5 ms·

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 aut

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
> 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 That is a factual lie. That is not what he said. In 2005, he wrote an article (https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/CRECB-2005-pt10/html/CRECB-2005-pt10-Pg13935-3.htm https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/CRECB-2005-pt10/html/CRE...) that was published in Salon - since retracted by the publication, but never disavowed by him - in which he said, among other things: > It was only after reading the Simpsonwood transcripts... that I became convinced that the link between thimerosal and the epidemic of childhood neurological disorders is real. The idea that thimerosal in vaccinations causes autism, or any other neurological problem, has been thoroughly debunked by every serious researcher who's ever looked at it. I'll just link to Wikipedia's page on the topic (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thiomersal_and_vaccines https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thiomersal_and_vaccines) since that's easier than collecting the same list of sources again, but you can ask the CDC, the WHO, the NIH, etc., etc. > There is plenty of academic literature around [ivermectin and hydroxychloroquine] Yes, and all of it points to them having no effect on COVID. Sources: Mayo Clinic (https://www.mayoclinic.org/diseases-conditions/coronavirus/in-depth/hydroxychloroquine-treatment-covid-19/art-20555331 https://www.mayoclinic.org/diseases-conditions/coronavirus/i...), NIH (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/search/research-news/12053/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/search/research-news/12053/), WHO (https://www.who.int/news-room/questions-and-answers/item/coronavirus-disease-(covid-19)-hydroxychloroquine https://www.who.int/news-room/questions-and-answers/item/cor...). > I'd imagine the same thing is true about seed oils So you know nothing, much like RFK. You're right, the situation is the same: there is no actual evidence, and this is a nonsense meme that's been spread on social media by non-experts. There are fewer academic studies, because the panic about seed oils is newer (and therefore there hasn't been time for academia to exhaustively disprove it), but that's not how this works: if you're making the extreme, uncommon claim, the burden of proof is on you to provide evidence, not on the rest of the community to disprove it. Sources: American Heart Association, citing a professor of medicine at Stanford (https://www.heart.org/en/news/2024/08/20/theres-no-reason-to-avoid-seed-oils-and-plenty-of-reasons-to-eat-them https://www.heart.org/en/news/2024/08/20/theres-no-reason-to...). > every talking head that mentions RFK makes it look like he's just some weirdo that thought up all of these kooky ideas This is also a lie. This is the fourth or fifth time you've said this in this thread, and it's not true. Nobody, neither on this thread nor in the wider media landscape, thinks he invented them himself. Everyone knows he's parroting random memes or conspiracy theories he found online. That is not an excuse. > I (and respectfully, probably most of the commentariat) aren't actually qualified to tell you either way. You're right! That's why I trust the actual medical experts, who categorically disagree with RFK and his ilk, and tend to describe them as "quacks", "cranks", and "misinformed". If you are as unqualified to judge the evidence as you say you are, then the only even remotely logical response is to rely on experts to interpret it for you. Why are you trusting some random person with a a famous last name over every single medical researcher? Do you apply this logic to any other topic - "I'm not an expert, therefore, instead of listening to the experts, I'll listen to the first person I see talk about it on TV"? ----- There is a reason why people abbreviate this whole conversation to "brain worm" and move on. Nothing RFK says about health is founded in reality. It is all crank nonsense, and it takes a special kind of gullibility or motivated reasoning to believe it when the actual sources are right there, just a Google search away. He's the equivalent of the schizophrenic who stands on the corner screaming about UFOs and bodysnatchers, just with slightly more decorum. In order to even believe that he's acting in good faith, let alone that he's right, you have to be willfully blind to evidence that is right in front of you. You have to choose to believe one weirdo over the entirety of modern science. That is simply not how intelligent people behave.
- ifyoubuildit 2y ago
  > That is a factual lie. That is not what he said. I can't be arsed to find a timestamp, but I've seen him say that. Maybe he's also said other things, I'm not his stenographer. > Why are you trusting some random person with a a famous last name over every single medical researcher? You're losing the plot here. Like I said, I'm not trying to tell you he's backing the right horse on any of this. I'm just mentioning what I see as misrepresentations of what his claims are. This is based on watching a good number of hours of him actually speaking during this past year or so, and then watching the news report utter nonsense about what I just watched him say.

GeneralMayhem 2y ago

> 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 That is a factual lie. That is not what he said. In 2005, he wrote an article (https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/CRECB-2005-pt10/html/CRECB-2005-pt10-Pg13935-3.htm https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/CRECB-2005-pt10/html/CRE...) that was published in Salon - since retracted by the publication, but never disavowed by him - in which he said, among other things: > It was only after reading the Simpsonwood transcripts... that I became convinced that the link between thimerosal and the epidemic of childhood neurological disorders is real. The idea that thimerosal in vaccinations causes autism, or any other neurological problem, has been thoroughly debunked by every serious researcher who's ever looked at it. I'll just link to Wikipedia's page on the topic (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thiomersal_and_vaccines https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thiomersal_and_vaccines) since that's easier than collecting the same list of sources again, but you can ask the CDC, the WHO, the NIH, etc., etc. > There is plenty of academic literature around [ivermectin and hydroxychloroquine] Yes, and all of it points to them having no effect on COVID. Sources: Mayo Clinic (https://www.mayoclinic.org/diseases-conditions/coronavirus/in-depth/hydroxychloroquine-treatment-covid-19/art-20555331 https://www.mayoclinic.org/diseases-conditions/coronavirus/i...), NIH (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/search/research-news/12053/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/search/research-news/12053/), WHO (https://www.who.int/news-room/questions-and-answers/item/coronavirus-disease-(covid-19)-hydroxychloroquine https://www.who.int/news-room/questions-and-answers/item/cor...). > I'd imagine the same thing is true about seed oils So you know nothing, much like RFK. You're right, the situation is the same: there is no actual evidence, and this is a nonsense meme that's been spread on social media by non-experts. There are fewer academic studies, because the panic about seed oils is newer (and therefore there hasn't been time for academia to exhaustively disprove it), but that's not how this works: if you're making the extreme, uncommon claim, the burden of proof is on you to provide evidence, not on the rest of the community to disprove it. Sources: American Heart Association, citing a professor of medicine at Stanford (https://www.heart.org/en/news/2024/08/20/theres-no-reason-to-avoid-seed-oils-and-plenty-of-reasons-to-eat-them https://www.heart.org/en/news/2024/08/20/theres-no-reason-to...). > every talking head that mentions RFK makes it look like he's just some weirdo that thought up all of these kooky ideas This is also a lie. This is the fourth or fifth time you've said this in this thread, and it's not true. Nobody, neither on this thread nor in the wider media landscape, thinks he invented them himself. Everyone knows he's parroting random memes or conspiracy theories he found online. That is not an excuse. > I (and respectfully, probably most of the commentariat) aren't actually qualified to tell you either way. You're right! That's why I trust the actual medical experts, who categorically disagree with RFK and his ilk, and tend to describe them as "quacks", "cranks", and "misinformed". If you are as unqualified to judge the evidence as you say you are, then the only even remotely logical response is to rely on experts to interpret it for you. Why are you trusting some random person with a a famous last name over every single medical researcher? Do you apply this logic to any other topic - "I'm not an expert, therefore, instead of listening to the experts, I'll listen to the first person I see talk about it on TV"? ----- There is a reason why people abbreviate this whole conversation to "brain worm" and move on. Nothing RFK says about health is founded in reality. It is all crank nonsense, and it takes a special kind of gullibility or motivated reasoning to believe it when the actual sources are right there, just a Google search away. He's the equivalent of the schizophrenic who stands on the corner screaming about UFOs and bodysnatchers, just with slightly more decorum. In order to even believe that he's acting in good faith, let alone that he's right, you have to be willfully blind to evidence that is right in front of you. You have to choose to believe one weirdo over the entirety of modern science. That is simply not how intelligent people behave.

ifyoubuildit 2y ago
> That is a factual lie. That is not what he said. I can't be arsed to find a timestamp, but I've seen him say that. Maybe he's also said other things, I'm not his stenographer. > Why are you trusting some random person with a a famous last name over every single medical researcher? You're losing the plot here. Like I said, I'm not trying to tell you he's backing the right horse on any of this. I'm just mentioning what I see as misrepresentations of what his claims are. This is based on watching a good number of hours of him actually speaking during this past year or so, and then watching the news report utter nonsense about what I just watched him say.