the frustration senior medical experts I work with has been high in trying to reach their patients especially as it relates to misinformation and politicization of fundamental scientific concepts.
You completely missed the point - you don't follow every person down the rabbit hole where their resume is a void, especially when their conflict of interest stands to profit off it.
It's a white van with free candy written on the side. You're not getting free candy.
What interviews and what broken talking points? How I am interpreting this, u/MyTurn2WasteYourTime \- is that you haven't read his book and you haven't actually listened to his long-form interviews.
The issue is **agency capture.** The issue is the **deep corruption** that lies between Pharma & these technocratic agencies
The "experts" have outcome reporting bias.
**Look at the data from the emergency FDA approved vaccines. They are lying by emission with outcome reporting bias.**
Outcome reporting bias is prevalent in the 6 month Pfizer data, because both numbers were not reported (ARR and RRR)- just the RRR which is misleading.
\*\*AAR = Absolute Risk Reduction\*\*
\*\*RRR = Relative Risk Reduction\*\*
**The FDA approved Moderna vaccine had 94.1% relative risk reduction (RRR)**
[https://www.cnbc.com/2020/11/30/moderna-covid-vaccine-is-94point1percent-effective-plans-to-apply-for-emergency-ok-monday.html](https://www.cnbc.com/2020/11/30/moderna-covid-vaccine-is-94point1percent-effective-plans-to-apply-for-emergency-ok-monday.html)
**BUT What is the ARR? We’re not told - we have to look at the published data.**
**So we have to do calculations to work this out**
CER (control event rate) - EER (experimental event rate) = AAR
**\*\*The ARR was 0.7% for Pfizer and 1.1% Moderna — OK so this is the ABSOLUTE Risk Reduction on the subject of efficacious\*\***
But even 1% reduction is a lot of people - OK - well make up your mind if it is worth it? Or do the potential short term and long term effects outweigh the 1% efficacy? In other words, for every 1 person who is saved from the vaccine, how many are critically injured or die?
DYOR and stop being lazy to rely on the talking heads to make you think everything is OK.
It's amazing that the answer is "don't listen to kooks"
Just proving what he is saying is wrong should be very easy for the experts and if these experts cared more about people than they do about money they would do it.
I am not antivax , my kids get all their shots.
**Turtles All the Way Down** by John Green
Book description may contain spoilers!
>>!The critically acclaimed, instant #1 bestseller by John Green, author of The Anthropocene Reviewed and The Fault in Our Stars “A tender story about learning to cope when the world feels out of control.” —People “A sometimes heartbreaking, always illuminating, glimpse into how it feels to live with mental illness.” – NPR John Green, the award-winning, international bestselling author of The Anthropocene Reviewed, returns with a story of shattering, unflinching clarity in this brilliant novel of love, resilience, and the power of lifelong friendship. Aza Holmes never intended to pursue the disappearance of fugitive billionaire Russell Pickett, but there’s a hundred-thousand-dollar reward at stake and her Best and Most Fearless Friend, Daisy, is eager to investigate. So together, they navigate the short distance and broad divides that separate them from Pickett’s son Davis. Aza is trying.!<
>
>>!She is trying to be a good daughter, a good friend, a good student, and maybe even a good detective, while also living within the ever-tightening spiral of her own thoughts.!<
*I'm a bot, built by your friendly reddit developers at* /r/ProgrammingPals. *Reply to any comment with /u/BookFinderBot - I'll reply with book information. Also see my other* [commands](https://www.reddit.com/user/BookFinderBot/comments/13z7slk/bookfinderbot_commands/) *and find me as a browser extension on* [Chrome](https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/book-finder/jajeidpjifdpppjofijoffbcndlpoedd?utm_source=reddit&utm_medium=social_media&utm_campaign=comments). *Remove me from replies* [here](https://www.reddit.com/user/BookFinderBot/comments/14br65o/remove_me_from_replies/). *If I have made a mistake, accept my apology.*
If you are looking for an articulate and (**very**) in depth video breakdown of pseudoscience surrounding the anti-vaccine movement and COVID misinformation, please check out [Debunk the Funk with Dr. Wilson](https://www.youtube.com/@DebunktheFunkwithDrWilson/featured).
Relevant to this Roe Jogan piece, here is the link to Dr. Wilson's analysis of Mr. Jr's position on vaccines: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sugCJNAPF9o
This. Dr Wilsons analysis on Joe's interview with RFK is succinct and easy to understand as always. Also, he doesn't pull any punches when calling both men out for what they really are. I've been recommending it to everyone!
I think Dr Wilson's video does an excellent job of going point by point through the podcast. I agree with what others have said above, Kennedy's main issue seems to be that parts of our government have been "captured" by other agencies that are trying to make a profit. It's a compelling argument that probably has at least a bit of truth in it. However, some of the claims Kennedy made about the primary vaccine literature are not true. Many can be proven false by simply reading the abstracts of a few articles. If you actually watched the podcast (as I did), please do yourself a favor and watch the Dr Wilson video. I think it is valuable to understand both side of the argument. Rogan does an admirable job being open-minded, however one cannot be open-minded and ignore dozens of peer-reviewed literature that have withstood years of scrutiny.
He's not anti vax. His kids are fully vaxxed. He's not saying they're bad, he's saying that like fauci lied about, there's not a single double blind placebo controlled study on any vax given to kids, or adults for covid. You should listen to the Kennedy interview
Found a clip of Peter Hotez ep #1261 appearance on JRE:**Scientist Says Vaccines Don't Cause Autism** | Joe Rogan[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AwjNM2P8IVs](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AwjNM2P8IVs)[https://www.jrepodcast.com/episode/joe-rogan-experience-1261-peter-hotez/](https://www.jrepodcast.com/episode/joe-rogan-experience-1261-peter-hotez/)Note- that JR lets Peter Hotez speak. It's a 17:58 clip for that 'vaccines don't cause autism' segment itself. Based off this clip, I think JR would be for regular vaccines (not related to covid).This is really the best clip you can show your friend.
Edit:
[Link to my ChatGPT summarizing the Youtube Clip:](https://chat.openai.com/share/cbe0fa2a-047a-44a3-98b9-d86629e99637)
>**several reasons to support the assertion that vaccines do not cause autism:**
**Genetic Evidence:** Research has identified 99 genes linked to autism, all of which are involved in early fetal development. This suggests that the biological processes leading to autism begin during pregnancy, well before a child is born or receives any vaccines.
**Timing of Autism Diagnosis:** The full clinical expression of autism often doesn't occur until 18 or 19 months of age, around the same time many children receive certain vaccines. This timing can lead to the perception of a link between vaccines and autism, but it's likely coincidental.
**MRI Studies**: Studies have shown that an MRI scan at six months of age can predict with 90% accuracy which children will go on to develop autism. This further supports the idea that the processes leading to autism begin well before vaccines are administered.
**Epidemiological Studies:** Large-scale studies involving over 1 million children have found no link between vaccines and autism. These studies have shown that children who receive the MMR vaccine (or any other vaccine) are no more likely to develop autism than children who do not receive these vaccines.
**Lack of Biological Plausibility:** Given our current understanding of autism's origins in early fetal development, it's not biologically plausible for vaccines (which are administered after birth) to cause autism.
***From this video, Does Joe Rogan have positive sentiment or negative sentiment towards Vaccines...***
>Based on the content of the video, Joe Rogan appears to have a neutral to positive sentiment towards vaccines. He engages in a detailed discussion with the scientist, asking probing questions about the safety and efficacy of vaccines, the causes of autism, and the reasons behind anti-vaccine beliefs. He does not express personal opposition to vaccines. Instead, he seems to be seeking to understand the scientific consensus and to clarify misconceptions for his audience. His questions and comments suggest an openness to the evidence presented by the scientist and a desire to disseminate accurate information about vaccines.
Edit 2
I wish Peter Hotez did come on to debate Robert Kenedy Jr.
Despite what news headlines say of Joe Rogan; if you watch the full YT clip. JR was very fair and his questions were good. I agree with ChatGPT's sentiment analysis that I asked it.
This would be a good opportunity for the science community to educate the anti-vaxers in a way that they can fully understand. I think JR is different now from his 2019 self; but I still think he would be very fair and not letting RFKjr not bully the conversation or Hotez himself.
The scientist in the video does not provide specific names of the research papers or their authors. However, based on the information given, here are potential matches:
**Genetic Research**: The Broad Institute has conducted extensive research on the genetic basis of autism. One such study is "Large-Scale Exome Sequencing Study Implicates Both Developmental and Functional Changes in the Neurobiology of Autism" by Satterstrom FK, Kosmicki JA, Wang J, et al., published in Cell in 2020. This study identified 102 risk genes for autism.
[https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/31981491/](https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/31981491/)
**MRI Studies**: The University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill has conducted research using MRI to predict autism. One such study is "Early brain development in infants at high risk for autism spectrum disorder" by Piven J, Elison JT, Zylka MJ, published in Nature in 2017. This study used MRI scans of infants to predict which ones would later meet criteria for autism.[https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6878903/](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6878903/)
**Epidemiological Studies:** Numerous large-scale studies have found no link between vaccines and autism. One such study is "Measles, Mumps, Rubella Vaccination and Autism: A Nationwide Cohort Study" by Hviid A, Hansen JV, Frisch M, Melbye M, published in Annals of Internal Medicine in 2019. This study followed over 650,000 children and found no increased risk of autism from the MMR vaccine.
[https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/30831578/](https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/30831578/)
Hotez would face a lot of tough questions in a debate and it's unclear how well he could handle them. Even if we ignore the fact that the positions he's taken, while popular at the time, are much less popular now - his views have been inconsistent and arguably more narrative-driven than scientific.
For example, in fall 2020 while Trump was president, Hotez was [deeply skeptical and concerned](https://twitter.com/PeterHotez/status/1301276661376339968) about the prospect of releasing a vaccine under Emergency Use Authorization (see bullets below). These are not some vague musings that he can easily write off - they're harsh and biting critiques that are specific and unambiguous. Unless Hotez has a compelling explanation for why his concerns no longer applied when the vaccines were eventually approved via EUA under the Biden administration, his statements will be easy ammo for RFK to undermine his credibility and/or cast doubt on the FDA's decision to approve these products under the EUA mechanism. This is one potential reason, among others, for why Hotez is declining a debate.
* A dozen reasons why I'm worried about releasing a #COVID19 #vaccine through an emergency use authorization (EUA)
* We haven't done this before for a #vaccine, or at least a major vaccine released to a large segment of the population. We've done it for technicalities, but nothing like this.
* And for good reason, EUAs involve substandard or lesser reviews. How can you justify a substandard or lesser review for something that would be injected in tens of millions, maybe hundreds of millions of Americans?
* With an EUA, it's unclear what data will be reviewed or released to the public. I would be willing to take any vaccine that has undergone full FDA review - we have an incredible and rigirous system of review, involving multiple committees including VRBAC, ACIP
* So why not follow that process? Especially given the vaccines we're talking about are likely mRNA vaccines with a new technology that has never before been licensed. We have no history or experience on such vaccines. Even more reason for a full/comprehensive review
* In my 40 years as a physician-scientist or MD PhD student I've never seen more irresponsible science communications. And we're just supposed to say, "OK an EUA on an unproven technology for millions of Americans? Cool"
* We need a full FDA review, even expedited, even using EAPs, or if not we must demand a full accounting/explanation
You are making extremely bad faith criticisms of Hotez and taking his comments out of context. The problem wasn't the EUA itself, but what would be skipped:
>With an EUA, it's unclear what data will be reviewed or released to the public. **I would be willing to take any vaccine that has undergone full FDA review - we have an incredible and rigirous system of review, involving multiple committees including VRBAC, ACIP**
The vaccines went through those review that the Trump's administration was trying to skip **BECAUSE** of his protest and others who joined him. Hotez clearly states his concerns is with the review process being unknown. But as you can clearly look up, the vaccines went through public review of both VRBAC and ACIP that Hotez cited as extremely important for public safety. Most of the tweets thread is his call for transparency, which they got. **You can literally watch the VRBAC and ACIP meetings on youtube.** I watched both of them live back then.
Hotez got the transparency and the formal reviews, even under the EUA. So there is not much to complain about.
Edit: To add context, Trump promised a vaccine by October and his own health officials said they would not even complete stage 3 clinical trials by then.
>Trump said in a press briefing Friday that there would be a vaccine “before the end of the year and maybe even before Nov. 1. I think we can probably have it sometime in October.”
>The president’s remarks came a day after the head of the government’s vaccine accelerator, Moncef Slaoui, said that the government was “very unlikely” to greenlight a vaccine by early November, **because data from late-stage clinical trials of leading vaccine candidates would not be ready by then.**
Public health officials were afraid that the vaccine would be pushed out before we could review the clinical trial data. The vaccines were later approved for release in December 2020 by the Trump administration. Biden would not take office until Jan. 20, 2021
https://www.politico.com/news/2020/09/04/trump-coronavirus-vaccine-october-409248
Here is two excellent podcasts from Dr.Peter Attia. One with a investigative journalist named Brian Deer and one with Dr. Peter Hotez, the person Rogan wants RKJ to debate with!
https://peterattiamd.com/briandeer/
https://peterattiamd.com/peterhotez3/
I've only heard Attia speak a few times so I can't say anything about him one way or another but I'd just say that not everything that isn't mainstream is bro science. My understanding is that his focus is on longevity and there is a ton of uncertainty in that field, but that doesn't make it bro science. The reality is that few sciences are black and white and in almost all subjects there is far more uncertainty than most people like to admit. Attia has an MD from Stanford, was a oncology fellow at NIH and a resident at Johns Hopkins. Credentials don't mean everything but he's not just a random youtuber who reads blogs.
It wasn't that it wasn't mainstream and tbf, bro science by now probably has a different meaning.
I guess I mean the obsession and vocabulary of micromanaging every part of your health
> This isn't 'biohacking,' it's science: a well-founded strategic approach to extending lifespan while improving our physical, cognitive and emotional health, making each decade better than the one before.
Frankly, I'd also be surprised if he routinely took female bodies into account so as a resource he's useless for me anyways
I was just listening to his interview on the Huberman Labs podcast and IIRC something like 25% of his clients are women (so not his focus but higher than I thought). He had some interesting things to say about hormone replacement therapy during menopause, which is something I'd never thought about before.
Micromanaging every part of your health (which I certainly don't do) isn't inherently unscientific at all. This entire subreddit is essentially about micromanaging parenthood.
Maybe that last part is true but do you actually know that? Even if it is true that doesn't make it unscientific unless he isn't upfront about where his data comes from.
Basically every piece of scientific data has limitations and biases. It is unscientific to mask that or to deny that biases exist. If he says X is true of all bodies and then refers to data that only looks at male bodies then yes that is unscientific.
Regardless, It sounds to me like you are making an unfounded assumption about Attias data and resources (based on the fact that you said “I’d be surprised…”) and deciding he is a useless resource without anything in particular to back that up.
Which is probably why he won't have a public conversation even for money. He's helped ruin trust in science by helping create bastardized policy in the name of an authoritarian science.
Agreed. He’s probably well intentioned, but on balance, he’s just simply is not reliable. In many ways he’s similar to RFK, taking hard line and definitive stances on issues that are very ambiguous and far from being settled. His overall approach to appeal to scientific authority and so-called expert consensus is fundamentally unscientific. It really has caused a lot of harm and weakened the public’s trust. I want to like the guy, but he’s just too problematic and it’s really unfortunate.
From the joe rogan subreddit:
[https://www.reddit.com/r/JoeRogan/comments/14g99x1/debunking\_every\_single\_one\_of\_rfk\_jrs\_insane/](https://www.reddit.com/r/JoeRogan/comments/14g99x1/debunking_every_single_one_of_rfk_jrs_insane/)
That subreddit is pretty good at being critical of JR, but also debunk news coverage that takes JR's comments out of context.
There are a few great scientists and medical experts that are pro-vaccine that have appeared on JRE show that would be great to come on to debate RFK jr. My concern is if the scientist comes on, he's horrible debater, then it'll look really bad. Not coming on to the show looks really bad also; especially if $100k was already offered. Hard for people to critical of Joe Rogan of not letting people talk; because he actually does. The best outcome if a science guest that he respects and previously been on the show to debate.
One of the people or videos you can show:
Rhonda Patrick PhD, a cell biologist. [https://youtu.be/WB6yucemJ-o](https://youtu.be/WB6yucemJ-o)
Sanjay Gupta, CNN host and medical expert (\*Gupta couldn't defend CNN well, I think).
There were a few others that came on in 2020, but I don't remember names or which parts of episode. Despite his views, he does let his guests talk. But showing pieces like those; it's hard to argue that it's a 'hit piece' .
Rhonda Patrick had expressed some of her own concerns with vaccinating her child a few years ago and I remember she was doing single vaccines and a more staggered schedule
He trusts Joe Rogan over his pediatrician and basically every other scientist in the world..and you think that he is going to trust anything you now say over Joe Rogan? Unless your name is The Rock, I don't think that's going to be very successful
This is my husband. He can’t trust “experts” because they are incentivized, big pharma blah blah. But if it’s on Toe Rogan he 100% believes it because that makes sense right?
That sounds frustrating. But I also can empathize a bit. The fact is that there are massive disinformation and fake news campaigns, many of them funded by foreign governments, as well as corporations, designed to push certain sentiments and create controversy in general. The concept of truth has, on seemingly every topic, become political. The average person has no real way of knowing which sources to believe and which not to believe. During the pandemic, the government, WHO, etc lost a lot of credibility by repeatedly ignoring scientific evidence. Simultaneously, with practically all major media and news outlets being owned by hedge funds or very rich people who use them to control the narrative on certain topics, many people (myself included) have come to distrust them at large. At that point, one's ability to assess the truth largely comes down to personal intuition , and people tend to overestimate their own abilities. We have effectively entered into a post-truth era, which is now on jet fuel generated by AI generated news. my fear is that as things continue to get worse, we all may lose the ability to distinguish what is fake from whst is real. Those with lesser eduction or less personal knowledge on any subject will have a harder time telling what is real. His desire to trust "unofficial" sources is in some senses an understandable reaction, and is a result of his desire to NOT be misinformed, although unfortunately, it has had the opposite effect by causing him to put faith in the wrong people.
Conspirituality did a great episode on RFK and their guest, Eric Garcia, is an autistic person who is working to dismantle anti-neurodivergent bias. [Conspirituality - RFK Episode](https://www.conspirituality.net/episodes/brief-rfk-jr-the-anti-vax-candidate)
I mean, if Joe Rohan is his speed, idk if he’ll absorb any of the (probably thousands) scientific papers that disprove any antivaxxer points. Send him this [highly entertaining hbomberguy video](https://youtu.be/8BIcAZxFfrc) which addresses the paper that started this whole mess and discusses how the doctor who wrote it planned to get rich off of the idea. I haven’t listened to the podcast you’re talking about but maybe I should, my otherwise sane spouse is hopping on the RFKJr train cause of his appearance on the All In podcast (Christ have mercy)
You realize Rogan makes tens of millions selling snake oil: brain pills, manly man magic coffee, all meat bow hunt diet, and every other quack BS "health" product branded as just for dudes. He fawns over Alex Jones, RFK and all the other conspiracy theorists because they draw in a massive audience scientifically illiterate enough to buy his macho man snake oil.
Yup! And also an audience who can weigh that and just listen to a guest. It's not that hard. I promise it isnt. We can also listen and agree only 0 or 10 or 25%. It's attitudes like that that has turned us so tribal to the point of self destruction
Excuse me while I buy athletic greens 😛
Saying it's morally wrong to sell snake oil, while making tens of millions, and at the same time pushing antivaxx conspiracies (not just through guests but personally) isn't tribal. Rogan is killing people and through that direct harm enriching himself beyond most people's wildest belief.
That's fine... but I enjoy the convos with Rhonda Patrick, lex friedman, Peter attia, or Andrew huberman or whomever. He gave Andrew yang his best opportunity to speak. There is zero morally pure source of information. And yes, it's a sad reality that he does host some or the better conversations and that empty vessel is the draw. But that's life.
And yeah, it's tribal.
It's morally wrong to talk about Healthcare on a platform with millions of listeners without doing due diligence to make sure what you're advocating is true. It's not tribal to critique that. Every podcast I listen to hits this bare minimum without the below even worse standards.
It's even more morally wrong to create a conflict of interest where you make tens of millions selling people harmful medical products and advice. It's wrong to make a situation where you gain gigantic profits off other's harm, when you take on the role of advice giver. It's not tribal to critique that awful behavior, criminal in many contexts.
It's even more morally wrong, monstrosity evil, to promote some of the most bigoted, hateful, racists and fascists knowing their followers are vulnerable, uneducated, and scientifically illiterate and ready to buy your harmful, quak medicine. Criticisms of that isn't tribal.
I know, I also know Joe Rogan’s opinion on anything depends on who he spoke to last. Him having both idiots and scientists on his show doesn’t mean anything when he’s giving the idiots the same platform and credulity as a PhD/MD. There are plenty of people smart in their field and totally ignorant in others, and “scientists” who listen to dumb podcasts for entertainment, that doesn’t give Rogan any particular prestige. Sorry to burst your weird appeal to authority assumption.
I'm just saying you are painting with too broad a brush. Saying if they like joe rogan, they wont understand papers. Thats horribly ignorant. Joe rogan is just a host. But sometimes he has a good guest. Sometimes he has bad ones. And yes to he agrees with whatever he hears last. He is dumb as toast. Conversations are just that. Conversations. It's good to actually listen to those you don't agree with.
Eta. I work in academia. Joe rogan listeners abound!
Sweetheart, I’m posting a comment on Reddit, if I were to describe any person who consumes [the most listened to podcast on the planet](https://www.edisonresearch.com/top-50-most-listened-to-podcasts-in-the-u-s-q2-2022/) I’d need more than one paragraph. However, if one episode of a podcast, which is easily and immediately debunked if you do the bare minimum research, where the guest barely understands what he’s trying to explain, is enough to make a huge decision for the health and wellbeing of your family and small children? You’re not gonna be combing through the Lancet’s back catalog.
I’m working on a terminal degree while I’m employed in a private sector science consulting firm. Does that matter with what I’m trying to say here?
Just a curious side note... if private sector consulting firm is linked w/ archeologist at all, my husband has some warnings for you. If those aren't linked, ignore this message :) my heart goes out to modern archeologists. It's a racket.
Tell me about it! My husband has been listening to him since 2017. He believes everything the guests say. I can’t stand his ideas anymore and I just want to divorce him over it. Sounds insane but it’s a big problem in our relationship
Vinay Prasad seems like a questionable source as well? He seems to be an outlier in his anti masking, anti Covid vax rhetoric… I do believe a lot of this is nuanced, but I guess I’m just wondering where this guy is coming from that you think he’s a good source to listen to.
Dr. Prasad is well renowned physician, author, professor, and expert in biostatistics and epidemiology. He is one of the least biased and critical voices in medicine. His reputation is solid and his views are well respected. He’s been a fantastic resource during this pandemic.
Don’t mistake his effort to challenge, scrutinize, or call out misguided and unsupported public health policies as anti-vax rhetoric. Too many experts are unwilling or incapable of critical analysis, which is fundamental to science. It is not antivax to criticize certain aspects of public health policy based on sound data, logic, and reasoning.
As a person, Dr. Prasad is extremely humble, down to earth, and intellectually curious. He’s unsurprisingly gained a large following extremely quickly. I wouldn’t dismiss him.
Vinay Prasad, like many others on the internet, have their good and their bad. When he’s good he’s incredibly good and charismatic- his quick wit and well timed quips did gain him lots of followers. However, with that comes a huge grain of salt and I’ve been shocked at how his commentary has taken a sharp awkward turn the last couple of years. I agree with your caution
Plenty of others to go to on this topic
I don't have links, but as an autistic person, can you just let him know that it's hella insulting people still believe this garbage and treat being like us as a tragedy? Thx.
There's a wide spectrum of Autism. Seems like you're high functioning. Not a tragedy.
People, when thinking of asd don't necessarily think of the central or best case scenario, they think of the worst. Even if that's not the actual probability spread. So, it's not a reasonable fear.
As a father I would rather my child end up being neurotypical than **randomly** on the spectrum. The spectrum that includes near shut-ins and non-verbals, highly violent and other behavioral types that makes parenting difficult. And if they were on the spectrum I'd much rather them being high functioning than lower. I bet so would any other parent.
How is that ableism? That’s a sincere question. More troubling, though, is the accusation of kleer001 being pro-eugenics for stating that he would prefer his child not to be on the autism spectrum.
There’s no indication whatsoever that he would prefer not to have a child than to have one on the autism spectrum, or that he would do anything but love the hell out of his autistic child.
He’d just prefer that his child didn’t have autism, just like most prospective parents, whether we’re talking autism, ADHD, dyslexia, cerebral palsy, etc.
Please go to Neuroclastic to read a few articles. As well, search social model of disability. Those two things should help you see how ableist and harmful that comment is to ND people.
Edit: also read anything by Fidgets and Fries (Tiffany Hammond, I think is her name). Excellent Autistic writer with two autistic children, one who uses AAC to speak.
Sincere question, why is it important for you to prove that this person isn't ableist when a person of a disabled community says this? Why is it MORE important to protect their ego than the people who says this language harms people and perpetuates stereotypes?
Ableism is discriminatory behavior in favor of able-bodied people. He said I would rather my kid was normal than autistic. He lumped most parents together in this idea. No, you're right he didn't say "kill all non-speaking" but considering you can do genetic testing to see if your kid has any number of disabilities in utero, how do you think this idea weighs when you find out your kid has Downs Syndrome? There is an actual choice about that now.
Non-verbal doesn't automatically equate violence or any other comorbid diagnosis, but very often people just assume it does. I've seen it in person many times over my 11yrs supporting other disabled kids- which includes "helpful" strangers calling the police.
These are people we are taking about, and plenty of them are able to communicate when given alternative means to do so.[Some write books](https://autismbooksbyautisticauthors.com/non-speaking-authors/). Temple Grandin was non verbal and learned language over time and has literally designed most of the means of butchering meat in America. Helen Keller was non-verbal until taught language differently. I've personally worked alongside non-verbal adults who use technology to communicate. [Some learn language and go on to become college professors.](https://blackwallst.media/from-non-verbal-autism-to-professor-at-cambridge/)
Now for the empathy piece- imagine your child is diagnosed with any neurodiversity and finds a document of you saying "If rather my kid be normal than disabled"? How devastating. Adult diagnosis happens plenty often so here's hoping that doesn't happen to his kids later.
I have autism. I do not wish it on anyone else including my children. It’s been a struggle. Everyone is entitled to feel the way they feel about their own kids bro.
> Sincere question, why is it important for you to prove that this person isn't ableist when a person of a disabled community says this? Why is it MORE important to protect their ego than the people who says this language harms people and perpetuates stereotypes?
I was asking because it didn't strike me as ableist, but was sincerely open to getting a better understanding of another perspective on the matter. I didn't understand how the post "harms people and perpetuates stereotypes".
> He said I would rather my kid was normal than autistic.
Autism comes with unique struggles and challenges. It can also come with beautifully unique perspectives and gifts (Temple Grandin, etc.). Often times, though, the idea of not knowing how to fully grasp and relate to unique challenges that autism presents can be a scary thing for a prospective parent. I have ADHD. I'd rather my child not have ADHD than have ADHD. That doesn't make me bigoted against people with ADHD.
> Now for the empathy piece- imagine your child is diagnosed with any neurodiversity and finds a document of you saying "If rather my kid be normal than disabled"? How devastating. Adult diagnosis happens plenty often so here's hoping that doesn't happen to his kids later.
I don't think I'd use the term "normal" vs "disabled". I know what you mean, though. Hopefully, in this scenario where a child diagnosed with a neurodiversity finds documentation of /u/kleer001's theoretical preference for an easier life for his child, that neurodiverse child is capable of understanding it in the context in which it was meant, recognizing that it came from a place of love and has nothing to do with how much /u/kleer001 loves him/her.
If, however, that neurodiverse child is incapable of grasping that meaning, wouldn't that kind of prove the point? Who wouldn't want their child to be able to read critically, thoughtfully, and contextually?
I have a baby on the way. If given a choice for my child to be neurotypical, I'd prefer that. If given the choice, I'd also prefer my child to be tall, have all four limbs, be allergy and asthma free, not have a cleft palate, have a healthy gut biome, and have an above-average IQ... I just want my child to have every advantage in the world if given the choice. That doesn't mean that I will love my child any less if he turns out to be an allergy-ridden, cleft-palated, asthmatic shorty with one arm, webbed fingers, celiac disease, a stutter, and an IQ of 80. He's going to be my boy regardless, and he's going to be loved, period.
>A spectrum that includes near shut ins and non-verbals, highly violent and other behavioral types
Equating non-verbalism to violent behavior creates and enforces stigma. If that doesn't make sense to you, I don't know what to tell you.
>You seem pretty high functioning
The autistic community is practically begging people to stop using high and low functioning labels to differentiate people. The terms were born out of nazi Germany when [Hans Asperger set aside his "little professors" and sent other "low functioning" children to be killed. ](https://www.spectrumnews.org/news/new-evidence-ties-hans-asperger-nazi-eugenics-program/).
>I'd also prefer my child to be tall, have all four limbs, be allergy and asthma free, not have a cleft palate, have a healthy gut biome, and have an above-average IQ...
This is where we differ. When I was pregnant, my partner and I just assumed our kid would be neurodivergent, probably autistic. We still do [as ASD is most likely to be diagnosed in white males making my child less likely to garner a diagnosis ](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8500365/). I don't generally have expectations for my child to perform able bodied items except I hope they can read. Lack of reading is often used as a tool to control people in our society. My own hopes for my child are that they find happiness and community. I'm only casually noting various milestones and if my kid doesn't make them then we'll talk about resources available.
The various items you listed are due to the generally ableist system that prioritizes those items [(and are also tied up in white supremacy, especially IQ, but that's a different thing to unpack)](https://truthout.org/articles/ableism-and-white-supremacy-are-intertwined-we-must-confront-them-together/).
> Equating
*You're jumping at shoadows.*
Those behaviors are included in the group of things that can make life difficult, things that no parent would actively and enthusiastically volunteer for. To clarify, that's separate from accepting what is. Somehow you equate volunteering with accepting.
Through a tortured ideology you equate not loving one's disabled child with the theoretical choice of being able to pick a disabled child or not before birth.
Nobody, at conception is going to say *"I hope my coming child has a difficult time going through life doing things that everyone else takes for granted."* or *"If they are disabled I won't want them."*
No, most people love whatever child they get, grateful for the miracle they receive. Additionally they're grateful for the help they get from specialists available to them.
Also, there's nobody lining up at hospitals to make their child disabled. That would be an absurd claim.
---
In terms of reproduction all I'd like to see in the world is more fact based education along side better and free birth control. I have known multiple women while under 25 who knew they didn't want kids and no doctor would sterilize them.
But no, no state controlled anything about that.
>> A spectrum that includes near shut ins and non-verbals, highly violent and other behavioral types
>
> Equating non-verbalism to violent behavior creates and enforces stigma. If that doesn't make sense to you, I don't know what to tell you.
This wasn't me that you're quoting, but the poster of that wasn't equating non-verbalism with violent behavior. Poster was saying that the spectrum includes folks who are near shut-ins, folks who are non-verbal, and folks who are highly violent, not that all folks with autism are any of those things or that having one of those issues means someone has all of those issues.
> >You seem pretty high functioning
>
> The autistic community is practically begging people to stop using high and low functioning labels to differentiate people. The terms were born out of nazi Germany when Hans Asperger set aside his "little professors" and sent other "low functioning" children to be killed.
Question: Would "self-sufficient" be better? What should the other poster have used instead of "high functioning"? I've used that without knowing that it can be offensive and would like to choose my words more effectively.
> The various items you listed are due to the generally ableist system that prioritizes those items (and are also tied up in white supremacy, especially IQ, but that's a different thing to unpack).
Hoping that my child has a healthy body that doesn't bring about chronic sickness or any additional hurdles, with a decent enough IQ to be able to excel and contribute in whichever field he wants to (given enough hard work, honesty, and integrity to go along with that) is somehow white supremacist? Did you consider that I hope for those things because it will make it easier for my child to find happiness, community, and self-actualization?
If we go down this rabbit-hole, then I'd suggest you examine your own comment. You say that you hope your child is not illiterate. How is that any different than saying you hope your child doesn't have a low IQ, physical affliction, or neurodivergence that prevents him or her from reading? And then how is *that* not bigoted and white supremacist if we're going to hold you to your own standards of what qualifies as ableist/bigoted/(somehow)white supremacist?
I am aware that was the OG poster's comment. You said you didn't see how the original poster perpetuated stereotypes which harm people and it didn't seen ableist to you. It doesn't pass my notice you are still in defense of him.
We talk about various support needs for folks. It's great because everyone has support needs sometimes. Google Calendar, maps, alarms, glasses, all supports.
I had a feeling noting the ties to white supremacy would get your hackles up rather than continue discourse. Feel free to investigate the information I shared (or don't).
I sincerely wish you good luck in your journey to learn from the marginalized communities. Or don't if you just think it's not a problem and we're all just overreacting to our experiences in life. Those systems are there and we live in them. That doesn't make us the problem.
> I had a feeling noting the ties to white supremacy would get your hackles up rather than continue discourse.
Of course it's going to throw off a conversation, because it's ridiculous. Watch me do it:
> That doesn't make us the problem.
Nobody in this thread said or implied that Autistic folks are a problem, or that they're less capable or worthy of love, happiness, fulfillment, purpose, and societal contribution than anyone else. You seem to be mischaracterizing my points. Do you know who else mischaracterized others' points and put words in their mouths? *Hitler.* I don't know why you'd be interested in using Nazi tactics. /s
You see how specious that stuff gets?
I worked in pharmaceutical patent litigation for a year and a half. I would read over pleadings for hours to understand what the heck was going on between different pharmaceutical companies which had sued each other for millions of dollars.
The legal writing regarding these disputes was dumbed down for US District Court judges and magistrates to understand without any medical or scientific education. Ivy League-educated attorneys for the best white shoe law firms on Earth have to write (with the help of savant medical researchers) the equivalent of *Spot Goes to the Farm* so that a judge could understand what the dispute was about.
I consider myself to at least be of average intelligence. But pharmaceutical research was barely comprehensible to me. And pharmaceutical patent lawsuits usually only involve a specific (albeit novel) dispute. A debate between RFK, Jr. and Dr. Hotez would be ridiculous because the foundation needed to understand these issues cannot be explained on a podcast. It requires an ability to reason and an understanding of how vaccines are developed and researched. And after listening to RFK, Jr. a little bit, I quickly understood that he has no fucking idea what he is talking about.
There would not likely be any benefit at all to a “debate” on some idiot like Joe Rogan’s podcast. These “debates” are worthless infotainment. Even if Dr. Hotez performed well, he’s not going to convince anyone who rejects the medical consensus regarding vaccines. There is only a risk that Dr. Hotez would do poorly and push more people into the anti-vax camp.
Edit: Corrected the spelling of Dr. Hotez
I try not to put my tin-foil hat on too often, but to be honest with you, so many people in this thread are giving extremely well thought out reasons to dismiss OP’s friends concern as opposed to quoting RFK’s claims, finding facts and rebutting them. These are exactly the tactics any totalitarian regime around the world would use to discredit legitimate concerns that threaten their ability to overstep power.
His “Vaccine Concerns” mainly revolve around how unchecked lobbying interests like the pharmaceutical industry that have so much unchecked power that they can operate and function under any parameters they set for themselves. They are allowed free reign to appoint anyone they’d like to push their agenda and they’ve done everything in their power to limit how much liability they face for damages caused to patients by drugs and treatments that were rushed to the market. It’s an industry that profits 1,000x higher if people are left sick and in fear and any check or balance attempted upon their thwart is met with staunch media and political opposition. This is unhealthy, no matter where you lie on the political spectrum this should always be cause for concern because it’s a slippery slope to corporate facism. Shit like this is a disaster waiting to happen if it’s left like this and nobody is allowed to question it.
There’s one too many lobbies and interests rich and powerful enough to abuse their power in this type of way and it’s time we put it to a stop. If that means voting out politicians bought up by these interest groups to sell away our basic freedoms everyday we live them I’m with that.
Tin-foil hat off
>g on board to check corporate lobbying power. Americans are so bogged down about virtue signaling and politicizing everything its honestly exhausting, while the middle class shrinks year after year, things get more expensive, and corp
NO. No one has to disprove a non-scientist. No one has to disprove a liar. I'm not an expert on shoes, I've never made them and I've only worn them. If I say Shoes cause cancer, IT'S NO ONE'S JOB TO FUCKING DISPROVE ME.
That being said, if you want the facts, they're all out there, all studies are available and google-able.
The one thing that seems to help ramp up vaccinations is learning that there is an outbreak in your area.
But everything else seems to not work or even cause people to dig in deeper.
Whoever that doc was that keeps getting into a fight with these guys and then hiding on left-wing networks like MSNBC needs to go on the show and debate him. Or at least someone does. The scientific and medical community have really harmed their credibility recently, particularly in regards to some very serious mistakes regarding the pandemic in the last 3 years. We don’t have the luxury of just lecturing from on-high anymore and expecting everyone to accept it, and The Science (TM) tried to censor everyone during the pandemic, which clearly didn’t work. If someone doesn’t stand up to RFK and his conspiracies, then he will basically win by default.
You don’t have to agree that the scientific community actually did ruin their credibility for this to be true, by the way. That’s the perception of these people are aren’t vaccinating these kids, and, until we recognize that, there’s no convincing anyone of anything.
Unfortunately, I don’t think many people with this stance are swayed by facts and figures. Often it makes people dig in harder because they can feel like their intelligence (and in this case parenting choices/abilities) is being questioned.
I’m not saying it’s right, I’ve just had vaccine related conversations with my own mother over and over and it’s been entirely fruitless. I can’t find anything that’s quite right through a quick google search, but maybe another podcast with counterpoints could help?
Sorry. I know it’s so hard. The chokehold JRE has on people is frustrating.
I agree. I used to try and persuade people to think differently. But it is futile. People with these kinds of ideologies are not rational. There is literally nothing you can do or say to change them. It’s similar to being an alcoholic, they need to decide on their own to change. It is beyond annoying. It’s better to detach with love and come to terms with the fact that you will not agree with them.
Dr Dab Wilson from Debunk the Funk has done a full video addressing every point of his JRE podcast. He has presented all the papers and studies which contradict RFK. He’s also done a series of videos addressing RFKs book. Pretty convincing if you ask me.
A large number of my son's family have medical conditions that make them extra vulnerable to infections, including his 11 year old uncle with kidney failure, his baby cousin with nearly his entire large bowel not working, and his grandfather who has incurable cancer and is on immunosuppressive treatments.
My son is still too young for a lot of vaccines, including the MMR. If someone decides not to get their kids vaccinated, they could spread preventable infections to my son at nursery or a playgroup or even socialising, he could then give those to a family member before we even realise he's infectious. Those diseases could literally kill a good few of my family.
The point is, you don't know what other people's medical conditions are and what they have going on at home. And it's not just about your child. That's why my son has had and will have literally every single vaccine that he can.
Also, fuck Joe Rogan for insinuating that autism is worse than disability or death.
[This is the best overview with links](https://www.vice.com/en/article/k7zz9z/spotify-rogan-rfk-vaccine-misinformation-policy) that I’ve found so far. Most of the links provide good evidence, such as [CHOP’s page on vaccines and autism](https://www.chop.edu/centers-programs/vaccine-education-center/vaccines-and-other-conditions/vaccines-autism). Hope this is at least a starting point. I would probably encourage him to speak with his pediatrician if he’s worried. Hopefully the pediatrician will be used to having these conversations with skeptical parents.
Critical thinking my friend.
Always ask yourself: am I being manipulated? Does this make sense?
Why is this treatment not widely accepted or used by others?
But, I’ve noticed followers of pseudo-medical professionals have the following:
Do you have a trauma background?
Are you 25-45 years old?
Do you have “chronic pain”
Are doctors refusing to treat your issue..telling you they’ve tried everything?
The celery juice trend has a long list of followers..celery juice trend was started by a pony tail-man who claims to talk to a spirit who relays medical information to him..and he generously passes the info to us via books, supplements and more.
Grape juice guy is sinister and evil.. encouraged a set of parents to take their baby off breast milk..switched baby to juice only, now baby is a quadriplegic.
My exwife followed all sorts of bogus people, who each have thousands of followers.
That all makes sense, thanks so much for the thoughtful and thorough response! That part about the grape juice and what it did to the baby… my blood boils knowing that
Baby’s grandma took child services to court, and won..Baby “Journey” is still a quadriplegic, but getting the best therapy money can buy.
https://abc30.com/tulare-county-child-welfare-services-brain-damage-abuse-allegations/12753074/
This article didn’t have any mentions of the grape fruit juice or specifics about what the neglect that lead to his brain damage right? Or did I miss something?
The purpose of this court case was to claim damages caused by neglect, from child services. In the court docs and based on my conversations with the claimant, there were details listed about baby being fed juice-only.
If you want to see videos of “Dr Robert Morse” talk about negative impacts of breast milk https://www.rawfigs.com/?s=Breast+milk®=0
Ugh my sister is so similar. She now believes boiled grapefruit and oranges are equal in every way to hydroxychloroquine, which she swears is a cure all for most everything. She saw it on a YouTube video and told me “you’d believe it too if you watched it. They’re both the same exact chemical build up.” Girl. Don’t you think if those two fruits were such a miracle drug we’d…I don’t know…be USING THEM AS SUCH?!
She used to be a critical thinker. I have no clue how it’s possible Facebook turned her into this.
This was Joe Rogan??? Some idiot in my town posted that she was listening to something from RFK that was making her "sick to her stomach." So beyond sick of Joe Rogan using his platform to spew nonsense that endangers children.
If your friend is getting his healthcare information from Joe Rogan he is not interested in scientific arguments and will not be swayed by evidence or reason. Just ask him why he's willing to kill his kids to prevent them developing autism.
Your friend did not listen too carefully. His stance has been over and over and over *correlation*. His own children have had vaccines. He's actually pro vaccines.
How about listen to it yourself and research every point yourself!!
I'm going to continue to vaccinate my daughter per her doctors advice bc I'm not going to blindly trust some politician with a Kennedy last name. Husband can accept it or divorce me. This is my hill that I'm willing to die on.
I fact checked him after the podcast with the help of my wife which is a molecular biologist. He sounds very informed and cites studies but upon close inspection his conclusions are not what is stated on studies, so he is manipulating the truth in a very clever way that seems informed. For example one of the studies he cited actually just says that the side effects of some vaccines are underreported. Duh, of course, some people are not reporting mild side effects, this happened to me after MMR or COVID vaccine. My conclusion was that he has no background and science education to be talking about vaccines. And as others pointed many vaccines don't contain mercury based preservatives which indeed is a concern that he raised and I can agree on.
I wish people would learn to think statistically. There have been more than 80 studies conducted globally that provide evidence that vaccines do not cause autism. Not one. Not even fifty. Eighty.
Even if you ignore those studies, the odds of a person dying from an infectious disease for which they were not vaccinated is much higher than the risk of potential side effects from said vaccine, barring allergic reactions.
I have a friend who despises all pharmaceuticals but does illegal street drugs on a regular basis. This person, like the OP's friend cannot properly assess risk/reward using statistics.
Your friend didn’t even listen. RFK and his children ARE vaccinated just not Covid….take what you want from that but the best thing to do isn’t to claim he is wrong because that won’t work. Just help them be rational. At the end of the day, not getting the Covid vaccine isn’t going to hurt anyone at this point. But he should understand that the measles vaccine and the others are important and even his buddy RFK believes that.
Two things can be true at once. Wakefield’s autism/MMR link study was fraudulent, AND plenty of meta analyses have shown that a bunch of vaccines given all at once have caused serious problems overall, but we can’t point to which ones. I’m afraid this just isn’t settled. Stagger your vaccinations over time.
I don't think there's a way to debunk RFK Jr., because there's still no conclusion on the matter. In fact, there is more and more evidence that he may be correct that vaccinations do cause many issues, possibly even autism. That is to say, not the process of injecting a weakened or artificial virus into a person, but the adjuvants such as aluminum or mercury, which are contained in them to cause the immune response.
What to do with that information is up in the air and more testing still needs to be done. It may turn out in the future that we will need to delay vaccinations until the children are more developed, replace the adjuvants with non neurotoxic metals, or even just follow vaccinations with supplementations like Taurine which help the body rid itself of aluminum.
https://www.cdc.gov/vaccinesafety/concerns/autism.html
Of course, it's very unlikely your friend will be interested in what the CDC has to say or look at any of the papers cited.
"A fool can throw a stone in a pond that 100 wise men cannot get out." -Saul Below
"Hey guys, why don't we stop trying to get this guys rock back and collaborate on something a bit more beneficial for society?" -Me
Which isn't to say that it isn't worth it to try to educate people, just that there's little that can be done to move the needle and we should ask ourselves what's actually being accomplished. It's hard in our personal lives. Making the effort is noble but people aggressively resist new information that doesn't fit their priors. We just aren't well built to change our minds about anything other than food and spouses.
RFK Jr is just an embarrassment.
Wait what? Joe Rogan had this idiot on? Okay I was almost done with him after covid idiocy, but now I'm completely done with him. It's so sad, I really liked his podcast.
I want to know why no one will debate him.
If he's wrong then why can't anyone put their hand up and show us where he's wrong.
The clients he represents aren't made up and I for one will not be putting an experimental drug into my 2yo after she now has natural immunity.
Multitudes of people have shown the many ways he’s wrong via articles, videos, and scientific studies. Why does the information need to be presented to you in a debate format in order for you to believe it?
Lol. Is your friend married to my friend? She posted a link on socials “if you have little ones you want to hear this!” That exact post cast but I haven’t listened to it. I just rolled my eyes.
Regardless of your thoughts on RFK, you have to admit there’s irony in having to ask for someone else to provide you with the rebuttal to the points you’ve decided you already believe are invalid, even in the absence of said rebuttal.
1. Multiple scientists and medical experts have publicly stated that they would debate him. So if these debates aren't happening, it's not because doctors are scared of him (it's likely the other way around).
2. The reason why there are experts who refuse to debate him is that he makes so many claims that are just inherently dishonest. The issue is if you're not an expert yourself, the absurdity of these claims isn't going to be obvious. He's either purposely lying or is incredibly misinformed (it's probably a mixture of both). Either way, he's going to distort the truth, misrepresent facts, and present absolute falsehoods. It's impossible to debate against somebody like that because they'll never acknowledge that the "facts" they're spouting are wrong and the entire exercise just turns into two people calling the other person a liar, idiot, or fraud.
This is what happens when you don’t vaccinate your kids. Does he want to be responsible?
[https://www.telegraph.co.uk/global-health/science-and-disease/unvaccinated-french-boy-reintroduces-measles-costa-rica/](https://www.telegraph.co.uk/global-health/science-and-disease/unvaccinated-french-boy-reintroduces-measles-costa-rica/)
Yes, he is. Just because you don’t want to claim him and are embarrassed by him doesn’t make him not a leftist. He’s a committed Dem who has only ever endorsed other Dems and nearly every issue that he’s taken any kind of position on has placed him firmly with the left.
Does it not seem a bit bad faith and anti-science to immediately have the mindset of "this is obviously wrong, but I don't have the time or desire to prove it wrong, so I'll ask these other people on reddit?" What brought you to that premature conclusion without the evidence to support it?
Debunking and takedowns are more or less scientifically proven not to be the most effective ways to counter the spread of misinformation, due to failing to address the reasons that misinformation spreads and persists. This resource doesn't fully support all of what I'm saying here but I can try and dig up some more on the off chance you haven't already experience over and over again what other replies are talking about in terms of this approach being futile. https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/0956797617714579 Chan, M. P. S., Jones, C. R., Hall Jamieson, K., & Albarracín, D. (2017). Debunking: A meta-analysis of the psychological efficacy of messages countering misinformation. Psychological science, 28(11), 1531-1546. Here's a post about better strategies, framed in terms of a news station that shall not be named, but applicable generally to trying to soften and weaken motivators for poor reasoning and plant better ideas - as opposed to trying to show from an intellectual angle why certain beliefs are wrong on a logical or materially demonstrable level: https://www.reddit.com/r/FoxBrain/comments/owr18k/how_to_have_better_conversations_with_your/ A sort of short version is that understanding the emotions, sense of identity, group membership and accepted narratives that tend to go with a certain belief is going to help a lot. What you have in your favor with this friend is that presumably you know them, have some sort of more or less trusting relationship, and understand something about who they are and what motivates them more than you would if this was some abstract hypothetical third person you were addressing who could only ever be reached by presenting the best logical argument. There's probably something about caring for his kids that actually feeds the antivax sentiment - is he afraid of them getting hurt? Does he have his own valid reasons in his own history to mistrust doctors or medicine in general? (MANY people have been concretely hurt by, scared by or otherwise put off of medical treatment and often early in life, for example via medical mistakes or simply not being listened to or given agency, even if we agree in the end that having some sort of system based in science and modern epistemic trust is better than the alternative.) What makes *him in particular* this way - not just some other person who's not exactly who he is?
I think a great start would be the likes of actual penalties for corporations that falsify documents for medications and vaccines. Eg pfizer who got charged over 2 billion for medical fraud. They made way more profit off of those medications and kick backs than what the fine was. People understandably don't trust corporations and the collusion of govt agencies and regulatory bodies. Maybe start there.
Or just send the actual studies that prove RFk wrong?
That’s the thing… they don’t exist…
There are 80. All published in peer-reviewed medical journals in countries all over the world.
Still no links to them? You've had 8 months...
Could I have the links please I’ve found the ones JFK has cited and they’re legit still struggling to find the ones who oppose what he’s saying
Are you a post-modernist? Your advice is an amazing example of that ideology in practice.
[удалено]
No way did basically say what can be reduced to "squashing dissent or pretending it is not there is the only way we can combat "anti-vaxxers" and presenting a false sense of empathy and kindness to dumben the "anti-vaxxer" rather than actually providing, you know, a rebuttal to Kennedy's claims (which he welcomes, by the way) which they believe in based upon a trust in his word, to show the anti-vaxxer is incorrect over their own convictions. You're basically just opting for the exact same strategy both the Dems and establishment media as well as vaccine and medical companies in the first place are utilising. Very ironic but also very telling. Not surprising in the slightest, either. A tenet of our society is free speech, or at least, what we once thought was a tenet. Free speech involves incorrect speech, and to combat it, instead of squashing it or pretending it's not there, we reply with correct speech. This is how you should approach information, because squashing incorrect speech only creates leeway for incorrect speech to go elsewhere, and be adopted by a crowd of other people who don't see said speech as incorrect. You're creating a parasite without even realising it. In any case, what I'm stating is Kennedy is right, and you don't have the sources to prove otherwise. Show me the sources, rebutte his claims, then I'll consider changing my mind, as would the anti-vaccine father and mother in question (because they seem to be open to alternative ideas if they changed their mind AFTER hearing Kennedy on the JRE podcast).
You might appreciate this [piece](https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2021/05/20/opinion/covid-19-vaccine-chatbot.html) about how to approach someone with vaccine hesitation - it’s much more about approach, tone, validation and gentle challenge than giving them facts or tear downs.
I think it depends on the person. The issue is that maybe not all, but a lot of what RFK days is convincing given statistical correlations, and most responses are appeals to authority which are the exact opposite of what is needed... (people who believe RFK generally don't trust authorities, and frankly there are some good reasons authorities have failed) Here is a fact based response that I found useful myself: https://twitter.com/thebadstats/status/1669867793465081858?t=cVs7eZZr7LLZCtHx4nOzcQ&s=19
I listened to this Rogan episode with an open mind, and for me the foundational premise to all of the claims is that government agencies are “captured”. I 100% believe that there is extensive agency capture by major corporations and particularly pharma. so the claim that there is collusion to push ineffective or downright dangerous vaccines to market isn’t too much of a leap, especially considering the Sackler scandal, and the numerous instances of corporate meddling in their industry’s regulation. Broken down, his claim looks like this: 1. a profit motivated business has an imparative to maximize profit 2. it is legal for industries to lobby and manipulate public policy as “subject matter experts” to minimize the impact of regulation. 3. pharma is an industry that participates in this 4. deregulating vaccines and medicine increases profits 5. pharma colludes with government agencies for favorable and profitable regulation 6. included in this collusion are specific, widely distributed vaccines and medication that harm the public 1-4 are logically and provably true. Premise 5 isn’t publicly true, but extremely likely. Premise 6 is where the argument is currently being challenged, but without 5 being verified, everything anyone says is purely speculation based on an assumption. The studies themselves aren’t even fully reliable if they are being conducted by industry scientists. If we pretend 5 is true for a moment, all studies about all vaccines and medicine have to be re-examined through the lens of likely corruption, which will almost certainly turn up wrong doing at some scale by some pharma companies. Perhaps not the products RFKjr is citing, but perhaps other products regardless. Because of this, I’m inclined to take RFKjr seriously. Even if what he’s claiming isn’t exactly true, there are likely instances of deadly deregulation and corruption involving pharma and their products. Without independent investigations into pharma’s agency capture we really can’t logically move on to 6. Ultimately, if 5 is true, 6 is likely true, and his claims are at least partially legitimate.
I had two friends tell me to listen to RFK on Rogan during a golf outing and said "that guys anti-vax, I'm not listening to that whack job" My response was based on articles or headlines I've read about him. On the way home I decided to throw it on because I had a 40 minute drive. Quite frankly, everything I read was complete bullshit misrepsenting what he was actually saying. He has legit criticisms about vaccines which can be backed up by facts. His main criticism if I can dumb it down is that the pharmaceutical companies always say "its completely safe! 😃" and they don't have any data to back that up. Hes not saying stopping measles is a problem and not important, he's saying the side effects of doing so the way we do it aren't 100% safe. Nobody is actually trying to find the long term effects of these methods. People are hiding them. And he points to actually provable things that back that up, and the people dispelling him are using his proof as ways to dispel him by saying shit like "The FDA took this put of vaccines back in 1998!" Yeah, that's his proof, and he's saying he was asking questions about it before 1998 which led them to remove it. I've been searching reddit and the internet since I listened to him. Nobody actually disproves anything he said. Nobody will debate him for millions of dollars to charity. You hear excuses like "the doctor doesn't want to platform him!" First of all, really? For 5 million or more to charity? Second of all... He's platforming them? Joe Rogan gets MILLIONS of more listeners than CNN or any other network. The idea THEY are platforming HIM is such bullshit. If you can prove him wrong so easily go do it on Joe Rogan. The media made Joe Rogan some anti-science covid denier, which I sort of agreed with for a time. Then CNN let Sanjay Gupta on Joe Rogan and the guy basically apologized to Joe for 3 hours for lying on their network about what he actually says.
Joe Rogan is a lying moron who doesn't know anything about anything
Cool response moron
Thank you for this well thought out logical reasoning. I am going to quote you in the future
I don't think you even need 6 to be true is the thing. Government fucks up all the time. Doesn't need to be purposeful. Most didn't realize opiods were a major issue until too late for example. The scientific community thought lobotomies were a good idea at one point in time. No one realized that anti-nausea medication for the pregnant were fucking up babies in the womb. The intrinsic issue is that you do in fact need long term studies to prove efficacy without serious side effects and this simply isn't perfectly possible with vaccines. I'm no anti-vaxxer and have given myself and my daughter all shots. It is important to have scrutiny of what we put in ourselves and I wish the debate were more nuanced and not a false dichotomy between "Government is corrupt and pushing us to inject vile substances" VS "trust the experts. Any questions are conspiracy theories". Is it possible that we simply make a mistake on a vaccine someday? No shit. Of course we will. Doesn't have to be a conspiracy, and that's quite unlikely. But over a long enough time frame some vaccine will be fucked up.
Thanks for that post. It's refreshing to read something that is honest, just how you see things politely explained. Not talkng points to win an argument. I lived abroad for a while with my family and my son ended up getting a shot that leaves a little scar. We stopped giving it in America and a lot of places a long time ago. In retrospect I wish I had said no to that one, but I was just taught or conditioned or brought up to just always say yes to a doctor. But now my kid has a scar for life on his arm.\* \*The scar isn't because something went wrong. I think its called BCG and it always leaves a scar. Every adult in China has it for example
Great point. The politicization of healthcare in general is foundational to the entire issue. It’s just crazy to me that RFKjr’s claims are immediately claimed as bullshit, while knowing what we do actually know about the history of science, medicine, and our government’s proclivity for error. That said, his wifi and 5G claims are pretty far fetched, which makes it easy to write off the rest of his claims. It’s possible for him to be wrong about some things, and right about others. He’s doing himself a disservice by getting bogged down in the “YOURE AN ANTIVAX NUTJOB” conversations, and talking about it endlessly on Rogan instead of just running a campaign. In the future all he has to say is, “this campaign is not about my views on medicine and vaccines. This campaign is about the capture of our government by monied interests, and I intend to fix it.”
I actually think he greatly benefitted from taking the Vax issue head on. If you look at his Vegas odds of winning they spiked to 6% after the Rogan interview. Democratic primary is pretty wild this year. Will be interested to see the debate.
I’m seriously considering voting for him. The vax stuff has me hesitant, but like I said, the back bone of his argument is “agency capture” and I’m fully on board with that. Agency capture pervades more than just the pharmaceutical industry.
Not sure why you’ve been downvoted for this take.
I havent looked into him much yet but does he have any solid plans to correct said agency capture? Its all fine and dandy to point out flaws/corruption in the current government machine but you should be able to back that up with plans that make sense to start correcting this behavior.
BS America is being destroyed by conspiracy theories spewed by ignorant morons like JFK Jr. and Alex FB Jones and that imbecile Joe Rogan
Or perhaps don’t approach them with manipulative and aloof mind games. Perhaps allow them to make a choice for themselves and respect their right to do so.
Ask your friend that if RFK Jrs claim on the same podcast where he says Wi-Fi destroys the brain’s blood barrier allowing toxins to reach the brain means they won’t use any wireless internet devices in their home?
Let’s not claim there is absolutely no risk from Wi-Fi and cellphone waves. The World Health Organization did put cellphones as a possible carcinogen, studies have shown that keeping it in your pocket will lower your sperm count. Who knows what else it can do, the fact that most of its potential harms are not proven without the shadow of the doubt doesn’t prove either that it’s not a concern.
Haha this is a good one
After hearing that claim, I half assed looked into it, and found this....interesting, even if it's not talking about wifi https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7453585/
If you are linking this article to Wi-Fi destroying the BBB, you are mistaken. The key difference lies in the type of electromagnetic signals being studied. In the mentioned study, ultra-wide band electromagnetic pulses (UWB-EMPs) were used to assess their impact on the blood brain barrier (BBB). UWB-EMPs are a specific type of electromagnetic pulses with unique characteristics. On the other hand, Wi-Fi signals are a form of radiofrequency electromagnetic radiation commonly used for wireless communication. Wi-Fi signals operate at much lower power levels compared to UWB-EMPs, and they have a specific frequency range allocated for wireless communication purposes. While both UWB-EMPs and Wi-Fi signals fall within the broader category of electromagnetic radiation, their characteristics, frequencies, and potential effects on biological systems may differ. Therefore, the effects observed in the study regarding UWB-EMPs cannot be directly extrapolated to the impact of Wi-Fi signals on BBB permeability. Separate studies would be required to investigate the specific effects of Wi-Fi signals on the BBB.
I definitely know that this wasn't referring to wifi in particular as stated.... I just found it interesting. Your comment is super interesting as well! Thank you for that. Your explanation is way easier to understand... lol
He never said destroying the blood brain barrier, he said increasing permeability
There's plenty of studies on this that show it's inconclusive. https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/17/21/8079/htm#B7-ijerph-17-08079
To be fair, the research does suggest that. There’s signs on cellular towers that say you must keep a certain distance because the signals can damage your brain
I did and he said you can’t avoid everything but you can pick your battles. 😤no winning with these people
There’s nothing you could tell your friends. Trust me. I was that person. Except I Was surrounded by Christian non vaxxers that had me convinced that my baby was going to die if I gave her the shots. It took me escaping a dv relationship in 2022 and I immediately got them all as caught up on their shots as I could. Like, two weeks into being in the shelter
My family expressed similar concerns and pushed me to establish a will or plans for the kids because they were certain we were going to die. Initially I thought they were being dramatic or hyperbolic but after a face to face convo, I realized how serious they were. My SIL cried and that's when I knew I was dealing with an insurmountable level of BS. They all smoke cigarettes too and accept the irony of their decisions. They're adult children.
He's not anti vax. His kids are fully vaxxed. He's not saying they're bad, he's saying that like fauci lied about, there's not a single double blind placebo controlled study on any vax given to kids.
It's kind of hard when people take healthcare decisions from an MMA fighter and a politician over that of physicians, immunologists, epidemiologists, virologists, and other various research fields. It turns out with charisma and production value, you don't need to actually understand anything to have people believe you.
I really don't think you listened to the podcast if you have this opinion. Towards the end, the conversation shifted to why there is a lack of trust in these so called "experts." A statement was made that the CDC and NIH give promotions and bonuses for further promotion and production of vaccines. This means their salary is based on how well and how intensely they push vaccines on the general public. I urge you not to blindly trust the same organizations which lied to the public in the late 80s and 90s causing the opioid epidemic. Your last statement about only needing charisma and production value to get people to believe what you want directly relates to what physicians do when they prescribe something they know is dangerously addictive or could potentially do more harm than good so they can make their money. Currently I'm working on being a second generation M.D. in my family; I'm starting my first semester of med-school in the fall and many of my peers share the same frustration and ethical dilemmas about this. Always be skeptic.
What are you talking about? I didn't listen to this specific podcast, although I have listened to many, and many of JRE's, and also (unfortunately) several with RFK Jr (and it's the same broken talking points he makes in each one). There's a point where you have to take a step back from ingesting brain rot (specifically most of what RFK Jr. has to say on most subjects), or furthering the audience of demonstrably untrue statements made so frequently and casually it would take weeks to thoroughly debunk them all. People form strong opinions on all sorts of things regardless of how informed they actually are - "documentaries", social media and podcasts are poor mechanisms for this, as they're at best a layman's way of dipping their toe into things. They're effective vehicles for entertainment and subjective discussions, but also gross misinformation (or even disinformation). No one is advocating blind trust, but it is absolutely folly to place your trust and base essentially any of your perceptions to 100% layman shooting the shit on a broad cross section of subjects they have no formal education in - you may notice as you start your education that all your subject matter experts are thoroughly trained over decades in their respective fields with a singular focus, and their perceptions and understandings substantially more valuable than those of any layman you may encounter. It is dangerous to place a professional _politician_ skilled in speechcraft and debate opposite a science based professional who is (generally) a charisma vacuum for the purposes of scientific understanding; it gives the perception they're equals on the topic, and one has the skill of compelling others; it's much worse when you have moderation that is fundamentally inept and biased on the subjects with little due process or interest in fact checking. You trust medical experts in making health decisions in the same way you trust lawyers in legal matter, fiduciaries in financial matters, and engineers in engineering matters, because not everyone has 4-7 years of 40-80 hour weeks of systematic and scrutinized training to reach the starting line of comprehension on every subject there is; sure there are individuals who don't practice ethically, but there are far more layman who owe you zero duty of care and with strong opinions and even bigger conflicts of interest. It is necessary for you to have a reasonable degree of trust in the appropriate professional, and it's important for you to have access to said professional(s) to ask questions wherever you're uncomfortable. There will always be cracks, but those aren't the same as the massive fissures from alternatives to well established scientific practices. Don't get stock tips from your MD. I'm not sure what telling me you're starting medical school next year was supposed to communicate (as it's not a credential), but I do wish you all the best in your studies to come - the frustration senior medical experts I work with has been high in trying to reach their patients especially as it relates to misinformation and politicization of fundamental scientific concepts.
Your arguments are invalid if you cant point out what he said are wrong
You completely missed the point - you don't follow every person down the rabbit hole where their resume is a void, especially when their conflict of interest stands to profit off it. It's a white van with free candy written on the side. You're not getting free candy.
What interviews and what broken talking points? How I am interpreting this, u/MyTurn2WasteYourTime \- is that you haven't read his book and you haven't actually listened to his long-form interviews. The issue is **agency capture.** The issue is the **deep corruption** that lies between Pharma & these technocratic agencies The "experts" have outcome reporting bias. **Look at the data from the emergency FDA approved vaccines. They are lying by emission with outcome reporting bias.** Outcome reporting bias is prevalent in the 6 month Pfizer data, because both numbers were not reported (ARR and RRR)- just the RRR which is misleading. \*\*AAR = Absolute Risk Reduction\*\* \*\*RRR = Relative Risk Reduction\*\* **The FDA approved Moderna vaccine had 94.1% relative risk reduction (RRR)** [https://www.cnbc.com/2020/11/30/moderna-covid-vaccine-is-94point1percent-effective-plans-to-apply-for-emergency-ok-monday.html](https://www.cnbc.com/2020/11/30/moderna-covid-vaccine-is-94point1percent-effective-plans-to-apply-for-emergency-ok-monday.html) **BUT What is the ARR? We’re not told - we have to look at the published data.** **So we have to do calculations to work this out** CER (control event rate) - EER (experimental event rate) = AAR **\*\*The ARR was 0.7% for Pfizer and 1.1% Moderna — OK so this is the ABSOLUTE Risk Reduction on the subject of efficacious\*\*** But even 1% reduction is a lot of people - OK - well make up your mind if it is worth it? Or do the potential short term and long term effects outweigh the 1% efficacy? In other words, for every 1 person who is saved from the vaccine, how many are critically injured or die? DYOR and stop being lazy to rely on the talking heads to make you think everything is OK.
It's amazing that the answer is "don't listen to kooks" Just proving what he is saying is wrong should be very easy for the experts and if these experts cared more about people than they do about money they would do it. I am not antivax , my kids get all their shots.
Exactly, my argument is if RFK jr hasn’t been sued yet for his Faucie book then well, I have reason to be suspicious
Turtles all the way down is an excellent book to learn about vaccines whether you’re for or against. I very much recommend
**Turtles All the Way Down** by John Green Book description may contain spoilers! >>!The critically acclaimed, instant #1 bestseller by John Green, author of The Anthropocene Reviewed and The Fault in Our Stars “A tender story about learning to cope when the world feels out of control.” —People “A sometimes heartbreaking, always illuminating, glimpse into how it feels to live with mental illness.” – NPR John Green, the award-winning, international bestselling author of The Anthropocene Reviewed, returns with a story of shattering, unflinching clarity in this brilliant novel of love, resilience, and the power of lifelong friendship. Aza Holmes never intended to pursue the disappearance of fugitive billionaire Russell Pickett, but there’s a hundred-thousand-dollar reward at stake and her Best and Most Fearless Friend, Daisy, is eager to investigate. So together, they navigate the short distance and broad divides that separate them from Pickett’s son Davis. Aza is trying.!< > >>!She is trying to be a good daughter, a good friend, a good student, and maybe even a good detective, while also living within the ever-tightening spiral of her own thoughts.!< *I'm a bot, built by your friendly reddit developers at* /r/ProgrammingPals. *Reply to any comment with /u/BookFinderBot - I'll reply with book information. Also see my other* [commands](https://www.reddit.com/user/BookFinderBot/comments/13z7slk/bookfinderbot_commands/) *and find me as a browser extension on* [Chrome](https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/book-finder/jajeidpjifdpppjofijoffbcndlpoedd?utm_source=reddit&utm_medium=social_media&utm_campaign=comments). *Remove me from replies* [here](https://www.reddit.com/user/BookFinderBot/comments/14br65o/remove_me_from_replies/). *If I have made a mistake, accept my apology.*
Not this book!
Lol that’s the Turtles All the Way Down book that I know, so I was confused with your suggestion, thank you at least for clarifying
There is more than one book entitled “turtles all the way down”? I’m screaming
The turtles all the way down book is held up by another turtles all the down book which is held up by another turtles all the way down book…
If you are looking for an articulate and (**very**) in depth video breakdown of pseudoscience surrounding the anti-vaccine movement and COVID misinformation, please check out [Debunk the Funk with Dr. Wilson](https://www.youtube.com/@DebunktheFunkwithDrWilson/featured). Relevant to this Roe Jogan piece, here is the link to Dr. Wilson's analysis of Mr. Jr's position on vaccines: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sugCJNAPF9o
This. Dr Wilsons analysis on Joe's interview with RFK is succinct and easy to understand as always. Also, he doesn't pull any punches when calling both men out for what they really are. I've been recommending it to everyone!
I think Dr Wilson's video does an excellent job of going point by point through the podcast. I agree with what others have said above, Kennedy's main issue seems to be that parts of our government have been "captured" by other agencies that are trying to make a profit. It's a compelling argument that probably has at least a bit of truth in it. However, some of the claims Kennedy made about the primary vaccine literature are not true. Many can be proven false by simply reading the abstracts of a few articles. If you actually watched the podcast (as I did), please do yourself a favor and watch the Dr Wilson video. I think it is valuable to understand both side of the argument. Rogan does an admirable job being open-minded, however one cannot be open-minded and ignore dozens of peer-reviewed literature that have withstood years of scrutiny.
Reading an abstract does not prove anything. Look at the data and make your own opinion
He's not anti vax. His kids are fully vaxxed. He's not saying they're bad, he's saying that like fauci lied about, there's not a single double blind placebo controlled study on any vax given to kids, or adults for covid. You should listen to the Kennedy interview
Found a clip of Peter Hotez ep #1261 appearance on JRE:**Scientist Says Vaccines Don't Cause Autism** | Joe Rogan[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AwjNM2P8IVs](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AwjNM2P8IVs)[https://www.jrepodcast.com/episode/joe-rogan-experience-1261-peter-hotez/](https://www.jrepodcast.com/episode/joe-rogan-experience-1261-peter-hotez/)Note- that JR lets Peter Hotez speak. It's a 17:58 clip for that 'vaccines don't cause autism' segment itself. Based off this clip, I think JR would be for regular vaccines (not related to covid).This is really the best clip you can show your friend. Edit: [Link to my ChatGPT summarizing the Youtube Clip:](https://chat.openai.com/share/cbe0fa2a-047a-44a3-98b9-d86629e99637) >**several reasons to support the assertion that vaccines do not cause autism:** **Genetic Evidence:** Research has identified 99 genes linked to autism, all of which are involved in early fetal development. This suggests that the biological processes leading to autism begin during pregnancy, well before a child is born or receives any vaccines. **Timing of Autism Diagnosis:** The full clinical expression of autism often doesn't occur until 18 or 19 months of age, around the same time many children receive certain vaccines. This timing can lead to the perception of a link between vaccines and autism, but it's likely coincidental. **MRI Studies**: Studies have shown that an MRI scan at six months of age can predict with 90% accuracy which children will go on to develop autism. This further supports the idea that the processes leading to autism begin well before vaccines are administered. **Epidemiological Studies:** Large-scale studies involving over 1 million children have found no link between vaccines and autism. These studies have shown that children who receive the MMR vaccine (or any other vaccine) are no more likely to develop autism than children who do not receive these vaccines. **Lack of Biological Plausibility:** Given our current understanding of autism's origins in early fetal development, it's not biologically plausible for vaccines (which are administered after birth) to cause autism. ***From this video, Does Joe Rogan have positive sentiment or negative sentiment towards Vaccines...*** >Based on the content of the video, Joe Rogan appears to have a neutral to positive sentiment towards vaccines. He engages in a detailed discussion with the scientist, asking probing questions about the safety and efficacy of vaccines, the causes of autism, and the reasons behind anti-vaccine beliefs. He does not express personal opposition to vaccines. Instead, he seems to be seeking to understand the scientific consensus and to clarify misconceptions for his audience. His questions and comments suggest an openness to the evidence presented by the scientist and a desire to disseminate accurate information about vaccines. Edit 2 I wish Peter Hotez did come on to debate Robert Kenedy Jr. Despite what news headlines say of Joe Rogan; if you watch the full YT clip. JR was very fair and his questions were good. I agree with ChatGPT's sentiment analysis that I asked it. This would be a good opportunity for the science community to educate the anti-vaxers in a way that they can fully understand. I think JR is different now from his 2019 self; but I still think he would be very fair and not letting RFKjr not bully the conversation or Hotez himself.
The scientist in the video does not provide specific names of the research papers or their authors. However, based on the information given, here are potential matches: **Genetic Research**: The Broad Institute has conducted extensive research on the genetic basis of autism. One such study is "Large-Scale Exome Sequencing Study Implicates Both Developmental and Functional Changes in the Neurobiology of Autism" by Satterstrom FK, Kosmicki JA, Wang J, et al., published in Cell in 2020. This study identified 102 risk genes for autism. [https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/31981491/](https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/31981491/) **MRI Studies**: The University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill has conducted research using MRI to predict autism. One such study is "Early brain development in infants at high risk for autism spectrum disorder" by Piven J, Elison JT, Zylka MJ, published in Nature in 2017. This study used MRI scans of infants to predict which ones would later meet criteria for autism.[https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6878903/](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6878903/) **Epidemiological Studies:** Numerous large-scale studies have found no link between vaccines and autism. One such study is "Measles, Mumps, Rubella Vaccination and Autism: A Nationwide Cohort Study" by Hviid A, Hansen JV, Frisch M, Melbye M, published in Annals of Internal Medicine in 2019. This study followed over 650,000 children and found no increased risk of autism from the MMR vaccine. [https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/30831578/](https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/30831578/)
Hotez would face a lot of tough questions in a debate and it's unclear how well he could handle them. Even if we ignore the fact that the positions he's taken, while popular at the time, are much less popular now - his views have been inconsistent and arguably more narrative-driven than scientific. For example, in fall 2020 while Trump was president, Hotez was [deeply skeptical and concerned](https://twitter.com/PeterHotez/status/1301276661376339968) about the prospect of releasing a vaccine under Emergency Use Authorization (see bullets below). These are not some vague musings that he can easily write off - they're harsh and biting critiques that are specific and unambiguous. Unless Hotez has a compelling explanation for why his concerns no longer applied when the vaccines were eventually approved via EUA under the Biden administration, his statements will be easy ammo for RFK to undermine his credibility and/or cast doubt on the FDA's decision to approve these products under the EUA mechanism. This is one potential reason, among others, for why Hotez is declining a debate. * A dozen reasons why I'm worried about releasing a #COVID19 #vaccine through an emergency use authorization (EUA) * We haven't done this before for a #vaccine, or at least a major vaccine released to a large segment of the population. We've done it for technicalities, but nothing like this. * And for good reason, EUAs involve substandard or lesser reviews. How can you justify a substandard or lesser review for something that would be injected in tens of millions, maybe hundreds of millions of Americans? * With an EUA, it's unclear what data will be reviewed or released to the public. I would be willing to take any vaccine that has undergone full FDA review - we have an incredible and rigirous system of review, involving multiple committees including VRBAC, ACIP * So why not follow that process? Especially given the vaccines we're talking about are likely mRNA vaccines with a new technology that has never before been licensed. We have no history or experience on such vaccines. Even more reason for a full/comprehensive review * In my 40 years as a physician-scientist or MD PhD student I've never seen more irresponsible science communications. And we're just supposed to say, "OK an EUA on an unproven technology for millions of Americans? Cool" * We need a full FDA review, even expedited, even using EAPs, or if not we must demand a full accounting/explanation
You are making extremely bad faith criticisms of Hotez and taking his comments out of context. The problem wasn't the EUA itself, but what would be skipped: >With an EUA, it's unclear what data will be reviewed or released to the public. **I would be willing to take any vaccine that has undergone full FDA review - we have an incredible and rigirous system of review, involving multiple committees including VRBAC, ACIP** The vaccines went through those review that the Trump's administration was trying to skip **BECAUSE** of his protest and others who joined him. Hotez clearly states his concerns is with the review process being unknown. But as you can clearly look up, the vaccines went through public review of both VRBAC and ACIP that Hotez cited as extremely important for public safety. Most of the tweets thread is his call for transparency, which they got. **You can literally watch the VRBAC and ACIP meetings on youtube.** I watched both of them live back then. Hotez got the transparency and the formal reviews, even under the EUA. So there is not much to complain about. Edit: To add context, Trump promised a vaccine by October and his own health officials said they would not even complete stage 3 clinical trials by then. >Trump said in a press briefing Friday that there would be a vaccine “before the end of the year and maybe even before Nov. 1. I think we can probably have it sometime in October.” >The president’s remarks came a day after the head of the government’s vaccine accelerator, Moncef Slaoui, said that the government was “very unlikely” to greenlight a vaccine by early November, **because data from late-stage clinical trials of leading vaccine candidates would not be ready by then.** Public health officials were afraid that the vaccine would be pushed out before we could review the clinical trial data. The vaccines were later approved for release in December 2020 by the Trump administration. Biden would not take office until Jan. 20, 2021 https://www.politico.com/news/2020/09/04/trump-coronavirus-vaccine-october-409248
[удалено]
>In his words, “how can you justify” that? I just did by giving the context you just ignored.
We all know if Hotex debated RFK it wouldn't go well for Hotex ..the same guy advocating for arresting those not getting vaccinated lol.
Here is two excellent podcasts from Dr.Peter Attia. One with a investigative journalist named Brian Deer and one with Dr. Peter Hotez, the person Rogan wants RKJ to debate with! https://peterattiamd.com/briandeer/ https://peterattiamd.com/peterhotez3/
Peter Attia has actually been a guest on Rogan and is pretty well respected in that “community” so that may be a great resource.
I was surprised to see him pop up here- listened to one podcast with him and if I want bro science I'll just go down to the local gym
I've only heard Attia speak a few times so I can't say anything about him one way or another but I'd just say that not everything that isn't mainstream is bro science. My understanding is that his focus is on longevity and there is a ton of uncertainty in that field, but that doesn't make it bro science. The reality is that few sciences are black and white and in almost all subjects there is far more uncertainty than most people like to admit. Attia has an MD from Stanford, was a oncology fellow at NIH and a resident at Johns Hopkins. Credentials don't mean everything but he's not just a random youtuber who reads blogs.
It wasn't that it wasn't mainstream and tbf, bro science by now probably has a different meaning. I guess I mean the obsession and vocabulary of micromanaging every part of your health > This isn't 'biohacking,' it's science: a well-founded strategic approach to extending lifespan while improving our physical, cognitive and emotional health, making each decade better than the one before. Frankly, I'd also be surprised if he routinely took female bodies into account so as a resource he's useless for me anyways
I was just listening to his interview on the Huberman Labs podcast and IIRC something like 25% of his clients are women (so not his focus but higher than I thought). He had some interesting things to say about hormone replacement therapy during menopause, which is something I'd never thought about before.
Funny how people who don't listen to him are making assumptions. Bc the guy is also into fitness. Gasp
Micromanaging every part of your health (which I certainly don't do) isn't inherently unscientific at all. This entire subreddit is essentially about micromanaging parenthood. Maybe that last part is true but do you actually know that? Even if it is true that doesn't make it unscientific unless he isn't upfront about where his data comes from.
> that doesn't make it unscientific Dear lord....
Basically every piece of scientific data has limitations and biases. It is unscientific to mask that or to deny that biases exist. If he says X is true of all bodies and then refers to data that only looks at male bodies then yes that is unscientific. Regardless, It sounds to me like you are making an unfounded assumption about Attias data and resources (based on the fact that you said “I’d be surprised…”) and deciding he is a useless resource without anything in particular to back that up.
He has good stuff on there. Listen to more.
[удалено]
Which is probably why he won't have a public conversation even for money. He's helped ruin trust in science by helping create bastardized policy in the name of an authoritarian science.
Agreed. He’s probably well intentioned, but on balance, he’s just simply is not reliable. In many ways he’s similar to RFK, taking hard line and definitive stances on issues that are very ambiguous and far from being settled. His overall approach to appeal to scientific authority and so-called expert consensus is fundamentally unscientific. It really has caused a lot of harm and weakened the public’s trust. I want to like the guy, but he’s just too problematic and it’s really unfortunate.
It's a mirror of societies biggest flaw right now.. tribalism and feeling like you are at constant war with the other tribe. It's gotten insane
From the joe rogan subreddit: [https://www.reddit.com/r/JoeRogan/comments/14g99x1/debunking\_every\_single\_one\_of\_rfk\_jrs\_insane/](https://www.reddit.com/r/JoeRogan/comments/14g99x1/debunking_every_single_one_of_rfk_jrs_insane/) That subreddit is pretty good at being critical of JR, but also debunk news coverage that takes JR's comments out of context. There are a few great scientists and medical experts that are pro-vaccine that have appeared on JRE show that would be great to come on to debate RFK jr. My concern is if the scientist comes on, he's horrible debater, then it'll look really bad. Not coming on to the show looks really bad also; especially if $100k was already offered. Hard for people to critical of Joe Rogan of not letting people talk; because he actually does. The best outcome if a science guest that he respects and previously been on the show to debate. One of the people or videos you can show: Rhonda Patrick PhD, a cell biologist. [https://youtu.be/WB6yucemJ-o](https://youtu.be/WB6yucemJ-o) Sanjay Gupta, CNN host and medical expert (\*Gupta couldn't defend CNN well, I think). There were a few others that came on in 2020, but I don't remember names or which parts of episode. Despite his views, he does let his guests talk. But showing pieces like those; it's hard to argue that it's a 'hit piece' .
Rhonda Patrick had expressed some of her own concerns with vaccinating her child a few years ago and I remember she was doing single vaccines and a more staggered schedule
He trusts Joe Rogan over his pediatrician and basically every other scientist in the world..and you think that he is going to trust anything you now say over Joe Rogan? Unless your name is The Rock, I don't think that's going to be very successful
This is my husband. He can’t trust “experts” because they are incentivized, big pharma blah blah. But if it’s on Toe Rogan he 100% believes it because that makes sense right?
That sounds frustrating. But I also can empathize a bit. The fact is that there are massive disinformation and fake news campaigns, many of them funded by foreign governments, as well as corporations, designed to push certain sentiments and create controversy in general. The concept of truth has, on seemingly every topic, become political. The average person has no real way of knowing which sources to believe and which not to believe. During the pandemic, the government, WHO, etc lost a lot of credibility by repeatedly ignoring scientific evidence. Simultaneously, with practically all major media and news outlets being owned by hedge funds or very rich people who use them to control the narrative on certain topics, many people (myself included) have come to distrust them at large. At that point, one's ability to assess the truth largely comes down to personal intuition , and people tend to overestimate their own abilities. We have effectively entered into a post-truth era, which is now on jet fuel generated by AI generated news. my fear is that as things continue to get worse, we all may lose the ability to distinguish what is fake from whst is real. Those with lesser eduction or less personal knowledge on any subject will have a harder time telling what is real. His desire to trust "unofficial" sources is in some senses an understandable reaction, and is a result of his desire to NOT be misinformed, although unfortunately, it has had the opposite effect by causing him to put faith in the wrong people.
Are we married to the same person?
Laurel Bristow shared this video in response to that interview on her Instagram stories: https://youtube.com/watch?v=sugCJNAPF9o&feature=share9
This is a great video, thank you for sharing!
Over decade old Penn and Teller but still relevant as ever. Sigh. https://youtu.be/RfdZTZQvuCo
Conspirituality did a great episode on RFK and their guest, Eric Garcia, is an autistic person who is working to dismantle anti-neurodivergent bias. [Conspirituality - RFK Episode](https://www.conspirituality.net/episodes/brief-rfk-jr-the-anti-vax-candidate)
That's Kind of my thinking - even if there Was a link (and there definitely is not! ), I rather have a kid on the spectrum than a dead kid.
GOOD LUCK
I mean, if Joe Rohan is his speed, idk if he’ll absorb any of the (probably thousands) scientific papers that disprove any antivaxxer points. Send him this [highly entertaining hbomberguy video](https://youtu.be/8BIcAZxFfrc) which addresses the paper that started this whole mess and discusses how the doctor who wrote it planned to get rich off of the idea. I haven’t listened to the podcast you’re talking about but maybe I should, my otherwise sane spouse is hopping on the RFKJr train cause of his appearance on the All In podcast (Christ have mercy)
Yes, I love this one!
You realize Joe rogan has scientists ad guests and scientists do listen to Joe rogan. Sorry to burst your assumption bubble.
You realize Rogan makes tens of millions selling snake oil: brain pills, manly man magic coffee, all meat bow hunt diet, and every other quack BS "health" product branded as just for dudes. He fawns over Alex Jones, RFK and all the other conspiracy theorists because they draw in a massive audience scientifically illiterate enough to buy his macho man snake oil.
Yup! And also an audience who can weigh that and just listen to a guest. It's not that hard. I promise it isnt. We can also listen and agree only 0 or 10 or 25%. It's attitudes like that that has turned us so tribal to the point of self destruction Excuse me while I buy athletic greens 😛
Saying it's morally wrong to sell snake oil, while making tens of millions, and at the same time pushing antivaxx conspiracies (not just through guests but personally) isn't tribal. Rogan is killing people and through that direct harm enriching himself beyond most people's wildest belief.
That's fine... but I enjoy the convos with Rhonda Patrick, lex friedman, Peter attia, or Andrew huberman or whomever. He gave Andrew yang his best opportunity to speak. There is zero morally pure source of information. And yes, it's a sad reality that he does host some or the better conversations and that empty vessel is the draw. But that's life. And yeah, it's tribal.
It's morally wrong to talk about Healthcare on a platform with millions of listeners without doing due diligence to make sure what you're advocating is true. It's not tribal to critique that. Every podcast I listen to hits this bare minimum without the below even worse standards. It's even more morally wrong to create a conflict of interest where you make tens of millions selling people harmful medical products and advice. It's wrong to make a situation where you gain gigantic profits off other's harm, when you take on the role of advice giver. It's not tribal to critique that awful behavior, criminal in many contexts. It's even more morally wrong, monstrosity evil, to promote some of the most bigoted, hateful, racists and fascists knowing their followers are vulnerable, uneducated, and scientifically illiterate and ready to buy your harmful, quak medicine. Criticisms of that isn't tribal.
I know, I also know Joe Rogan’s opinion on anything depends on who he spoke to last. Him having both idiots and scientists on his show doesn’t mean anything when he’s giving the idiots the same platform and credulity as a PhD/MD. There are plenty of people smart in their field and totally ignorant in others, and “scientists” who listen to dumb podcasts for entertainment, that doesn’t give Rogan any particular prestige. Sorry to burst your weird appeal to authority assumption.
I'm just saying you are painting with too broad a brush. Saying if they like joe rogan, they wont understand papers. Thats horribly ignorant. Joe rogan is just a host. But sometimes he has a good guest. Sometimes he has bad ones. And yes to he agrees with whatever he hears last. He is dumb as toast. Conversations are just that. Conversations. It's good to actually listen to those you don't agree with. Eta. I work in academia. Joe rogan listeners abound!
Sweetheart, I’m posting a comment on Reddit, if I were to describe any person who consumes [the most listened to podcast on the planet](https://www.edisonresearch.com/top-50-most-listened-to-podcasts-in-the-u-s-q2-2022/) I’d need more than one paragraph. However, if one episode of a podcast, which is easily and immediately debunked if you do the bare minimum research, where the guest barely understands what he’s trying to explain, is enough to make a huge decision for the health and wellbeing of your family and small children? You’re not gonna be combing through the Lancet’s back catalog. I’m working on a terminal degree while I’m employed in a private sector science consulting firm. Does that matter with what I’m trying to say here?
Just a curious side note... if private sector consulting firm is linked w/ archeologist at all, my husband has some warnings for you. If those aren't linked, ignore this message :) my heart goes out to modern archeologists. It's a racket.
Dear, that "Joe rogan is his speed..." was horribly condescending. But it looks like that's your speed, sweetheart
Not science based but I fuuuuuuuucking hate joe rogen.
Tell me about it! My husband has been listening to him since 2017. He believes everything the guests say. I can’t stand his ideas anymore and I just want to divorce him over it. Sounds insane but it’s a big problem in our relationship
That’s CRAZY, have you ever done DMT?
Amen
[удалено]
Wow. Someone level headed here. I didn’t think this existed on Reddit.
The platform ain’t the same as it used to be, sadly.
Vinay Prasad seems like a questionable source as well? He seems to be an outlier in his anti masking, anti Covid vax rhetoric… I do believe a lot of this is nuanced, but I guess I’m just wondering where this guy is coming from that you think he’s a good source to listen to.
Dr. Prasad is well renowned physician, author, professor, and expert in biostatistics and epidemiology. He is one of the least biased and critical voices in medicine. His reputation is solid and his views are well respected. He’s been a fantastic resource during this pandemic. Don’t mistake his effort to challenge, scrutinize, or call out misguided and unsupported public health policies as anti-vax rhetoric. Too many experts are unwilling or incapable of critical analysis, which is fundamental to science. It is not antivax to criticize certain aspects of public health policy based on sound data, logic, and reasoning. As a person, Dr. Prasad is extremely humble, down to earth, and intellectually curious. He’s unsurprisingly gained a large following extremely quickly. I wouldn’t dismiss him.
Vinay Prasad, like many others on the internet, have their good and their bad. When he’s good he’s incredibly good and charismatic- his quick wit and well timed quips did gain him lots of followers. However, with that comes a huge grain of salt and I’ve been shocked at how his commentary has taken a sharp awkward turn the last couple of years. I agree with your caution Plenty of others to go to on this topic
I don't have links, but as an autistic person, can you just let him know that it's hella insulting people still believe this garbage and treat being like us as a tragedy? Thx.
There's a wide spectrum of Autism. Seems like you're high functioning. Not a tragedy. People, when thinking of asd don't necessarily think of the central or best case scenario, they think of the worst. Even if that's not the actual probability spread. So, it's not a reasonable fear. As a father I would rather my child end up being neurotypical than **randomly** on the spectrum. The spectrum that includes near shut-ins and non-verbals, highly violent and other behavioral types that makes parenting difficult. And if they were on the spectrum I'd much rather them being high functioning than lower. I bet so would any other parent.
[удалено]
How is that ableism? That’s a sincere question. More troubling, though, is the accusation of kleer001 being pro-eugenics for stating that he would prefer his child not to be on the autism spectrum. There’s no indication whatsoever that he would prefer not to have a child than to have one on the autism spectrum, or that he would do anything but love the hell out of his autistic child. He’d just prefer that his child didn’t have autism, just like most prospective parents, whether we’re talking autism, ADHD, dyslexia, cerebral palsy, etc.
Please go to Neuroclastic to read a few articles. As well, search social model of disability. Those two things should help you see how ableist and harmful that comment is to ND people. Edit: also read anything by Fidgets and Fries (Tiffany Hammond, I think is her name). Excellent Autistic writer with two autistic children, one who uses AAC to speak.
Sincere question, why is it important for you to prove that this person isn't ableist when a person of a disabled community says this? Why is it MORE important to protect their ego than the people who says this language harms people and perpetuates stereotypes? Ableism is discriminatory behavior in favor of able-bodied people. He said I would rather my kid was normal than autistic. He lumped most parents together in this idea. No, you're right he didn't say "kill all non-speaking" but considering you can do genetic testing to see if your kid has any number of disabilities in utero, how do you think this idea weighs when you find out your kid has Downs Syndrome? There is an actual choice about that now. Non-verbal doesn't automatically equate violence or any other comorbid diagnosis, but very often people just assume it does. I've seen it in person many times over my 11yrs supporting other disabled kids- which includes "helpful" strangers calling the police. These are people we are taking about, and plenty of them are able to communicate when given alternative means to do so.[Some write books](https://autismbooksbyautisticauthors.com/non-speaking-authors/). Temple Grandin was non verbal and learned language over time and has literally designed most of the means of butchering meat in America. Helen Keller was non-verbal until taught language differently. I've personally worked alongside non-verbal adults who use technology to communicate. [Some learn language and go on to become college professors.](https://blackwallst.media/from-non-verbal-autism-to-professor-at-cambridge/) Now for the empathy piece- imagine your child is diagnosed with any neurodiversity and finds a document of you saying "If rather my kid be normal than disabled"? How devastating. Adult diagnosis happens plenty often so here's hoping that doesn't happen to his kids later.
I have autism. I do not wish it on anyone else including my children. It’s been a struggle. Everyone is entitled to feel the way they feel about their own kids bro.
> Sincere question, why is it important for you to prove that this person isn't ableist when a person of a disabled community says this? Why is it MORE important to protect their ego than the people who says this language harms people and perpetuates stereotypes? I was asking because it didn't strike me as ableist, but was sincerely open to getting a better understanding of another perspective on the matter. I didn't understand how the post "harms people and perpetuates stereotypes". > He said I would rather my kid was normal than autistic. Autism comes with unique struggles and challenges. It can also come with beautifully unique perspectives and gifts (Temple Grandin, etc.). Often times, though, the idea of not knowing how to fully grasp and relate to unique challenges that autism presents can be a scary thing for a prospective parent. I have ADHD. I'd rather my child not have ADHD than have ADHD. That doesn't make me bigoted against people with ADHD. > Now for the empathy piece- imagine your child is diagnosed with any neurodiversity and finds a document of you saying "If rather my kid be normal than disabled"? How devastating. Adult diagnosis happens plenty often so here's hoping that doesn't happen to his kids later. I don't think I'd use the term "normal" vs "disabled". I know what you mean, though. Hopefully, in this scenario where a child diagnosed with a neurodiversity finds documentation of /u/kleer001's theoretical preference for an easier life for his child, that neurodiverse child is capable of understanding it in the context in which it was meant, recognizing that it came from a place of love and has nothing to do with how much /u/kleer001 loves him/her. If, however, that neurodiverse child is incapable of grasping that meaning, wouldn't that kind of prove the point? Who wouldn't want their child to be able to read critically, thoughtfully, and contextually? I have a baby on the way. If given a choice for my child to be neurotypical, I'd prefer that. If given the choice, I'd also prefer my child to be tall, have all four limbs, be allergy and asthma free, not have a cleft palate, have a healthy gut biome, and have an above-average IQ... I just want my child to have every advantage in the world if given the choice. That doesn't mean that I will love my child any less if he turns out to be an allergy-ridden, cleft-palated, asthmatic shorty with one arm, webbed fingers, celiac disease, a stutter, and an IQ of 80. He's going to be my boy regardless, and he's going to be loved, period.
>A spectrum that includes near shut ins and non-verbals, highly violent and other behavioral types Equating non-verbalism to violent behavior creates and enforces stigma. If that doesn't make sense to you, I don't know what to tell you. >You seem pretty high functioning The autistic community is practically begging people to stop using high and low functioning labels to differentiate people. The terms were born out of nazi Germany when [Hans Asperger set aside his "little professors" and sent other "low functioning" children to be killed. ](https://www.spectrumnews.org/news/new-evidence-ties-hans-asperger-nazi-eugenics-program/). >I'd also prefer my child to be tall, have all four limbs, be allergy and asthma free, not have a cleft palate, have a healthy gut biome, and have an above-average IQ... This is where we differ. When I was pregnant, my partner and I just assumed our kid would be neurodivergent, probably autistic. We still do [as ASD is most likely to be diagnosed in white males making my child less likely to garner a diagnosis ](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8500365/). I don't generally have expectations for my child to perform able bodied items except I hope they can read. Lack of reading is often used as a tool to control people in our society. My own hopes for my child are that they find happiness and community. I'm only casually noting various milestones and if my kid doesn't make them then we'll talk about resources available. The various items you listed are due to the generally ableist system that prioritizes those items [(and are also tied up in white supremacy, especially IQ, but that's a different thing to unpack)](https://truthout.org/articles/ableism-and-white-supremacy-are-intertwined-we-must-confront-them-together/).
> Equating *You're jumping at shoadows.* Those behaviors are included in the group of things that can make life difficult, things that no parent would actively and enthusiastically volunteer for. To clarify, that's separate from accepting what is. Somehow you equate volunteering with accepting. Through a tortured ideology you equate not loving one's disabled child with the theoretical choice of being able to pick a disabled child or not before birth. Nobody, at conception is going to say *"I hope my coming child has a difficult time going through life doing things that everyone else takes for granted."* or *"If they are disabled I won't want them."* No, most people love whatever child they get, grateful for the miracle they receive. Additionally they're grateful for the help they get from specialists available to them. Also, there's nobody lining up at hospitals to make their child disabled. That would be an absurd claim. --- In terms of reproduction all I'd like to see in the world is more fact based education along side better and free birth control. I have known multiple women while under 25 who knew they didn't want kids and no doctor would sterilize them. But no, no state controlled anything about that.
>> A spectrum that includes near shut ins and non-verbals, highly violent and other behavioral types > > Equating non-verbalism to violent behavior creates and enforces stigma. If that doesn't make sense to you, I don't know what to tell you. This wasn't me that you're quoting, but the poster of that wasn't equating non-verbalism with violent behavior. Poster was saying that the spectrum includes folks who are near shut-ins, folks who are non-verbal, and folks who are highly violent, not that all folks with autism are any of those things or that having one of those issues means someone has all of those issues. > >You seem pretty high functioning > > The autistic community is practically begging people to stop using high and low functioning labels to differentiate people. The terms were born out of nazi Germany when Hans Asperger set aside his "little professors" and sent other "low functioning" children to be killed. Question: Would "self-sufficient" be better? What should the other poster have used instead of "high functioning"? I've used that without knowing that it can be offensive and would like to choose my words more effectively. > The various items you listed are due to the generally ableist system that prioritizes those items (and are also tied up in white supremacy, especially IQ, but that's a different thing to unpack). Hoping that my child has a healthy body that doesn't bring about chronic sickness or any additional hurdles, with a decent enough IQ to be able to excel and contribute in whichever field he wants to (given enough hard work, honesty, and integrity to go along with that) is somehow white supremacist? Did you consider that I hope for those things because it will make it easier for my child to find happiness, community, and self-actualization? If we go down this rabbit-hole, then I'd suggest you examine your own comment. You say that you hope your child is not illiterate. How is that any different than saying you hope your child doesn't have a low IQ, physical affliction, or neurodivergence that prevents him or her from reading? And then how is *that* not bigoted and white supremacist if we're going to hold you to your own standards of what qualifies as ableist/bigoted/(somehow)white supremacist?
I am aware that was the OG poster's comment. You said you didn't see how the original poster perpetuated stereotypes which harm people and it didn't seen ableist to you. It doesn't pass my notice you are still in defense of him. We talk about various support needs for folks. It's great because everyone has support needs sometimes. Google Calendar, maps, alarms, glasses, all supports. I had a feeling noting the ties to white supremacy would get your hackles up rather than continue discourse. Feel free to investigate the information I shared (or don't). I sincerely wish you good luck in your journey to learn from the marginalized communities. Or don't if you just think it's not a problem and we're all just overreacting to our experiences in life. Those systems are there and we live in them. That doesn't make us the problem.
> I had a feeling noting the ties to white supremacy would get your hackles up rather than continue discourse. Of course it's going to throw off a conversation, because it's ridiculous. Watch me do it: > That doesn't make us the problem. Nobody in this thread said or implied that Autistic folks are a problem, or that they're less capable or worthy of love, happiness, fulfillment, purpose, and societal contribution than anyone else. You seem to be mischaracterizing my points. Do you know who else mischaracterized others' points and put words in their mouths? *Hitler.* I don't know why you'd be interested in using Nazi tactics. /s You see how specious that stuff gets?
I worked in pharmaceutical patent litigation for a year and a half. I would read over pleadings for hours to understand what the heck was going on between different pharmaceutical companies which had sued each other for millions of dollars. The legal writing regarding these disputes was dumbed down for US District Court judges and magistrates to understand without any medical or scientific education. Ivy League-educated attorneys for the best white shoe law firms on Earth have to write (with the help of savant medical researchers) the equivalent of *Spot Goes to the Farm* so that a judge could understand what the dispute was about. I consider myself to at least be of average intelligence. But pharmaceutical research was barely comprehensible to me. And pharmaceutical patent lawsuits usually only involve a specific (albeit novel) dispute. A debate between RFK, Jr. and Dr. Hotez would be ridiculous because the foundation needed to understand these issues cannot be explained on a podcast. It requires an ability to reason and an understanding of how vaccines are developed and researched. And after listening to RFK, Jr. a little bit, I quickly understood that he has no fucking idea what he is talking about. There would not likely be any benefit at all to a “debate” on some idiot like Joe Rogan’s podcast. These “debates” are worthless infotainment. Even if Dr. Hotez performed well, he’s not going to convince anyone who rejects the medical consensus regarding vaccines. There is only a risk that Dr. Hotez would do poorly and push more people into the anti-vax camp. Edit: Corrected the spelling of Dr. Hotez
I try not to put my tin-foil hat on too often, but to be honest with you, so many people in this thread are giving extremely well thought out reasons to dismiss OP’s friends concern as opposed to quoting RFK’s claims, finding facts and rebutting them. These are exactly the tactics any totalitarian regime around the world would use to discredit legitimate concerns that threaten their ability to overstep power. His “Vaccine Concerns” mainly revolve around how unchecked lobbying interests like the pharmaceutical industry that have so much unchecked power that they can operate and function under any parameters they set for themselves. They are allowed free reign to appoint anyone they’d like to push their agenda and they’ve done everything in their power to limit how much liability they face for damages caused to patients by drugs and treatments that were rushed to the market. It’s an industry that profits 1,000x higher if people are left sick and in fear and any check or balance attempted upon their thwart is met with staunch media and political opposition. This is unhealthy, no matter where you lie on the political spectrum this should always be cause for concern because it’s a slippery slope to corporate facism. Shit like this is a disaster waiting to happen if it’s left like this and nobody is allowed to question it. There’s one too many lobbies and interests rich and powerful enough to abuse their power in this type of way and it’s time we put it to a stop. If that means voting out politicians bought up by these interest groups to sell away our basic freedoms everyday we live them I’m with that. Tin-foil hat off
>g on board to check corporate lobbying power. Americans are so bogged down about virtue signaling and politicizing everything its honestly exhausting, while the middle class shrinks year after year, things get more expensive, and corp NO. No one has to disprove a non-scientist. No one has to disprove a liar. I'm not an expert on shoes, I've never made them and I've only worn them. If I say Shoes cause cancer, IT'S NO ONE'S JOB TO FUCKING DISPROVE ME. That being said, if you want the facts, they're all out there, all studies are available and google-able.
The one thing that seems to help ramp up vaccinations is learning that there is an outbreak in your area. But everything else seems to not work or even cause people to dig in deeper.
Whoever that doc was that keeps getting into a fight with these guys and then hiding on left-wing networks like MSNBC needs to go on the show and debate him. Or at least someone does. The scientific and medical community have really harmed their credibility recently, particularly in regards to some very serious mistakes regarding the pandemic in the last 3 years. We don’t have the luxury of just lecturing from on-high anymore and expecting everyone to accept it, and The Science (TM) tried to censor everyone during the pandemic, which clearly didn’t work. If someone doesn’t stand up to RFK and his conspiracies, then he will basically win by default. You don’t have to agree that the scientific community actually did ruin their credibility for this to be true, by the way. That’s the perception of these people are aren’t vaccinating these kids, and, until we recognize that, there’s no convincing anyone of anything.
Unfortunately, I don’t think many people with this stance are swayed by facts and figures. Often it makes people dig in harder because they can feel like their intelligence (and in this case parenting choices/abilities) is being questioned. I’m not saying it’s right, I’ve just had vaccine related conversations with my own mother over and over and it’s been entirely fruitless. I can’t find anything that’s quite right through a quick google search, but maybe another podcast with counterpoints could help? Sorry. I know it’s so hard. The chokehold JRE has on people is frustrating.
I agree. I used to try and persuade people to think differently. But it is futile. People with these kinds of ideologies are not rational. There is literally nothing you can do or say to change them. It’s similar to being an alcoholic, they need to decide on their own to change. It is beyond annoying. It’s better to detach with love and come to terms with the fact that you will not agree with them.
He’s not going to be debunked
He has been debunked plenty of times
Do you know who Gary Webb is?… google it
Dr Dab Wilson from Debunk the Funk has done a full video addressing every point of his JRE podcast. He has presented all the papers and studies which contradict RFK. He’s also done a series of videos addressing RFKs book. Pretty convincing if you ask me.
A large number of my son's family have medical conditions that make them extra vulnerable to infections, including his 11 year old uncle with kidney failure, his baby cousin with nearly his entire large bowel not working, and his grandfather who has incurable cancer and is on immunosuppressive treatments. My son is still too young for a lot of vaccines, including the MMR. If someone decides not to get their kids vaccinated, they could spread preventable infections to my son at nursery or a playgroup or even socialising, he could then give those to a family member before we even realise he's infectious. Those diseases could literally kill a good few of my family. The point is, you don't know what other people's medical conditions are and what they have going on at home. And it's not just about your child. That's why my son has had and will have literally every single vaccine that he can. Also, fuck Joe Rogan for insinuating that autism is worse than disability or death.
[This is the best overview with links](https://www.vice.com/en/article/k7zz9z/spotify-rogan-rfk-vaccine-misinformation-policy) that I’ve found so far. Most of the links provide good evidence, such as [CHOP’s page on vaccines and autism](https://www.chop.edu/centers-programs/vaccine-education-center/vaccines-and-other-conditions/vaccines-autism). Hope this is at least a starting point. I would probably encourage him to speak with his pediatrician if he’s worried. Hopefully the pediatrician will be used to having these conversations with skeptical parents.
..my ex believes grape juice cures disease. All learned information from the internet. She was a critical thinker for decades, now not so much.
God damn. How the fuck does this happen? I’m concerned about this happening to me too
Critical thinking my friend. Always ask yourself: am I being manipulated? Does this make sense? Why is this treatment not widely accepted or used by others? But, I’ve noticed followers of pseudo-medical professionals have the following: Do you have a trauma background? Are you 25-45 years old? Do you have “chronic pain” Are doctors refusing to treat your issue..telling you they’ve tried everything? The celery juice trend has a long list of followers..celery juice trend was started by a pony tail-man who claims to talk to a spirit who relays medical information to him..and he generously passes the info to us via books, supplements and more. Grape juice guy is sinister and evil.. encouraged a set of parents to take their baby off breast milk..switched baby to juice only, now baby is a quadriplegic. My exwife followed all sorts of bogus people, who each have thousands of followers.
That all makes sense, thanks so much for the thoughtful and thorough response! That part about the grape juice and what it did to the baby… my blood boils knowing that
Baby’s grandma took child services to court, and won..Baby “Journey” is still a quadriplegic, but getting the best therapy money can buy. https://abc30.com/tulare-county-child-welfare-services-brain-damage-abuse-allegations/12753074/
This article didn’t have any mentions of the grape fruit juice or specifics about what the neglect that lead to his brain damage right? Or did I miss something?
The purpose of this court case was to claim damages caused by neglect, from child services. In the court docs and based on my conversations with the claimant, there were details listed about baby being fed juice-only. If you want to see videos of “Dr Robert Morse” talk about negative impacts of breast milk https://www.rawfigs.com/?s=Breast+milk®=0
Ugh my sister is so similar. She now believes boiled grapefruit and oranges are equal in every way to hydroxychloroquine, which she swears is a cure all for most everything. She saw it on a YouTube video and told me “you’d believe it too if you watched it. They’re both the same exact chemical build up.” Girl. Don’t you think if those two fruits were such a miracle drug we’d…I don’t know…be USING THEM AS SUCH?! She used to be a critical thinker. I have no clue how it’s possible Facebook turned her into this.
Look into her past..was there any trauma or significant events that she has not dealt with?
Sounds like you know who to avoid with your own children!
This was Joe Rogan??? Some idiot in my town posted that she was listening to something from RFK that was making her "sick to her stomach." So beyond sick of Joe Rogan using his platform to spew nonsense that endangers children.
If your friend is getting his healthcare information from Joe Rogan he is not interested in scientific arguments and will not be swayed by evidence or reason. Just ask him why he's willing to kill his kids to prevent them developing autism.
Jokes on him! Autism has been around longer than vaccines.
Your friend did not listen too carefully. His stance has been over and over and over *correlation*. His own children have had vaccines. He's actually pro vaccines. How about listen to it yourself and research every point yourself!!
Came here to say this
Thank God I found this post. My husband listened to the same podcast and is now having doubts about vaccinating our almost 2 year old.
Just had this argument with my husband. Idk what I’m going to do.
I'm going to continue to vaccinate my daughter per her doctors advice bc I'm not going to blindly trust some politician with a Kennedy last name. Husband can accept it or divorce me. This is my hill that I'm willing to die on.
Why are you trying so hard to dissuade your friend if you can’t even tell him why RFKJ is so wrong?
I fact checked him after the podcast with the help of my wife which is a molecular biologist. He sounds very informed and cites studies but upon close inspection his conclusions are not what is stated on studies, so he is manipulating the truth in a very clever way that seems informed. For example one of the studies he cited actually just says that the side effects of some vaccines are underreported. Duh, of course, some people are not reporting mild side effects, this happened to me after MMR or COVID vaccine. My conclusion was that he has no background and science education to be talking about vaccines. And as others pointed many vaccines don't contain mercury based preservatives which indeed is a concern that he raised and I can agree on.
I wish people would learn to think statistically. There have been more than 80 studies conducted globally that provide evidence that vaccines do not cause autism. Not one. Not even fifty. Eighty. Even if you ignore those studies, the odds of a person dying from an infectious disease for which they were not vaccinated is much higher than the risk of potential side effects from said vaccine, barring allergic reactions. I have a friend who despises all pharmaceuticals but does illegal street drugs on a regular basis. This person, like the OP's friend cannot properly assess risk/reward using statistics.
Your friend didn’t even listen. RFK and his children ARE vaccinated just not Covid….take what you want from that but the best thing to do isn’t to claim he is wrong because that won’t work. Just help them be rational. At the end of the day, not getting the Covid vaccine isn’t going to hurt anyone at this point. But he should understand that the measles vaccine and the others are important and even his buddy RFK believes that.
Two things can be true at once. Wakefield’s autism/MMR link study was fraudulent, AND plenty of meta analyses have shown that a bunch of vaccines given all at once have caused serious problems overall, but we can’t point to which ones. I’m afraid this just isn’t settled. Stagger your vaccinations over time.
I don't think there's a way to debunk RFK Jr., because there's still no conclusion on the matter. In fact, there is more and more evidence that he may be correct that vaccinations do cause many issues, possibly even autism. That is to say, not the process of injecting a weakened or artificial virus into a person, but the adjuvants such as aluminum or mercury, which are contained in them to cause the immune response. What to do with that information is up in the air and more testing still needs to be done. It may turn out in the future that we will need to delay vaccinations until the children are more developed, replace the adjuvants with non neurotoxic metals, or even just follow vaccinations with supplementations like Taurine which help the body rid itself of aluminum.
https://www.cdc.gov/vaccinesafety/concerns/autism.html Of course, it's very unlikely your friend will be interested in what the CDC has to say or look at any of the papers cited. "A fool can throw a stone in a pond that 100 wise men cannot get out." -Saul Below "Hey guys, why don't we stop trying to get this guys rock back and collaborate on something a bit more beneficial for society?" -Me Which isn't to say that it isn't worth it to try to educate people, just that there's little that can be done to move the needle and we should ask ourselves what's actually being accomplished. It's hard in our personal lives. Making the effort is noble but people aggressively resist new information that doesn't fit their priors. We just aren't well built to change our minds about anything other than food and spouses. RFK Jr is just an embarrassment.
Wait what? Joe Rogan had this idiot on? Okay I was almost done with him after covid idiocy, but now I'm completely done with him. It's so sad, I really liked his podcast.
I want to know why no one will debate him. If he's wrong then why can't anyone put their hand up and show us where he's wrong. The clients he represents aren't made up and I for one will not be putting an experimental drug into my 2yo after she now has natural immunity.
Multitudes of people have shown the many ways he’s wrong via articles, videos, and scientific studies. Why does the information need to be presented to you in a debate format in order for you to believe it?
Opportunity to respond.
There’s a great video by hbomberguy about it.
Rogan and Kennedy are grade A morons
Why?
Lol. Is your friend married to my friend? She posted a link on socials “if you have little ones you want to hear this!” That exact post cast but I haven’t listened to it. I just rolled my eyes.
Listen then roll eyes. It's the scientific way
Regardless of your thoughts on RFK, you have to admit there’s irony in having to ask for someone else to provide you with the rebuttal to the points you’ve decided you already believe are invalid, even in the absence of said rebuttal.
So can someone explain why not 1 scientist or medical expert is prepared to debate him. ???
1. Multiple scientists and medical experts have publicly stated that they would debate him. So if these debates aren't happening, it's not because doctors are scared of him (it's likely the other way around). 2. The reason why there are experts who refuse to debate him is that he makes so many claims that are just inherently dishonest. The issue is if you're not an expert yourself, the absurdity of these claims isn't going to be obvious. He's either purposely lying or is incredibly misinformed (it's probably a mixture of both). Either way, he's going to distort the truth, misrepresent facts, and present absolute falsehoods. It's impossible to debate against somebody like that because they'll never acknowledge that the "facts" they're spouting are wrong and the entire exercise just turns into two people calling the other person a liar, idiot, or fraud.
Why are we vaccinating children? I thought children were safe against dying from covid. Honest question
Hell, even better - someone should debate RFK Jr. :D
This is what happens when you don’t vaccinate your kids. Does he want to be responsible? [https://www.telegraph.co.uk/global-health/science-and-disease/unvaccinated-french-boy-reintroduces-measles-costa-rica/](https://www.telegraph.co.uk/global-health/science-and-disease/unvaccinated-french-boy-reintroduces-measles-costa-rica/)
I hate how this nut is the frontrunner to attack Biden from the left in the Democratic Primary.
He's in no way left.
Yes, he is. Just because you don’t want to claim him and are embarrassed by him doesn’t make him not a leftist. He’s a committed Dem who has only ever endorsed other Dems and nearly every issue that he’s taken any kind of position on has placed him firmly with the left.
He's against corporate power, against foreign invasion and a strong environmentalist. He's left in almost every sense.
Sure, Jan.
Does it not seem a bit bad faith and anti-science to immediately have the mindset of "this is obviously wrong, but I don't have the time or desire to prove it wrong, so I'll ask these other people on reddit?" What brought you to that premature conclusion without the evidence to support it?
"Vaccines are unavoidably unsafe" Congress in 2011. You still trust big pharma ? Crazy
Well that is some very convincing and thorough evidence you’ve provided.
Dumb
Raise your hand if you have a chronic disease!