His views on vaccination aren't problematic, his approach to those views are problematic. If you disagree with science you should prove that science is flawed. Historically this is how we've gotten to making skyscrapers and flying machines; prove your stance with your conviction. You prove that the prevailing science of the day is wrong by doing the work, you don't just autistically scream it at people who want to believe you.
Discussion
He's outlined the flaws in detail across several books.
My understanding of his claims are that the pharmaceutical giants that have monopolised vaccine trial and development, through a process of capturing the watchdogs like the FDA, have created a situation where they can over exaggerate the need for, the effectiveness and the cost of vaccines all while denying downplaying or censoring the contraindications and side effects.
There are mountains of data supporting his claims, not only with vaccines, but with all manner of medications.
Have you ever seen 'The Dallas Buyers Club' ? That film deals with what we are talking about.
The FDA was captured by Wellcome, a drug manufacturer, to the extent that it was banning effective treatments for AIDS, in some cases for things as simple as vitamins, in favour of a shelved chemotherapy agent from the 80s called AZT , that was basically poisoning people.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3954632/
It's a known problem, trust me.
Excellent performance delivered by McConaughey, and on such a sad part of history. Great movie overall, but it was by no means a benchmark of how things actually went down at the time. AZT was called "poison" in the movie but the reality is that AZT is still a front line defense against HIV/AIDS to this very day, although typically administered with another anti-retroviral alongside.
The initial doses administered in those early clinical trials were absolutely miserable, though. Before human testing had began they only had data in vitro for guessing dosing, and they were going heavy with the dosing in the 80's.
Agreed McConaughey crushed in that film.
The mechanisms by which AZT was promoted to the exclusion of other treatments that had shown effectiveness set in motion a line of questioning that RFK has been following ever since, and I believe that has value, that's why I felt the need to defend him.
I respect your opinions too of course.
Perhaps I'll read a little on AZT today and see how things have changed.
Dialogue is the only way forward regardless, those who want to shut it down are pretty clear on what their intent is.
AIDS is what happens when you stay up assraping with your faggot buds for three days whilst jacked up on poppers and meth... you get a fucking immune deficiency
there has been ZERO legitimate science proving that "HIV" causes ANYTHING.
#fauci was the minion behind that whole bag as well - READ.
and you are touting the benefits of AZT ??? LMAO you cant be...
do you know what AZT was originally designed for? that it was leftover anti-viral from the "cancer is a virus" heydey grift ? warehoused and slated for destruction until this "new novel application" was found ?
AZT is a killer and if you know any honest sodomites they will tell you the same.
here is your evidence THAT GERM THEORY AS APPLIED TO VIRUSES IS A GRIFT :
Thanks for your contribution man, we'll look into it.
They also lobbied Congress to set up a legal system for them where they can pay off people injured by vaccines without having to admit fault or pull those vaccines off the market.
I'm a fan of empiricism myself, but if you read the work of polymaths like John Ionidis and his paper on the reproducability crisis, you will understand that the peer review system has become so perverted, that they have undermined trust in science.
If we are to get back on track, we need a new decentralised open protocol where people can publish scientific findings, and not a handful of centralised journals where industry PA's who work for the same pharma giants all just pass each other their papers and circlejerk each other and claim that it was peer reviewed.
He's a man who reads science and thinks critically. When mothers started coming to him about their children's vaccine injuries, he was very apprehensive to take up the case until he read the studies. When he went to court for them he brought science with him, not just hyperbolic claims about autism. He's been fighting to take the mercury out of vaccines.
What exactly do you think his approach is? From what I've seen, he acknowledges that vaccines can be valuable, but it's highly critical of the way that they've been tested since the mid 80s, and cites studies to support his concerns. I'm not sure how that is disagreeing with science.
Have you seen something from him that is anti-science, or just questioning The Science? Genuine question, because I'm probably gong to vote for him, and I'm also not interested in voting for someone who is anti-science.