5 ms·

Whenever you see people quote RFK on the internet, you should realize that it's probably a quote of a quote. He doesn't come up with things out of nowhere, he p

Whenever you see people quote RFK on the internet, you should realize that it's probably a quote of a quote. He doesn't come up with things out of nowhere, he points to some academic work. You can try to attack the work he's quoting from, and maybe you'll have a legitimate point. But if you act like he put on a lab coat and tried playing scientist, and is just spewing original crank research into the world, well you're just misinformed, and you're making others misinformed as well. Of course, you're in good company doing this. That's pretty much every mass media reference to the man, and why the meme about him being a crank exists.

GeneralMayhem 2y ago
Bullshit. Show me one example where he's said something like that and he was citing a real source. And I mean an actual source that he should be respecting. If he just parrots this stuff from other cranks on Twitter, that's not exactly the defense you think it is.
- ifyoubuildit 2y ago
  Hes a lawyer. Do you think he wins cases by showing the judge and jury twitter screenshots? This specific issue is based on a lawsuit, googling brings this up: https://www.eastcountymagazine.org/robert-kennedy-jrs-legal-team-sues-fcc-over-wireless-health-guidelines https://www.eastcountymagazine.org/robert-kennedy-jrs-legal-... I can't speak to whether the case is good or not, but the point stands: these aren't his original claims as so many people like to say. They come from e.g. expert witnesses. Maybe those people are cranks, I have no idea.
  - seattle_spring 2y ago
    Can you provide any legitimate documentation on the actual outcome of that lawsuit? Not from "Children's Health Defense Inc" (RFK's own organization) or "RFSafe" (a "5g causes cancer" rag) but an actual legitimate legal source?
    - ifyoubuildit 2y ago
      I haven't looked for any. He says that he won the case in the clip you referenced elsewhere. I don't see any reason to believe he's lying. To be clear, that also doesn't make me think definitively that WiFi causes cancer.
seattle_spring 2y ago
What possible context of this quote would lend credibility to RFK Jr. with this quote, other than it being prefaced by "one of my uninformed friends keeps sharing a meme on Facebook that claims..." > But if you act like he put on a lab coat and tried playing scientist, and is just spewing original crank research into the world, well you're just misinformed, and you're making others misinformed as well. He still claims that vaccines cause autism. He's ardently against the HPV vaccine, despite proof that it decreases cancer risk with no comparable downsides. He claims that 5g causes tumors. He's a huge advocate of ivermectin and hydroxychloroquine, despite there being zero legitimate evidence of them having any affect on COVID 19. NO ONE is saying these are "original claims" of his. He's dangerous precisely because he amplifies disproven nonsense to a gigantic audience that eats it right up. If someone spends their entire lives repeating nonsense, then yes that is pretty much the exact definition of a "crank." His crusade against seed oils fits perfectly with all of his other repeated claims: no evidence that they're bad beyond Facebook memes and substantiation purely from other cranks like Robert Malone and Bret Weinstein. Watch this video of the man himself and listen to the claims he makes. https://youtu.be/Z-YQ1Y7c_Pk https://youtu.be/Z-YQ1Y7c_Pk So your honest take on his claims is that these are just "quotes of quotes" and that he might not actually believe the verifiable bullshit nonsense contained within his words?
- ifyoubuildit 2y ago
  I'll translate these claims to how I understand them. Note that these aren't my claims and I won't/can't defend them. > He still claims that vaccines cause autism. He claims that an uptick in autism incidence is correlated with a lot of environmental things, one of them being that the number of childhood vaccines has increased, and as a result, work should be done to validate each of those environmental changes, vaccine schedule changes included. > He's ardently against the HPV vaccine [in children, because their risk for HPV is negligible], despite proof that it decreases cancer risk with no comparable downsides. > He claims that 5g causes tumors. This based on some court case that he won against the government, as he mentions in your YouTube clip. No idea how real the risk is. > He's a huge advocate of ivermectin and hydroxychloroquine, despite there being zero legitimate evidence of them having any affect on COVID 19. There is plenty of academic literature around these things, I'm not qualified to comment on the quality of it, but it exists, and I'm not talking about YouTube channels. I'd imagine the same thing is true about seed oils, although I'm not up on his views there. My overall point is that every talking head that mentions RFK makes it look like he's just some weirdo that thought up all of these kooky ideas. If you go to the actual horses mouth, you see that these ideas came from one expert or another. Some of those people are probably wrong, but I (and respectfully, probably most of the commentariat) aren't actually qualified to tell you either way.

GeneralMayhem 2y ago

Bullshit. Show me one example where he's said something like that and he was citing a real source. And I mean an actual source that he should be respecting. If he just parrots this stuff from other cranks on Twitter, that's not exactly the defense you think it is.

ifyoubuildit 2y ago
Hes a lawyer. Do you think he wins cases by showing the judge and jury twitter screenshots? This specific issue is based on a lawsuit, googling brings this up: https://www.eastcountymagazine.org/robert-kennedy-jrs-legal-team-sues-fcc-over-wireless-health-guidelines https://www.eastcountymagazine.org/robert-kennedy-jrs-legal-... I can't speak to whether the case is good or not, but the point stands: these aren't his original claims as so many people like to say. They come from e.g. expert witnesses. Maybe those people are cranks, I have no idea.
- seattle_spring 2y ago
  Can you provide any legitimate documentation on the actual outcome of that lawsuit? Not from "Children's Health Defense Inc" (RFK's own organization) or "RFSafe" (a "5g causes cancer" rag) but an actual legitimate legal source?
  - ifyoubuildit 2y ago
    I haven't looked for any. He says that he won the case in the clip you referenced elsewhere. I don't see any reason to believe he's lying. To be clear, that also doesn't make me think definitively that WiFi causes cancer.

seattle_spring 2y ago

What possible context of this quote would lend credibility to RFK Jr. with this quote, other than it being prefaced by "one of my uninformed friends keeps sharing a meme on Facebook that claims..." > But if you act like he put on a lab coat and tried playing scientist, and is just spewing original crank research into the world, well you're just misinformed, and you're making others misinformed as well. He still claims that vaccines cause autism. He's ardently against the HPV vaccine, despite proof that it decreases cancer risk with no comparable downsides. He claims that 5g causes tumors. He's a huge advocate of ivermectin and hydroxychloroquine, despite there being zero legitimate evidence of them having any affect on COVID 19. NO ONE is saying these are "original claims" of his. He's dangerous precisely because he amplifies disproven nonsense to a gigantic audience that eats it right up. If someone spends their entire lives repeating nonsense, then yes that is pretty much the exact definition of a "crank." His crusade against seed oils fits perfectly with all of his other repeated claims: no evidence that they're bad beyond Facebook memes and substantiation purely from other cranks like Robert Malone and Bret Weinstein. Watch this video of the man himself and listen to the claims he makes. https://youtu.be/Z-YQ1Y7c_Pk https://youtu.be/Z-YQ1Y7c_Pk So your honest take on his claims is that these are just "quotes of quotes" and that he might not actually believe the verifiable bullshit nonsense contained within his words?

ifyoubuildit 2y ago
I'll translate these claims to how I understand them. Note that these aren't my claims and I won't/can't defend them. > He still claims that vaccines cause autism. He claims that an uptick in autism incidence is correlated with a lot of environmental things, one of them being that the number of childhood vaccines has increased, and as a result, work should be done to validate each of those environmental changes, vaccine schedule changes included. > He's ardently against the HPV vaccine [in children, because their risk for HPV is negligible], despite proof that it decreases cancer risk with no comparable downsides. > He claims that 5g causes tumors. This based on some court case that he won against the government, as he mentions in your YouTube clip. No idea how real the risk is. > He's a huge advocate of ivermectin and hydroxychloroquine, despite there being zero legitimate evidence of them having any affect on COVID 19. There is plenty of academic literature around these things, I'm not qualified to comment on the quality of it, but it exists, and I'm not talking about YouTube channels. I'd imagine the same thing is true about seed oils, although I'm not up on his views there. My overall point is that every talking head that mentions RFK makes it look like he's just some weirdo that thought up all of these kooky ideas. If you go to the actual horses mouth, you see that these ideas came from one expert or another. Some of those people are probably wrong, but I (and respectfully, probably most of the commentariat) aren't actually qualified to tell you either way.