RFK Jr.

A good read and only $2.21 a copy!

Ladybird Tales: The Emperor's New Clothes by Ladybird, Ladybird: Very Good Paperback (2014) | WorldofBooks

 

Yeah, I think he's one of the more funny guys out there.

 

I would also note, for example, that Kennedy reportedly called for ExxonMobil and other corporations that systematically sponsor climate change lies to be given the death penalty. If he's informed enough and principled enough to trust on complex issues involving vaccines, why isn't there a demand for those who believe climate change is a hoax to line up and debate him? I mean, I'm not sure if he understands climatology or not either. Maybe he's an expert on that, too. It's also possible that he's a smart lawyer who grew up in a political family and is just good at debating things and people want to pick and choose when to cite him to promote a theory or divide the other side.

 

Expert Fallacy, also known as Appeal to Authority. Can you imagine how chilling a world it would be if certain fields of belief, which realized might end in catastrophe, were insulated from challenge on the grounds that its critics could not understand the field and were ever prohibited from commenting on it ?

 

LMAO!

He's a KENNEDY!

You think he's a GOP plant???

 

Is there a point in there somewhere?

Or is your point that he's a perfect fit as a Democrat candy?

 

Who knows where he's coming from.

My big problem with dismissing him outright is that he's clearly seen as threatening enough to move the first primary to South Carolina, but apparently he's not a big deal enough to actually have a conversation on the issues.

I think he's wrong on most of these issues, but I really don't like ending a political or policy conversation based on an appeal to authority, and I will hold the same opinion when I am a lawyer. If they can do it to RFK, based on how influential he is right now, they can do it to anybody.

At some point, you're going to have to have a conversation with the guy you consider a political threat. And that is even more true when the trust in these institutions is at an all-time low. Maybe misinformation has a lot to do with that. I think politics and social contagion in elite academic circles has just as much to do with it.

I think you're absolutely right when you say Tom Fitton is wrong. But I think the takeaway should be that he's wrong, not that he's wrong because he's not a lawyer. That to me would be conflating Trump exercising poor judgment in trusting the wrong guy (who may or may not have good intentions, I don't know, but he's wrong), with an actual rebuttal on the issues.

 

No, I don't want to ban him from commenting at all. He has the right, as we all do. But I will tell you that if my mom were diagnosed with cancer tomorrow, I'd want her to seek out a credentialed and mainstream oncologist. That's what most of us do in life or death situations. RFK, Jr. has apparently engaged in a lot of study about cancer over the years, but he would be pretty far down on my list of people to consult.

As an analogy, Al Gore was mocked for making the documentary about the dangers of climate change, and I think he was merely regurgitating what scientists were telling him or the scientific studies that were sent to him. I don't think he was claiming to be an expert himself. I could be mistaken, but in addition to being a lawyer and politician, RFK, Jr. seems to consider himself a subject matter expert - in multiple technical fields no less. Again, if he could pass a non bias, graduate level chemistry exam I'd be impressed and wonder whether he's onto something. Very few people have the capability of mastering multiple fields of study, so I'm skeptical.

 

How does this show what was wrong with covid efficacy rate disclosures?

 

Yes, I agree with a lot of what you're saying.

Personally, I don't recall ever telling someone they're wrong just because they're not a lawyer. I do think that's often a cop out. I could show them a statute or case law supporting what I'm saying. Those are typically written in a way (especially these days) so that people will get the gist. There may even be times where we just disagree and the disagreement really isn't about the law per se but a difference of opinion about something. That's fine, too.

Staying with the legal analogy, lawyers are allowed to argue. That's part of what we do. We are not there to be subject matter experts. We have to retain experts, particularly regarding technical matters such as medicine. Courts then have to consider the criteria for determining whether and to what extent someone is allowed to offer expert opinion to the jury based upon their qualifications and their methodology.

I'm not saying the standard for expert testimony should be the same for political commentary as in courts. It should not. But Covid presented an interesting time where everyone had a hot take on very complicated technical issues they didn't understand. I'm sure I did, too. Again, maybe RFK, Jr. is the exception. It's enough over my head that I (like a juror) have to decide which side's experts I find credible. I'm Just really skeptical that he really understands what he's talking about when very few subject matter experts have agreed with his takes about vaccines and autism, for example. It gets to the point that either they're all in on the conspiracy or they're all incompetent and he's the only one who's figured out the truth.

 

Me ? I’ve had my fair share of friends and loved ones who’ve been savaged by the going cancer treatment modalities and then still died. And I’m preparing to bid farewell to one more. So yes, I might consider that a non-oncologist might have a better idea. And quite possibly eschewing treatment altogether might be a live option.

 

the second link was a year later when omicron was primary variant vs original strain which was tested.

Also they are different age groups which have different doses.

 

He's a perfect GOP plant. Anti-vaxx conspiracy theories are the perfect gateway to the fictional reality sculpted by the RNC and promulgated on right wing media.

 

It was highly effective at the time. Early results in Israel and UK with adults had infection efficacy somewhere in the 90s if I recall correctly. The information was accurate when it was issued in early 2021. I don’t think it is reasonable for drug companies to be able to project the mutation patters of a novel coronavirus.

Because vaccines have rare side effects and people like RFK and anti vaxxers blame everything on vaccines and otherwise would sue.

Exactly what were the lies? DeSantis is doing that for political theater to appeal to right wing voters like you and Q gator.

 

It was well known at time that the vaccines could be less effective against future covid variants. Do you figure that Pfizer and Moderna tried to conceal that fact from an unsuspecting public? Also, the vaccines were and still are safe. Your own link says the Pfizer vaccine was tested on 2260 kids aged 12-15. That's a huge study and it's only for the age 12-15 cohort. The vaccines were tested on huge numbers of people of all ages.

 

The article was in March 2021. Delta came around somewhere like June 2021 and Omicron December 2021. These companies had no idea how the disease would mutate in the future.

 

He definitely doesn’t know what he’s talking about.

There just comes a point where a guys influence picks up so much steam, you can’t just ignore him or shut him down (in the public sphere). You have to engage.

Im not saying that has to be anybody in particular. Arguing with a guy like Kennedy who has written books about this crap would be incredibly time-consuming and exhausting without just shutting him down or dismissing him. Most people have families and responsibilities. But somebody needs to do it, particularly if Kennedy is willing to have that conversation.