• Due to ongoing issues caused by Search, it has been temporarily disabled
  • Please excuse the mess, we're moving the furniture and restructuring the forum categories

Froot loopy Anti-vaxxer Robert F. Kennedy Jr. challenging Biden for presidency

Skeptic Ginger said:
And I can show you the same for left wing Democrats. Progressives are pretty much the party of science*. I can see why you might have missed that.


*Except Progressive's still haven't discovered the science of marketing.
Click to expand...

I don't disagree with any of this. My point was that the GOP may always turn against science when big money is involved. But generally hasn't been anti-vax until COVID.
 
acbytesla said:
I don't disagree with any of this. My point was that the GOP may always turn against science when big money is involved. But generally hasn't been anti-vax until COVID.
Click to expand...
They are not so much anti-vaxx as pro-money, or pro-profit.

There is no doubt that Big Pharma makes billions off drugs development. It also costs them billions in research and development, but that's a cost of doing their business. It's a BIG industry making BIG money and employing LOTS of people making BIG profits. And the conservatives were all for this because that's where they invested their own shares, etc.

The "side-effect", if you will, is there are now some marvelous drugs out there doing amazing work, including the new mRNA vaccinations. But in a pandemic, Big Pharma can "afford" to distribute vaccines at a reduced rate, or get subsidies to do so. Which means less profit for the shareholders, plus it "looks like socialism" when the plebs get something for nearly free from the government.

This is anathema to the GOP. Health has to be kept expensive or else there is no profit. Everybody needs to pay. No free rides. So they become anti-vaxx not so much because of the science but because the distribution and availability is antithetical to their political outlook. The kooky anti-science justification comes later.
 
acbytesla said:
I don't disagree with any of this. My point was that the GOP may always turn against science when big money is involved. But generally hasn't been anti-vax until COVID.
Click to expand...
The Libertarian wing of the alt-right has been against vaccine mandates long before COVID. The mandate vs freedom issue wasn't covered as much in the mainstream news because it was mostly a state issue except when measles, polio and pertussis outbreaks occurred.

Politico 2019 pre-COVID: How the anti-vaccine movement crept into the GOP mainstream
But in states where legislators have advanced serious efforts to tighten restrictions, such as Maine, Washington, Colorado and Oregon, nearly all of the opponents are Republicans who’ve taken a medical freedom stance.

“The more they dig into it being about freedom, the more susceptible they become to the theories,” said Dave Gorski, a Michigan physician who has tracked the anti-vaccine movement for two decades. “Appeals to freedom are like the gateway drug to pseudoscience.” ...

... “Parental rights mean more to us than your self-enriching ‘science,’” Stickland tweeted at Hotez earlier this month. ...

... That same day, the Oregon Republican Party’s official Twitter account posted that Oregon Democrats were “ramming forced injections down every Oregon parent’s throat.”

Other Republican state officials have blamed Central American immigrants for disease outbreaks, echoing a talking point of Fox commentator Lou Dobbs. ...

In Washington state, the House sponsor of a bill to end exemptions from measles vaccination was state Rep. Paul Harris, a moderate Republican whose district was the epicenter of a measles outbreak. But in the state Senate, the entire 20-member GOP delegation — as well as two Democrats — opposed the bill, although they failed to defeat it.
Click to expand...
 
Norman Alexander said:
They are not so much anti-vaxx as pro-money, or pro-profit.... But in a pandemic, Big Pharma can "afford" to distribute vaccines at a reduced rate, or get subsidies to do so. Which means less profit for the shareholders, plus it "looks like socialism" when the plebs get something for nearly free from the government.

This is anathema to the GOP. Health has to be kept expensive or else there is no profit. Everybody needs to pay. No free rides. So they become anti-vaxx not so much because of the science but because the distribution and availability is antithetical to their political outlook. The kooky anti-science justification comes later.
Click to expand...
You have a few things wrong here. You may be right when it comes to Big Pharma lobbying, and of course there is money in the equation. But it's not so much about the profits influencing GOP the party members.

When it comes to investing in R&D, drugs people take daily are what Big Pharma wants to develop. They aren't as interested in developing drugs you only take when you are ill, like antibiotics, or drugs you only give once or twice or maybe every 10 years in a lifetime.

Then there is the issue that even though some vaccines are annual, flu vaccine wasn't being recommended for everyone. This was highlighted when we had a couple years of flu vaccine shortages. In the US (not sure about other countries) the government stepped in and guaranteed a certain volume of purchases and that resolved the issue.

The government also stepped in decades ago with the vaccine injury insurance. Otherwise vaccine companies didn't want to be sued for adverse effects which were predictable. Vaccines still prevent more deaths than they cause but potential adverse effects when one is treating an existing disease are easier to understand than potential adverse effects when you are preventing potential disease. A lot of people don't get it.

Vaccine manufacturer investments and lobbying are spent on certain drugs. But unlike the NRA they aren't out there telling the public not to get vaccinated. What the GOP is promoting however are issues they see as getting votes and single issue voters are targeted by the GOP. So going after vaccine mandates attracts voters who are ripe for issues like government interference.
If there were huge profits in vaccines then sure, those lobbyists would be pushing legislators to promote vaccine mandates. But it has to also attract voters.

This whole government investing billions in COVID vaccines has stirred the pot. Hard to say what the end result will be in terms of mandates and vaccine profits. My comments in this post are about the GOP courting the anti-vaccine mandate voters before COVID.
 
There was also the issue of Wakefield and the MMR vaccine controversy. That mixed up libertarian outrage with deliberately muddled science and personal gain. So there were plenty of people who were outraged that they "had to" take the MMR vaccine but their reasoning why they objected became a patchwork hotch-potch of "you can't make me", "mercury kills", "BOO BIG PHARMA PROFITS!" and "dead babies everywhere". Which drew in a mixed bag of nutcases from left and right, and some off with the pixies to be quite honest.

Politicians seeing a target audience anywhere latched onto this crowd. You only have to look at the Boeberts and EmptyG's of the GOP: They rail against vaccinations, but do they take them themselves? Yep, sure do. Hypocrites, every one of them.
 
Last edited:
He also wrote a laughable article about how the Republicans "stole" Ohio in the 2004 election that was originally published in both Rolling Stone and Salon (the latter at least had the good sense to remove it after numerous errors were pointed out).

It was one of the classics of a conspiracy theorist in action: Experts (out of their field) roped in, claims that the major media won't cover this, mystification that even the Democrats don't seem interested (because they see the CT as a house of cards designed by Dali).
 
dudalb said:
Anti Vax bullcrap knows no political boundaries. It has supporters on both the wacko left and the wacko right.
Click to expand...

And the whacko extremists of the center like the Upper East side set and well to do moms out in SoCal.
 
Donal said:
And the whacko extremists of the center like the Upper East side set and well to do moms out in SoCal.
Click to expand...

And that is another think political militants of both flavors have;they hate centrists and moderates.
 
Norman Alexander said:
They are not so much anti-vaxx as pro-money, or pro-profit.

There is no doubt that Big Pharma makes billions off drugs development. It also costs them billions in research and development, but that's a cost of doing their business. It's a BIG industry making BIG money and employing LOTS of people making BIG profits. And the conservatives were all for this because that's where they invested their own shares, etc.

The "side-effect", if you will, is there are now some marvelous drugs out there doing amazing work, including the new mRNA vaccinations. But in a pandemic, Big Pharma can "afford" to distribute vaccines at a reduced rate, or get subsidies to do so. Which means less profit for the shareholders, plus it "looks like socialism" when the plebs get something for nearly free from the government.

This is anathema to the GOP. Health has to be kept expensive or else there is no profit. Everybody needs to pay. No free rides. So they become anti-vaxx not so much because of the science but because the distribution and availability is antithetical to their political outlook. The kooky anti-science justification comes later.
Click to expand...
I think your Anti Capitalist outlook is coming out.
 
dudalb said:
I think your Anti Capitalist outlook is coming out.
Click to expand...
What gives you that idea?? I'm quite pro-capitalism, within reasonable boundaries of propriety and legality.

Or is it that you see any pushback against what you believe is free-reign capitalism is "anti capitalism"? If you are not all for it then you are all against it? Is that it?

I have no particular problem with Big Pharmas (or any other industries) making big money, provided they do not exploit their clients or workers. Btw, one of the biggest "big pharmas" as Boiron...look up what they sell for billions in profits.
 
dudalb said:
Anti Vax bullcrap knows no political boundaries. It has supporters on both the wacko left and the wacko right.
Click to expand...

Naomi Wolf, a feminist icon from the 90's, has gone full covid vax CT.

https://newrepublic.com/article/162702/naomi-wolf-madness-feminist-icon-antivaxxer

Here the author describes Wolf's, um, evolution:
Published in 1990, Naomi Wolf’s breakout hit, The Beauty Myth, changed all that. Here was a feminist disquisition of old-school proportions: a big fat analysis of how profit and patriarchy conspire to make women feel bad about ourselves, joined with a call to action.
...
Wolf has tweeted that she overheard an Apple employee (who had attended a “top secret demo”) describing vaccine technology that can enable time travel. She has posited that vaccinated people’s urine and feces should be separated in our sewage system until their contaminating effect on our drinking water has been studied.
Click to expand...
 
MarkCorrigan said:
That's...not how it works. Anti-Vax doesn't necessarily mean left wing, and left wing certainly doesn't mean anti-vax. I'm extremely left wing and progressive, and I hate anti-vax people.
Click to expand...

Indeed, it was the Right Wing that was sprouting antivaxxers like so many toad stools on a rotten log.
 
And he's been endorsed by Green Bay Packers quarterback Aaron Rodgers:

RFK Jr gets his first major endorsement for president - Aaron Rodgers: Packers QB who said he was 'immunized' from COVID indicates support for anti-vaccine conspiracy theorist

Democrat Robert F. Kennedy Jr.'s presidential campaign got a boost Tuesday night from Green Bay Packers quarterback Aaron Rodgers.

Rodgers wrote '#kennedy2024' and included two bicep and two heart emojis on an Instagram story, sharing a reel promoting an upcoming podcast interview with Kennedy, a prominent anti-vaxxer.
Click to expand...

:crazy: :dl:
 
Just thought I'd post a link to this story, which includes a video of RFK Jr claiming that poppers caused AIDS. Apparently he also claimed in a recent interview with Jordan Peterson that a chemical called atrazine is making boys trans.

One problem with ignoring Kennedy is that he is likely to win Iowa and New Hampshire. Both those states are going ahead with plans to remain at the head of the line next year, against the wishes of Joe Biden, who wants South Carolina to be the first primary. Biden has reportedly indicated he won't run in those states.
 
Brainster said:
Just thought I'd post a link to this story, which includes a video of RFK Jr claiming that poppers caused AIDS. Apparently he also claimed in a recent interview with Jordan Peterson that a chemical called atrazine is making boys trans.

One problem with ignoring Kennedy is that he is likely to win Iowa and New Hampshire. Both those states are going ahead with plans to remain at the head of the line next year, against the wishes of Joe Biden, who wants South Carolina to be the first primary. Biden has reportedly indicated he won't run in those states.
Click to expand...

it's only a problem if you think that RFK voters would ever have voted for Biden over Trump in the actual election.
 
Just another example of the fact that a lot of people in this world are complete ******* idiots who couldn't find their way out of a wet paper bag.
 
he will probably be in the news a bit more if you haven't seen him already. after hosting RFK on his show where he talked about how fake vaccines are, aaron rodgers personal physician Joe Rogan challenged a critic named Peter Hotez to debate RFK on his show for $100k to the charity of his choice. Of course, this lead to a lot of accusations against him and people stalking and harassing hotez at his home
 
Brainster said:
Apparently he also claimed in a recent interview with Jordan Peterson that a chemical called atrazine is making boys trans.
Click to expand...



Atrazine is the herbicide some people were throwing fits over 20 years ago, claiming that it turned frogs into hermaphrodites. No attempts to reproduce the original study since then have successfully replicated the results.
 
shemp said:
Just another example of the fact that a lot of people in this world are complete ******* idiots who couldn't find their way out of a wet paper bag.
Click to expand...

I forgot to mention that they're also knuckle-draggers who have to be reminded to breathe.
 
The Great Zaganza said:
kill me now
Click to expand...

Keep in mind, he's got the name and the fact that most Democrats are not enthusiastic about Biden. I don't think he's a serious threat once everybody hears the crazy stuff, but of course I didn't think Trump was either.
 
Brainster said:
Keep in mind, he's got the name and the fact that most Democrats are not enthusiastic about Biden. I don't think he's a serious threat once everybody hears the crazy stuff, but of course I didn't think Trump was either.
Click to expand...

The name doesn’t mean that much any more. Especially when he isn’t supported by his own family. He isn’t charismatic like his father and uncle.
 
Yeah, I listened to the entire 3 hours of Kennedy's Gish Gallop on Rogan. Fortunately, I put it on 1.5x so it was only 2 hours of my life down the drain (please don't point out if my maths are wrong!).

Jeez! There are some serious problems if people decide that that is what they want.
 
acbytesla said:
The name doesn’t mean that much any more. Especially when he isn’t supported by his own family. He isn’t charismatic like his father and uncle.
Click to expand...

Can you think of another reason than the name why he's polling in the mid-teens right now (among Democrats)? It's either the name or a general casting about for an alternative to Biden. On the charisma thing, his old man was 43 when he died, while JFK was 46. RFK Jr, is 69. Not disagreeing with you, just pointing out that the comparison is a little unfair. But it's the kook beliefs on just about everything you can name that should be the focus. He's a classic of what I called the "Lay's potato chip" conspiracy theorist--bet you can't eat just one.
 
Brainster said:
Can you think of another reason than the name why he's polling in the mid-teens right now (among Democrats)? It's either the name or a general casting about for an alternative to Biden. On the charisma thing, his old man was 43 when he died, while JFK was 46. RFK Jr, is 69. Not disagreeing with you, just pointing out that the comparison is a little unfair. But it's the kook beliefs on just about everything you can name that should be the focus. He's a classic of what I called the "Lay's potato chip" conspiracy theorist--bet you can't eat just one.
Click to expand...

At the moment him and Biden are the only realistic candidates, and virtually no campaigning has been done. At this stage it's virtually inevitable that Kennedy's strength is overstated, mainly because people aren't focused on the matter and in such situations are more likely to favour the underdog than when they're thinking.
 
I agree with Brainster that Biden and the DNC absolutely could handle RFK wrong with the result of a new Generation of Bernie Bros staying home come election time.

Giving him rope to hang himself now and get past the novelty is exactly the right play.
 
Just in case you wanted some pushback on the claims by RFK Jr on Rogan, Debunk the Funk did a pretty good takedown...

 
The Great Zaganza said:
I agree with Brainster that Biden and the DNC absolutely could handle RFK wrong with the result of a new Generation of Bernie Bros staying home come election time.
Giving him rope to hang himself now and get past the novelty is exactly the right play.
Click to expand...

Not to derail too much, but seeing as this is a skeptic's forum, it's worth pointing out that this very much did not happen and is pure cope for HRC's disastrous general election bid and just plain personal unpopularity.

It's also worth noting that Clinton was second only to Donald Trump in 2016 as the least popular major party candidate since such metrics were measured. Even after losing what should have been an unlosable election to a reviled reality-TV game-show host, Clinton's favorability ratings continued to drop, eventually falling to below Trump's.

Clinton is entitled to hold a grudge against Sanders and his supporters if she chooses. But to assert that his primary attacks were so beyond the pale that they kept her from winning the presidency, or that the dozens of rallies at which he appeared on her behalf were empty gestures, feels more like echo-chamber thinking than a historically accurate reading of how 2016 went down.
Click to expand...

https://www.businessinsider.com/hillary-clinton-blames-bernie-sanders-but-not-reason-lost-2016-2020-1
 
Last edited:
dirtywick said:
he will probably be in the news a bit more if you haven't seen him already. after hosting RFK on his show where he talked about how fake vaccines are, aaron rodgers personal physician Joe Rogan challenged a critic named Peter Hotez to debate RFK on his show for $100k to the charity of his choice. Of course, this lead to a lot of accusations against him and people stalking and harassing hotez at his home
Click to expand...

Peter Hotez isn't a "critic" he is a scientist who developed a covid vaccine. However, the covid vaccine was not patented. Hotez figures that that vaccine was developed with federal funding (NIH) and therefore it belonged to the public and he would not profit from it. Therefore, any manufacturer can make and sell it.

I saw something this morning about Rogan whining that Hotez is making money from a book. I don't know, maybe it's true that Hotez wrote a book, but I'm guessing it's a science book and not a pop thing (I wouldn't be surprised if he is the editor of a virology book or something like that). But that's just a guess.

Meanwhile, what again is RFKJr's job? What does he get his money from? Apparently being an anti-vaccine crank is pretty lucrative, because he's been that way for at least 20 years (he was one of those who was pushing the MMR = autism thing; RFKJr has never seen an anti-vax conspiracy that he didn't like).
 
Easy to understand why Joe Rogaine doesn't like Peter Hotez's latest book. It's about people like Joe Rogaine. (And yes, I'm deliberately misspelling his last name. ;) )

[IMGW=200]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/picture.php?albumid=1474&pictureid=13548[/IMGW]

Debate RFK, Jr.? So long as Rogaine doesn't call for Hotez to be jailed (or worse), I'm okay with it.
 
newyorkguy said:
Debate RFK, Jr.? So long as Rogaine doesn't call for Hotez to be jailed (or worse), I'm okay with it.
Click to expand...


Lots of memes about the debate idea going around on twitter. Some suggested that RFK Jr. could write a book about chess strategies and then challenge Gerry Kasparov to a debate about it.

A debate about chess strategies, not an actual game of chess.

Hotez is on a very, very different level than RFK Jr. A debate would be silly - Hotez did the work, like Kasparov won at actual games of chess. RFK Jr. is just talk, deeply inexpert talk, Hotez knows full well is would just be a gish gallop and there's no value in debating against an idiot gish galloper..

Biden is talking on the TV right now (with Modi). He mentioned Harris and the crowd threw a big cheer for her. I don't think she is as unpopular as many ISF'ers think she is.

RFK is a crank. He's got his father's name and that carries a ton of legacy recognition and popularity with it. But the more his actual views become known, the less popular he'll be. My guess is that he'll end up running as a third party candidate in the next election (after this one, I mean).
 
Last edited:
Peter Hotez has made clear he has no intention of 'debating' RFK, Jr. About what?
Hotez tweeted Sunday night he has no plans to debate Kennedy, even with all the harassment he's received. "Science is not something that is typically debated like say 18th century enlightenment philosophy or political issues," he said. Houston Public Media link
Click to expand...

Hotez is being harassed both online and in person.
Dr. Peter Hotez was the target of intense online attacks that culminated with two people showing up at his home Sunday, he said...The back and forth dominated Twitter over the weekend, with owner Elon Musk joining in the pile-on against Hotez...The harassment left the online world on Sunday morning when a man recorded himself confronting Hotez outside the doctor's Houston home. The man posted the video to Twitter.

"Let’s face it. When you have RFK Jr. and Joe Rogan and Elon Musk all tag-teaming, those tres hombres at the same time ... That probably includes just about every follower on Twitter. So, it’s pretty overwhelming," Hotez said.
Click to expand...
 
it's also notable that he wanted the debate on his show, wherein he drinks and smokes weed while moderating a debate he doesn't understand but agrees with everything RFK is saying and constantly challenges everything Hotez says.

joe rogan is not a serious person, i'm not sure when he got it in his head he should be trying to solve serious topics and be taken seriously. stick to plugging your ****** comedian friends ****** comedy specials joe.
 
dirtywick said:
it's also notable that he wanted the debate on his show, wherein he drinks and smokes weed while moderating a debate he doesn't understand but agrees with everything RFK is saying and constantly challenges everything Hotez says.

joe rogan is not a serious person, i'm not sure when he got it in his head he should be trying to solve serious topics and be taken seriously. stick to plugging your ****** comedian friends ****** comedy specials joe.
Click to expand...

Joe's just careful about what he puts in his body. No vaccines. Only buckets of other drugs, TRT, supplements, booze, weed, mushrooms, etc...

RFK Jr is the same. A lifetime of boozing and Bolivian marching powder has given him the insight and wisdom to tell others not to take vaccines in case the trace amounts of mercury compounds cause diabetes and smartphones cause glioblastomas.
 
The Great Zaganza said:
I agree with Brainster that Biden and the DNC absolutely could handle RFK wrong with the result of a new Generation of Bernie Bros staying home come election time.

Giving him rope to hang himself now and get past the novelty is exactly the right play.
Click to expand...

The problem 2016 had nothing to do with Bernie bros. The Clinton campaign had four problems in order of precedence 1) Russian interference, 2) James Comey, 3) Wikileaks and 4) Clinton running an ineptly bad campaign which started off way too cozy to big business.
 
Gulliver Foyle said:
The problem 2016 had nothing to do with Bernie bros. The Clinton campaign had four problems in order of precedence 1) Russian interference, 2) James Comey, 3) Wikileaks and 4) Clinton running an ineptly bad campaign which started off way too cozy to big business.
Click to expand...

this is always the same misguided argument: HRC's loss is the result of factor A,B,C,D, ... each of which shaved off a few points and in aggregate cost her the election;
but NOT factor F, which is one I feel passionate about.

Yes, almost everything went wrong for HRC, much of it self-inflicted.
Among that the ambiguity between people who wanted to just shock the system, be it via Bernie, or, if not available, Trump - for the argument it doesn't matter how small the effect was - it added to the sum total.

And there is no reason to assume that the RFK fanclub will be as reasonable and sane as the Bernie Bros are.
 
The Great Zaganza said:
this is always the same misguided argument: HRC's loss is the result of factor A,B,C,D, ... each of which shaved off a few points and in aggregate cost her the election;
but NOT factor F, which is one I feel passionate about.

Yes, almost everything went wrong for HRC, much of it self-inflicted.
Among that the ambiguity between people who wanted to just shock the system, be it via Bernie, or, if not available, Trump - for the argument it doesn't matter how small the effect was - it added to the sum total.

And there is no reason to assume that the RFK fanclub will be as reasonable and sane as the Bernie Bros are.
Click to expand...

Actually, bad and all as Clinton's campaign was, if that was her only handicap she'd have won it in a bigger landslide than Ronnie Ray-Gun "won" 84. It was to my mind about a 1% contribution to the loss.

Because, I of course forgot the biggest impediment to Clinton winning, republican cheating. Without them illegally removing the right to vote from more than 10 million US citizens*, Trump hadn't a snowballs hope in hell.

*And, in all probability, stuffing ballots throughout the "red" states and rust belt.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom