D. C. Bear said:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
His anti vaccine efforts following the accidental death of two kids in Samoa (nurse accidentally mixed muscle relaxant instead of saline with measles vaccine) was followed by the deaths of dozens of people. His efforts included social media posts, writing the Samoan prime minister and visiting personally. If I took an accidental poisoning and worked to convince people not to vaccinate their children and then a bunch of those children died, I am not exactly sure how I could sleep at night.
https://www.kff.org/news-summary/los-angeles-times-washington-post-editorials-discuss-measles-outbreak-in-samoa-importance-of-vaccination/
The LA Times and WaPo reporting that. Nice sources there.
These are not the only sources for the story. If you have a dispute with the facts, provide the evidence that that facts asserted (that he did the things he is said to have done) are inaccurate. Otherwise, complaining about accurate information because of the outlet that published is foolish.
https://www.economist.com/asia/2019/12/05/the-anti-vax-movement-causes-an-epidemic-in-samoa
The idea that RFK has some of these kids blood on his hands is called an opinion, and it's written by a couple of liberal rags who recommended children get inoculated for COVID - one of the most ridiculous positions of all time. Consider your source for opinion commentary.
Do you dispute the facts that following two accidental deaths due to an error by a nurse that contaminated measles vaccine with muscle relaxant RFK Jr. did what it was said he did in Samoa? I understand that you may believe he was justified and I understand that you might not like what you call the opinion that his actions contributed to the collapse in vaccine rates and subsequent outbreak and deaths, but do you dispute the facts that he did what did or not?
Did you see the Facebook posts?
Have you been to the website of Childrens' Defense Fund?
The Wapo and LAT articles carry the same genetic fallacy arguments against RFK Jr. that they do against conservatives and conservative issues - "well, they are (insert deplorable term here), so they should be deplatformed."
Asking questions about the safety of a vaccine, or the constitutionality of a vaccine requirement, is squarely within the tradition of free speech. The proper answer to bad speech is more speech. Denouncing and deplatforming is, in fact, evidence of establishments exercising power to defend an otherwise weak argument.
But it is convenient that such critics exist, as they can be blamed for the failure of public officials to do a good job, which is what happened in Samoa.
