7 ms·

Give me a break. If what Robert F Kennedy said about the history of vaccines was wrong, someone can and should be able to refute it on the podcast in a conversa

Give me a break. If what Robert F Kennedy said about the history of vaccines was wrong, someone can and should be able to refute it on the podcast in a conversation. The reality is, the things he said in the first hour of his episode were factual: Older vaccines with mercury WERE dangerous. Pharma/government WERE complicit in hiding and misrepresenting (and even lying) about said dangers. Vaccine manufacturers ARE federally protected against any and all civil action against them, yet there products are essentially mandatory for around 72 million children a year. There is a history that is worth discussing and examining here, even if society refuses to discuss the present for fear of being labeled "anti-vax". Vaccines can be a societally good thing, and corporations can also be profiteering machines. Two things can be relatively true at once.

LatteLazy 3y ago
>In spite of the scientific consensus that fears about its safety are unsubstantiated,[6][7][8][9] its use as a vaccine preservative has been called into question by anti-vaccination groups. A statement issued by the American Academy of Pediatrics and the US Public Health Service in 1999 prompted the removal of thimerosal from many vaccines[1][10] It remains in use as a preservative for annual flu vaccines.[11] >Concerns based on extrapolations from methylmercury caused thiomersal to be removed from U.S. childhood vaccines, starting in 1999. Later it was reported that ethylmercury is eliminated from the body and the brain significantly faster than methylmercury, so the late-1990s risk assessments turned out to be overly conservative.[23] So the older vaccines were never dangerous... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thiomersal https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thiomersal Edit: Also, the reason (some) vaccine makers get immunity (from some claims against them) is because the products are priced in the 1-10USD range, but the liabilities were in the 1-10 Mil-USD. No one could get liability insurance, so suppliers were exiting the market. So now the federal government (who also license the whole process and approve the vaccines) accept liability for faults not caused by improper handling etc. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Childhood_Vaccine_Injury_Act https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Childhood_Vaccine_Inj...
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
- Solvency 3y ago
  I won't even begin to humor a person attempting to argue that mercury of any kind crossing the blood Brain barrier is harmless.
  - LatteLazy 3y ago
    How rapidly we go from "factual" to "I know better than the scientists"???
    - shapenamer 3y ago
      Wow how rapidly you went from "read this" to "I'm not going to respond and just downvote everyone that disagrees with me" Edit: Oh ya another great part of this wiki page is when it states, "The United Nations Environment Program backed away from an earlier proposal of putting thiomersal on the list of banned vaccine compounds as part of its campaign to reduce mercury exposure.[18] It stated that eliminating it in multi-dose vaccines, primarily used in developing countries, would lead to high cost and a refrigeration requirement that developing countries could ill afford." So they were considering banning it to reduce mercury exposure, which we know is bad for us, but they didn't because.... drumroll please.... money. Shocking. The fears are completely unfounded though.
    - shapenamer 3y ago
      I read the wiki page you linked and I came out with more questions. If you read the toxicology section it says pretty plainly that it's extremely toxic, moves freely about the body, distributes to all body tissue, crosses the blood-brain barrier, stays in the brain for (probably) two weeks, and "The mechanisms of toxic action are unknown." It says that the link to autism has been debunked, that's fine, and yet it's use in vaccines has been mostly stopped in the US, and completely banned in Europe. I'm just even more convinced I don't want it in my body.
      - 3y ago
moate 3y ago
A question I pose to myself whenever someone posits something that's literally true (ie, "vaccines can cause harmful side effects) but leads them to a different conclusion than myself (ie "therefor nobody should get the jab") is "What problem are you solving for?" Vaccine mandates involve a ton of sub-decisions. Are we trying to protect the most vulnerable or the most valuable citizens? Are we willing to infringe on other rights in the name of public safety? Who are we trying to financially burden and benefit with this decision? People will always prioritize things differently than you, and "not wanting to help the opposition make a case to undermine my work" is a pretty reasonable stance to take if your goal is to advance your work. It doesn't matter if there is merit to their point if your goal is not "find all the information and use that to help inform a decision".
AbrahamParangi 3y ago
RFK is a loon who's only claim to fame is his last name. All those statements could be true and none of them would be meaningful. We know broadly what benefit generally administered vaccines provide and we can quickly learn the cost of stopping them. A young man was recently paralyzed by polio in NYC. Polio! Because he wasn't vaccinated! Because his community does not believe in vaccination! Imagine being paralyzed by a disease effectively eradicated in the 1960s.
- shapenamer 3y ago
  While you're imagining things, imagine having your life ruined by addiction and hearing the people responsible will not be HELD responsible because they're rich, from ruining people's lives. Or imagine getting cancer from a product that was fraudulently tested by the company that makes it and then being told to "trust the science" regarding a product from the same damn company. Only a "loon" wouldn't trust these people, for sure.
pupppet 3y ago
You can find danger in anything, eventually you grow up and learn it's necessary to balance risk vs reward. Let's ban cars outright, I have factual proof someone died in a car accident today!
- Solvency 3y ago
  Who said to ban cars or vaccines? I said this topic can and should be discussible without devolving into hysterics and weird conclusions like yours, and the corporate impunity of pharmaceutical agencies is worth examining.
  - pupppet 3y ago
    Yep because Rogan and RFK, a meeting of scientific minds just want a thoughtful discussion on the topic. Their intention is to 100% shit on vaccines and make their audience fearful of them.
    - ifyoubuildit 3y ago
      Why would they (or anyone for that matter) want that? Are you just imagining them as evil mustache twirling villains?
      - pupppet 3y ago
        I wouldn't give them enough credit to be twirling mustache villains, they're just ignorant.
    - revelio 3y ago
      If they're ignorant then Hotez should be able to destroy them on air, with ease, shouldn't he? The actual fear here is not that these guys are ignorant idiots but rather that they will in fact make many correct points that aren't easy to refute at all, and that Hotez - a completely discredited person who has said many untrue things - would end up losing the debate comprehensively. Which is why he has now backpedalled. It should be an easy $100k+ win for a charity of his choice but he can't do it.

LatteLazy 3y ago

>In spite of the scientific consensus that fears about its safety are unsubstantiated,[6][7][8][9] its use as a vaccine preservative has been called into question by anti-vaccination groups. A statement issued by the American Academy of Pediatrics and the US Public Health Service in 1999 prompted the removal of thimerosal from many vaccines[1][10] It remains in use as a preservative for annual flu vaccines.[11] >Concerns based on extrapolations from methylmercury caused thiomersal to be removed from U.S. childhood vaccines, starting in 1999. Later it was reported that ethylmercury is eliminated from the body and the brain significantly faster than methylmercury, so the late-1990s risk assessments turned out to be overly conservative.[23] So the older vaccines were never dangerous... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thiomersal https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thiomersal Edit: Also, the reason (some) vaccine makers get immunity (from some claims against them) is because the products are priced in the 1-10USD range, but the liabilities were in the 1-10 Mil-USD. No one could get liability insurance, so suppliers were exiting the market. So now the federal government (who also license the whole process and approve the vaccines) accept liability for faults not caused by improper handling etc. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Childhood_Vaccine_Injury_Act https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Childhood_Vaccine_Inj...

deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
Solvency 3y ago
I won't even begin to humor a person attempting to argue that mercury of any kind crossing the blood Brain barrier is harmless.
- LatteLazy 3y ago
  How rapidly we go from "factual" to "I know better than the scientists"???
  - shapenamer 3y ago
    Wow how rapidly you went from "read this" to "I'm not going to respond and just downvote everyone that disagrees with me" Edit: Oh ya another great part of this wiki page is when it states, "The United Nations Environment Program backed away from an earlier proposal of putting thiomersal on the list of banned vaccine compounds as part of its campaign to reduce mercury exposure.[18] It stated that eliminating it in multi-dose vaccines, primarily used in developing countries, would lead to high cost and a refrigeration requirement that developing countries could ill afford." So they were considering banning it to reduce mercury exposure, which we know is bad for us, but they didn't because.... drumroll please.... money. Shocking. The fears are completely unfounded though.
  - shapenamer 3y ago
    I read the wiki page you linked and I came out with more questions. If you read the toxicology section it says pretty plainly that it's extremely toxic, moves freely about the body, distributes to all body tissue, crosses the blood-brain barrier, stays in the brain for (probably) two weeks, and "The mechanisms of toxic action are unknown." It says that the link to autism has been debunked, that's fine, and yet it's use in vaccines has been mostly stopped in the US, and completely banned in Europe. I'm just even more convinced I don't want it in my body.
    - 3y ago

moate 3y ago

A question I pose to myself whenever someone posits something that's literally true (ie, "vaccines can cause harmful side effects) but leads them to a different conclusion than myself (ie "therefor nobody should get the jab") is "What problem are you solving for?" Vaccine mandates involve a ton of sub-decisions. Are we trying to protect the most vulnerable or the most valuable citizens? Are we willing to infringe on other rights in the name of public safety? Who are we trying to financially burden and benefit with this decision? People will always prioritize things differently than you, and "not wanting to help the opposition make a case to undermine my work" is a pretty reasonable stance to take if your goal is to advance your work. It doesn't matter if there is merit to their point if your goal is not "find all the information and use that to help inform a decision".

AbrahamParangi 3y ago

RFK is a loon who's only claim to fame is his last name. All those statements could be true and none of them would be meaningful. We know broadly what benefit generally administered vaccines provide and we can quickly learn the cost of stopping them. A young man was recently paralyzed by polio in NYC. Polio! Because he wasn't vaccinated! Because his community does not believe in vaccination! Imagine being paralyzed by a disease effectively eradicated in the 1960s.

shapenamer 3y ago
While you're imagining things, imagine having your life ruined by addiction and hearing the people responsible will not be HELD responsible because they're rich, from ruining people's lives. Or imagine getting cancer from a product that was fraudulently tested by the company that makes it and then being told to "trust the science" regarding a product from the same damn company. Only a "loon" wouldn't trust these people, for sure.

pupppet 3y ago

You can find danger in anything, eventually you grow up and learn it's necessary to balance risk vs reward. Let's ban cars outright, I have factual proof someone died in a car accident today!

Solvency 3y ago
Who said to ban cars or vaccines? I said this topic can and should be discussible without devolving into hysterics and weird conclusions like yours, and the corporate impunity of pharmaceutical agencies is worth examining.
- pupppet 3y ago
  Yep because Rogan and RFK, a meeting of scientific minds just want a thoughtful discussion on the topic. Their intention is to 100% shit on vaccines and make their audience fearful of them.
  - ifyoubuildit 3y ago
    Why would they (or anyone for that matter) want that? Are you just imagining them as evil mustache twirling villains?
    - pupppet 3y ago
      I wouldn't give them enough credit to be twirling mustache villains, they're just ignorant.
  - revelio 3y ago
    If they're ignorant then Hotez should be able to destroy them on air, with ease, shouldn't he? The actual fear here is not that these guys are ignorant idiots but rather that they will in fact make many correct points that aren't easy to refute at all, and that Hotez - a completely discredited person who has said many untrue things - would end up losing the debate comprehensively. Which is why he has now backpedalled. It should be an easy $100k+ win for a charity of his choice but he can't do it.