RFK, Jr.’s Position on Vaccines

The corporate news, which is largely financed by Big Pharma and pressured nonstop by the U.S. security state, has lied to us for years regarding RFK, Jr.'s position on vaccines. That why so many people have sincerely looked me in the eyes and asserted that RFK, Jr. is "against vaccines" or is a "conspiracy theorist regarding vaccines."  People are free to agree or disagree with him, but responsible people should make sure they accurately understand RFK, Jr.'s position before hurling ad hominems at him out of ignorance and laziness.

Here is RFK, Jr.'s actual position regarding vaccines:

I just want to make this clear. I don't want to take vaccines away from people. I don't want to impose my choices on the American public. If vaccines are working for you, you ought to be able to get them. And I'll make sure that happens. But people should have informed choice. So they should have good science that tells them the cost and the benefits of these products, particularly since they're being ordered to use them.

76 million kids a year are required to use them. and they're healthy children. So it's the only medical product that's given to healthy people. You want a product like that to be extra solid, to make sure there's no risk, because you can take, you know, there's certain risks that you'll take if you're sick to get better. Of course. But if you're not sick, and you shouldn't be required to take a product unless it is iron-clad, unless you know what the... you know, what all the costs and benefits are.

And the problem with vaccines is that they were originally introduced by the Public Health Service, which is one of the five military services. That's why there's a surgeon general. And the Public Health Service introduced them and pushed them as a national security defense against biological attacks on our country. So they wanted to make sure that if the Russians attacked us with anthrax with some other biological agent They could quickly formulate a vaccine and then deploy it to 220 million American civilians without regulatory impediments.

A normal Medical product takes about eight years to get to market because it has to go through double-blind placebo controlled trials And you need to see long-term effects. There are many effects On every medical product that have long diagnostic horizons long incubation periods They didn't want to go through that because they said it's going to be a national emergency. So instead of calling it a medicine, we're going to call it a biologic and we're going to exempt biologics from pre-licensing safety studies.

So there's no vaccine on that schedule, that 72 vaccines, that has ever gone through a pre-licensing safety study placebo-controlled trial against a real placebo. And that's wrong because that means that nobody knows what the risk profiles are on these products. And nobody can tell you whether that product is averting more problems than it's causing.

And what I will do, you know, if I'm given this job in the White House, is I'll make sure that those studies get done, that there are people on the panels that approve these products that are not loaded with conflicts of interest. So it's real science. disinterested people and that doctors and patients and Americans know exactly what the costs and benefits of every vaccine are and can make a rational decision.

Continue ReadingRFK, Jr.’s Position on Vaccines

Real Education

John Leake:

People who go to university and receive professional training generally obtain higher social status and incomes, and this fosters their belief that they are educated. This is especially true of medical doctors, who undergo far more training that almost every other professional.

However, it seems to me that a true education only begins when one graduates from college, and it never ends until one’s dying day. Common sense tends to decline with college education, but then returns as one continues on the path of experience and diligent learning.

People sometimes ask my why Drs. Peter McCullough and Paul Marik broke ranks with so many of their academic medical colleagues during the pandemic.

“Because they continued performing investigative scholarship while most of their colleagues sat on their hands and waited for guidance from Fauci’s NIAID,” I replied. In other words, most medical doctors in the United States acted more like clerics deferring to orthodoxy than true scholars.

Continue ReadingReal Education

The Red-Pilling of Ana Kasparian

It's happening all over the place: People who were certain that Democrats should be in power are now having second or third thoughts about it. Ana Kasparian is one of the most recent prominent transformations. How did her red-pilling happen?

My evolution started in 2022 when I was sexually assaulted by a homeless man in my neighborhood as I was walking my dog. That horrible experience alone didn’t change me politically, but the treatment I received from the far left and some progressives after sharing the story did.  I was told that by publicly sharing what had happened to me, I was stigmatizing my “unhoused neighbors.” Others accused me of feeding into racist tropes because they assumed that my attacker was black. But I had never even disclosed the man’s race.

He was white.

Not only did I suddenly see the flawed thinking of some on the left, I also witnessed their cruelty and hypocrisy in real time. These terrible traits that I had associated solely with my political opponents were obviously not exclusive to their tribe. I was stupid for ever thinking that was the case.

That doesn’t mean everyone on the left thinks or behaves in the way this small group of lunatics do. Far from it. But it does mean that there are factions and flaws on both sides of the aisle and no one has a monopoly on truth.

Then there was the insane reaction to one of my tweets in March 2023:

All hell broke loose after I posted those words. Most “friends” in left-wing media didn’t bother reaching out privately to discuss their disagreement with my personal preference.

You can now follow Ana at her new Substack, Unaligned.

Continue ReadingThe Red-Pilling of Ana Kasparian

Only 20% of Americans Deny that “Words Can Be Violence”

Remember the old chant many of us said as kids? The website "US Dictionary" indicates it was already considered to be an old adage in 1862 when it appeard in a publication of the African Methodist Episcopal Church. US Dictionary describes this adage further:

The phrase "sticks and stones may break my bones" is a well-known children's rhyme. It is often used as a retort to verbal insults or name-calling, suggesting that physical harm from sticks and stones might injure one, but words will not cause any physical harm.
I remember using this saying when I was a kid into adulthood.

How was this adage used over the years? US Dictionary:

The phrase "sticks and stones may break my bones" is a classic saying that serves as a defense against verbal bullying or insults. It's often completed with the line, "But words will never hurt me." The idea behind the phrase is that physical objects, like sticks and stones, can cause physical harm, but intangible words cannot cause physical pain. This phrase is frequently taught to children as a way of coping with name-calling or verbal bullying, encouraging them not to be hurt by hurtful words.

More about the phrase's meaning:

It's often used to encourage resilience against verbal abuse or insults.

The phrase emphasizes the distinction between physical and emotional harm.

It serves as a reminder that words, while potentially hurtful, cannot inflict physical pain.

It is often used in educational settings to teach children about coping mechanisms for bullying.

Similar phrases include "Words can never hurt me" and "I'm rubber, you're glue."

In other words, the Sticks and Stones saying is time tested wisdom, but then something happened. In a recent poll by FIRE, "SHOCKING: 4 in 5 Americans think ‘words can be violence’"

The poll results:

In a new FIRE poll, 4 in 5 Americans (80%) agree at least slightly with the idea that “words can be violence.”

Democrats and women were most likely to agree words are violence, and Republicans and men were least likely to agree.

Only slightly more than a third of Americans (37%) think citizens should have the right to use profanity when speaking to elected officials.

PHILADELPHIA, Oct. 31, 2024 — In a disturbing new finding from the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression, 4 in 5 Americans agree to at least some degree with the idea that “words can be violence.”

In the latest edition of the quarterly National Speech Index, FIRE asked 1,000 Americans, “How much, if at all, does the following statement describe your thoughts: ‘Words can be violence.’”

Nearly half of Americans said that statement describes their thoughts either “mostly” (23%) or “completely” (22%).

Around a quarter responded that it describes their thoughts “somewhat” (22%). Another 12% responded that it matches their thoughts “slightly.”

Only a fifth (20%) responded that the statement “does not describe my thoughts at all.”

FIRE's poll results show that women who are democrats are the biggest advocates for this widespread idea that words can be violence.

Based on these results, one might conclude that words can actually be a form of violence. As FIRE explains, however, this is not true:

“Equating words with violence trivializes actual physical harm, shuts down conversations, and even encourages real violence by justifying the use of force against offensive speech,” said FIRE President and CEO Greg Lukianoff. “Free speech isn't violence, it's the best alternative to violence ever invented.”

Similarly, consider this statement on the topic by Lukianoff and Jonathan Haidt:

Lukianoff and Haidt argue that equating stress-causing speech with “violence,” as Feldman Barrett does, isn’t simply an overstatement. Instead, it’s students’ overblown perception of their own fragility — not exposure to the occasional offensive viewpoint — that’s causing widespread mental health problems among today’s college students.

Their prescription is sure to spark discussion in our nation’s college classrooms — and beyond.

“Free speech, properly understood, is not violence. It is a cure for violence.”

The above excerpt comes from an article in the Atlantic: "Why It's a Bad Idea to Tell Students Words Are Violence: A claim increasingly heard on campus will make them more anxious and more willing to justify physical harm." Here is the opening paragraph href="https://www.theatlantic.com/education/archive/2017/07/why-its-a-bad-idea-to-tell-students-words-are-violence/533970/">to that article:

Of all the ideas percolating on college campuses these days, the most dangerous one might be that speech is sometimes violence. We’re not talking about verbal threats of violence, which are used to coerce and intimidate, and which are illegal and not protected by the First Amendment. We’re talking about speech that is deemed by members of an identity group to be critical of the group, or speech that is otherwise upsetting to members of the group. This is the kind of speech that many students today refer to as a form of violence.

Continue ReadingOnly 20% of Americans Deny that “Words Can Be Violence”