To clarify, RFK does not take an “anti-jab stance”. He never has, and I don’t think he ever will. Here is an article I wrote a few years back, which sheds light on that.
To clarify, RFK does not take an “anti-jab stance”. He never has, and I don’t think he ever will. Here is an article I wrote a few years back, which sheds light on that.
More recently, he has said he wants “safer vaccines”, and “more research”. Whose children is he suggesting for this research, whose pregnant wife, whose pre-teen, whose college student, and whose elderly parents? And on what is he basing his stance that humans need vaccines?
Note that he always inserts a caveat when making his vaccine statements, always leaving the door open for the continued use of vaccines, mandates, and government’s involvement in our personal healthcare decisions, for both ourselves and our children.
@Laura Hayes: Being “anti-jab” does not exclude all vaccine technology. He advocates safely protecting humans from unnecessary suffering.
His voice for those harmed by unscrupulous clinical behavior has been a thorn in the Big Butt of Big Pharma and the yupsters in organized criminal medicine-without whom this crime against humanity could not have been perpetrated.
During my primary care training in 1985, the pediatric immunization schedule fit on one side of a 3x5 card; the next year on a half sheet of paper; then double sided sheet.
And the incidence of autism exploded. He has given a voice to those who can’t speak up.
In my ER residency, I watched an illegal immigrant die a slow, agonizing-for us, not her as she was sedated- death of tetanus. Totally preventable had she had an immigration medical clearance examination.
Lighten up on RFK2. He’s doing good things. He’ll hopefully have a role in President Trump’s administration.
I'm not convinced that's true. I'm aware of at least one person having done or reviewed studies that "live-attenuated" vaccines DO have overall positive outcomes (versus "inactivated" vaccines which don't), which makes sense since it's basically just infecting you with a weaker version of the illness to develop immunity to the more serious (life-threatening) version.
And if we had good safety studies on vaccines, we might be able to predict which children would be damaged by them, and give parents true informed consent, and risk versus benefit. Just because you want good airbags and good brakes and cars does not make you anti-Car!
To clarify, RFK does not take an “anti-jab stance”. He never has, and I don’t think he ever will. Here is an article I wrote a few years back, which sheds light on that.
https://www.ageofautism.com/2015/11/i-respectfully-ask-mr-kennedy-and-all-americans-these-questions.html
More recently, he has said he wants “safer vaccines”, and “more research”. Whose children is he suggesting for this research, whose pregnant wife, whose pre-teen, whose college student, and whose elderly parents? And on what is he basing his stance that humans need vaccines?
Note that he always inserts a caveat when making his vaccine statements, always leaving the door open for the continued use of vaccines, mandates, and government’s involvement in our personal healthcare decisions, for both ourselves and our children.
@Laura Hayes: Being “anti-jab” does not exclude all vaccine technology. He advocates safely protecting humans from unnecessary suffering.
His voice for those harmed by unscrupulous clinical behavior has been a thorn in the Big Butt of Big Pharma and the yupsters in organized criminal medicine-without whom this crime against humanity could not have been perpetrated.
During my primary care training in 1985, the pediatric immunization schedule fit on one side of a 3x5 card; the next year on a half sheet of paper; then double sided sheet.
And the incidence of autism exploded. He has given a voice to those who can’t speak up.
In my ER residency, I watched an illegal immigrant die a slow, agonizing-for us, not her as she was sedated- death of tetanus. Totally preventable had she had an immigration medical clearance examination.
Lighten up on RFK2. He’s doing good things. He’ll hopefully have a role in President Trump’s administration.
Vaccines are harmful, always. There is no benefit from vaccines, ever. Childhood vaccines are NEVER appropriate.
The vaccine agenda is genocide.
I'm not convinced that's true. I'm aware of at least one person having done or reviewed studies that "live-attenuated" vaccines DO have overall positive outcomes (versus "inactivated" vaccines which don't), which makes sense since it's basically just infecting you with a weaker version of the illness to develop immunity to the more serious (life-threatening) version.
And if we had good safety studies on vaccines, we might be able to predict which children would be damaged by them, and give parents true informed consent, and risk versus benefit. Just because you want good airbags and good brakes and cars does not make you anti-Car!
At least he isn't claiming mRNA tech is going to cure cancer....and that the clot shot saved many millions of lives.