RFK, Jr. secretly got rich of his vaccine conspiracy garbage
3,913 Views |
97 Replies |
Last: 7 days ago by historian
https://www.allsides.com/news-source/new-republic
Very left publication. You should be more ashamed than Mike Gundy wearing an OAN shirt.
Very left publication. You should be more ashamed than Mike Gundy wearing an OAN shirt.
It is no secret that Pfizer, Moderna, & Johnson & Johnson got rich off of pushing a product that doesn't work.Tempus Edax Rerum said:
https://newrepublic.com/post/190262/robert-f-kennedy-jr-anti-vax-nonprofit-money?fbclid=IwY2xjawH1dwdleHRuA2FlbQIxMQABHf3nLRKmS93XskWiRBWosSVcghq9LmxbjE3TgGbTq6jYft04E9IYxyUCjw_aem_zwmqMDf1JMSe3Z2iaJfP6A
J & J sees what is coming and discontinued their vaccine in the U.S.
https://arstechnica.com/health/2023/06/j-fda-revokes-authorization/
Bitcoin, $Trumpcoin, or $Fartcoin? That is the question.
The New Republic
LOL
LOL
Hahahahahahahahahahahaha, the freaking New Republic.
What are you going to link next Infowars, to get the extreme right perspective.
Neither have any validity.
What are you going to link next Infowars, to get the extreme right perspective.
Neither have any validity.
Quote:
Sources with an AllSides Media Bias Rating of Left display media bias in ways that strongly align with liberal, progressive, or left-wing thought and/or policy agendas. This is our most liberal rating on the political spectrum.
Go away.
So, milli, the world's dumbest poster, asks for evidence that his hero and "biostitute" Paul Offit was receiving funds from the pharmaceutical companies on another thread, and then when I post evidence of same, instead of responding he tucks his tail and starts a new thread on RFK. LOL. So predictable.
I will just post this again for the hypocrite.
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/how-independent-are-vaccine-defenders/
How Independent Are Vaccine Defenders?
They're some of the most trusted voices in the defense of vaccine safety: the American Academy of Pediatrics, Every Child By Two, and pediatrician Dr. Paul Offit.
But CBS News has found these three have something more in common - strong financial ties to the industry whose products they promote and defend.
The vaccine industry gives millions to the Academy of Pediatrics for conferences, grants, medical education classes and even helped build their headquarters. The totals are kept secret, but public documents reveal bits and pieces.
A $342,000 payment from Wyeth, maker of the pneumococcal vaccine - which makes $2 billion a year in sales.
A $433,000 contribution from Merck, the same year the academy endorsed Merck's HPV vaccine - which made $1.5 billion a year in sales.
Another top donor: Sanofi Aventis, maker of 17 vaccines and a new five-in-one combo shot just added to the childhood vaccine schedule last month.
Every Child By Two, a group that promotes early immunization for all children, admits the group takes money from the vaccine industry, too - but wouldn't tell us how much.
A spokesman told CBS News: "There are simply no conflicts to be unearthed." But guess who's listed as the group's treasurers? Officials from Wyeth and a paid advisor to big pharmaceutical clients.
Then there's Paul Offit, perhaps the most widely-quoted defender of vaccine safety.
He's gone so far as to say babies can tolerate "10,000 vaccines at once."
This is how Offit described himself in a previous interview: "I'm the chief of infectious disease at Children's Hospital of Philadelphia and a professor of pediatrics at Penn's medical school," he said.
Offit was not willing to be interviewed on this subject but like others in this CBS News investigation, he has strong industry ties. In fact, he's a vaccine industry insider.
Offit holds in a $1.5 million dollar research chair at Children's Hospital, funded by Merck. He holds the patent on an anti-diarrhea vaccine he developed with Merck, Rotateq, which has prevented thousands of hospitalizations.
And future royalties for the vaccine were just sold for $182 million cash. Dr. Offit's share of vaccine profits? Unknown.
There's nothing illegal about the financial relationships, but to critics, they pose a serious risk for conflicts of interest. As one member of Congress put it, money from the pharmaceutical industry can shape the practices of those who hold themselves out to be "independent."
The American Academy of Pediatrics, Every Child By Two and Dr. Offit would not agree to interviews, but all told us they're up front about the money they receive, and it doesn't sway their opinions.
Today's immunization schedule now calls for kids to get 55 doses of vaccines by age 6.
Ideally, it makes for a healthier society. But critics worry that industry ties could impact the advice given to the public about all those vaccines.
Offit received a $350,000 grant from Merck to develop the RotaTeq vaccine.
Merck also paid for a chair in vaccinology at the Children's Hospital of Philadelphia (CHOP) for Offit to hold. Offit receives an additional $90,000 a year from this chair.
Merck also bought and distributed copies of Offit's book What Every Parent Should Know About Vaccines to physicians.
I will just post this again for the hypocrite.
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/how-independent-are-vaccine-defenders/
How Independent Are Vaccine Defenders?
They're some of the most trusted voices in the defense of vaccine safety: the American Academy of Pediatrics, Every Child By Two, and pediatrician Dr. Paul Offit.
But CBS News has found these three have something more in common - strong financial ties to the industry whose products they promote and defend.
The vaccine industry gives millions to the Academy of Pediatrics for conferences, grants, medical education classes and even helped build their headquarters. The totals are kept secret, but public documents reveal bits and pieces.
Every Child By Two, a group that promotes early immunization for all children, admits the group takes money from the vaccine industry, too - but wouldn't tell us how much.
A spokesman told CBS News: "There are simply no conflicts to be unearthed." But guess who's listed as the group's treasurers? Officials from Wyeth and a paid advisor to big pharmaceutical clients.
Then there's Paul Offit, perhaps the most widely-quoted defender of vaccine safety.
He's gone so far as to say babies can tolerate "10,000 vaccines at once."
This is how Offit described himself in a previous interview: "I'm the chief of infectious disease at Children's Hospital of Philadelphia and a professor of pediatrics at Penn's medical school," he said.
Offit was not willing to be interviewed on this subject but like others in this CBS News investigation, he has strong industry ties. In fact, he's a vaccine industry insider.
Offit holds in a $1.5 million dollar research chair at Children's Hospital, funded by Merck. He holds the patent on an anti-diarrhea vaccine he developed with Merck, Rotateq, which has prevented thousands of hospitalizations.
And future royalties for the vaccine were just sold for $182 million cash. Dr. Offit's share of vaccine profits? Unknown.
There's nothing illegal about the financial relationships, but to critics, they pose a serious risk for conflicts of interest. As one member of Congress put it, money from the pharmaceutical industry can shape the practices of those who hold themselves out to be "independent."
The American Academy of Pediatrics, Every Child By Two and Dr. Offit would not agree to interviews, but all told us they're up front about the money they receive, and it doesn't sway their opinions.
Today's immunization schedule now calls for kids to get 55 doses of vaccines by age 6.
Ideally, it makes for a healthier society. But critics worry that industry ties could impact the advice given to the public about all those vaccines.
I wasn't aware there was such a thing as secret civil lawsuits
Can you show me where their information is wrong?EatMoreSalmon said:
https://www.allsides.com/news-source/new-republic
Very left publication. You should be more ashamed than Mike Gundy wearing an OAN shirt.
So their information is wrong? Can you show me a link where you can demonstrate their information is incorrect?KaiBear said:
The New Republic
LOL
You do realize who Maurice Hilleman is right? I suspect you are too stupid to know who he is and that Dr. Offit holds the Maurice Hilleman chair at CHOP. You just keep spouting the same old crap. Rotateq saves 500,000 million lives per year! That comes out to $364 per life saved in one year. Are you suggesting that is too expensive. Do you even think through your stupid a$$ logic?Mothra said:
So, milli, the world's dumbest poster, asks for evidence that his hero and "biostitute" Paul Offit was receiving funds from the pharmaceutical companies on another thread, and then when I post evidence of same, instead of responding he tucks his tail and starts a new thread on RFK. LOL. So predictable.
I will just post this again for the hypocrite.
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/how-independent-are-vaccine-defenders/
How Independent Are Vaccine Defenders?
They're some of the most trusted voices in the defense of vaccine safety: the American Academy of Pediatrics, Every Child By Two, and pediatrician Dr. Paul Offit.
But CBS News has found these three have something more in common - strong financial ties to the industry whose products they promote and defend.
The vaccine industry gives millions to the Academy of Pediatrics for conferences, grants, medical education classes and even helped build their headquarters. The totals are kept secret, but public documents reveal bits and pieces.A $342,000 payment from Wyeth, maker of the pneumococcal vaccine - which makes $2 billion a year in sales. A $433,000 contribution from Merck, the same year the academy endorsed Merck's HPV vaccine - which made $1.5 billion a year in sales. Another top donor: Sanofi Aventis, maker of 17 vaccines and a new five-in-one combo shot just added to the childhood vaccine schedule last month.
Every Child By Two, a group that promotes early immunization for all children, admits the group takes money from the vaccine industry, too - but wouldn't tell us how much.
A spokesman told CBS News: "There are simply no conflicts to be unearthed." But guess who's listed as the group's treasurers? Officials from Wyeth and a paid advisor to big pharmaceutical clients.
Then there's Paul Offit, perhaps the most widely-quoted defender of vaccine safety.
He's gone so far as to say babies can tolerate "10,000 vaccines at once."
This is how Offit described himself in a previous interview: "I'm the chief of infectious disease at Children's Hospital of Philadelphia and a professor of pediatrics at Penn's medical school," he said.
Offit was not willing to be interviewed on this subject but like others in this CBS News investigation, he has strong industry ties. In fact, he's a vaccine industry insider.
Offit holds in a $1.5 million dollar research chair at Children's Hospital, funded by Merck. He holds the patent on an anti-diarrhea vaccine he developed with Merck, Rotateq, which has prevented thousands of hospitalizations.
And future royalties for the vaccine were just sold for $182 million cash. Dr. Offit's share of vaccine profits? Unknown.
There's nothing illegal about the financial relationships, but to critics, they pose a serious risk for conflicts of interest. As one member of Congress put it, money from the pharmaceutical industry can shape the practices of those who hold themselves out to be "independent."
The American Academy of Pediatrics, Every Child By Two and Dr. Offit would not agree to interviews, but all told us they're up front about the money they receive, and it doesn't sway their opinions.
Today's immunization schedule now calls for kids to get 55 doses of vaccines by age 6.
Ideally, it makes for a healthier society. But critics worry that industry ties could impact the advice given to the public about all those vaccines.Offit received a $350,000 grant from Merck to develop the RotaTeq vaccine. Merck also paid for a chair in vaccinology at the Children's Hospital of Philadelphia (CHOP) for Offit to hold. Offit receives an additional $90,000 a year from this chair. Merck also bought and distributed copies of Offit's book What Every Parent Should Know About Vaccines to physicians.
Hey dumb f*ck, glad to see you came out of hiding. Indeed, I do. What does that have to do with the price of tea in China? Try to stay on topic, SFB.Tempus Edax Rerum said:You do realize who Maurice Hilleman is right? I suspect you are too stupid to know who he is and that Dr. Offit holds the Maurice Hilleman chair at CHOP. You just keep spouting the same old crap. Rotateq saves 500,000 million lives per year! That comes out to $364 per life saved in one year. Are you suggesting that is too expensive. Do you even think through your stupid a$$ logic?Mothra said:
So, milli, the world's dumbest poster, asks for evidence that his hero and "biostitute" Paul Offit was receiving funds from the pharmaceutical companies on another thread, and then when I post evidence of same, instead of responding he tucks his tail and starts a new thread on RFK. LOL. So predictable.
I will just post this again for the hypocrite.
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/how-independent-are-vaccine-defenders/
How Independent Are Vaccine Defenders?
They're some of the most trusted voices in the defense of vaccine safety: the American Academy of Pediatrics, Every Child By Two, and pediatrician Dr. Paul Offit.
But CBS News has found these three have something more in common - strong financial ties to the industry whose products they promote and defend.
The vaccine industry gives millions to the Academy of Pediatrics for conferences, grants, medical education classes and even helped build their headquarters. The totals are kept secret, but public documents reveal bits and pieces.A $342,000 payment from Wyeth, maker of the pneumococcal vaccine - which makes $2 billion a year in sales. A $433,000 contribution from Merck, the same year the academy endorsed Merck's HPV vaccine - which made $1.5 billion a year in sales. Another top donor: Sanofi Aventis, maker of 17 vaccines and a new five-in-one combo shot just added to the childhood vaccine schedule last month.
Every Child By Two, a group that promotes early immunization for all children, admits the group takes money from the vaccine industry, too - but wouldn't tell us how much.
A spokesman told CBS News: "There are simply no conflicts to be unearthed." But guess who's listed as the group's treasurers? Officials from Wyeth and a paid advisor to big pharmaceutical clients.
Then there's Paul Offit, perhaps the most widely-quoted defender of vaccine safety.
He's gone so far as to say babies can tolerate "10,000 vaccines at once."
This is how Offit described himself in a previous interview: "I'm the chief of infectious disease at Children's Hospital of Philadelphia and a professor of pediatrics at Penn's medical school," he said.
Offit was not willing to be interviewed on this subject but like others in this CBS News investigation, he has strong industry ties. In fact, he's a vaccine industry insider.
Offit holds in a $1.5 million dollar research chair at Children's Hospital, funded by Merck. He holds the patent on an anti-diarrhea vaccine he developed with Merck, Rotateq, which has prevented thousands of hospitalizations.
And future royalties for the vaccine were just sold for $182 million cash. Dr. Offit's share of vaccine profits? Unknown.
There's nothing illegal about the financial relationships, but to critics, they pose a serious risk for conflicts of interest. As one member of Congress put it, money from the pharmaceutical industry can shape the practices of those who hold themselves out to be "independent."
The American Academy of Pediatrics, Every Child By Two and Dr. Offit would not agree to interviews, but all told us they're up front about the money they receive, and it doesn't sway their opinions.
Today's immunization schedule now calls for kids to get 55 doses of vaccines by age 6.
Ideally, it makes for a healthier society. But critics worry that industry ties could impact the advice given to the public about all those vaccines.Offit received a $350,000 grant from Merck to develop the RotaTeq vaccine. Merck also paid for a chair in vaccinology at the Children's Hospital of Philadelphia (CHOP) for Offit to hold. Offit receives an additional $90,000 a year from this chair. Merck also bought and distributed copies of Offit's book What Every Parent Should Know About Vaccines to physicians.
Like the incompetent boob you are, you asked for evidence that your "biostitute" Paul Offit was taking money from Big Pharma. And indeed, that evidence has been provided, and once again you look like the idiot.
Ever heard of a "conflict of interest"? You might look it up some time instead of spouting more dumb and uninformed ***** When the drug companies are paying you handsomely, and are going to greenlight one of your vaccines, which could result in millions of dollars in your pocket, you might not be objective regarding the rest of their vaccines.
Can you show me how reliable their information has been?Tempus Edax Rerum said:Can you show me where their information is wrong?EatMoreSalmon said:
https://www.allsides.com/news-source/new-republic
Very left publication. You should be more ashamed than Mike Gundy wearing an OAN shirt.
I've often disagreed with TNR, but unless something has drastically changed in the last few years, calling them extreme left is a joke.EatMoreSalmon said:Can you show me how reliable their information has been?Tempus Edax Rerum said:Can you show me where their information is wrong?EatMoreSalmon said:
https://www.allsides.com/news-source/new-republic
Very left publication. You should be more ashamed than Mike Gundy wearing an OAN shirt.
Did you look at the link I gave above?Sam Lowry said:I've often disagreed with TNR, but unless something has drastically changed in the last few years, calling them extreme left is a joke.EatMoreSalmon said:Can you show me how reliable their information has been?Tempus Edax Rerum said:Can you show me where their information is wrong?EatMoreSalmon said:
https://www.allsides.com/news-source/new-republic
Very left publication. You should be more ashamed than Mike Gundy wearing an OAN shirt.
Here are the major news outlets biases rated by AllSides:
https://www.allsides.com/media-bias/media-bias-chart
These look pretty much on target to me.
Perhaps your personal view is different.
I'm still not seeing where the information reported is incorrect. Can you please point me to where the information in the article I posted is wrong?EatMoreSalmon said:
https://www.allsides.com/news-source/new-republic
Very left publication. You should be more ashamed than Mike Gundy wearing an OAN shirt.
Still waiting.EatMoreSalmon said:
https://www.allsides.com/news-source/new-republic
Very left publication. You should be more ashamed than Mike Gundy wearing an OAN shirt.
Don't really bother with untrustworthy news sites. You seem to lap it up hook, line and sinker. Typically sites slanted like yours either leave out any "troublesome" information or stretch info a la National Enquirer.Tempus Edax Rerum said:Still waiting.EatMoreSalmon said:
https://www.allsides.com/news-source/new-republic
Very left publication. You should be more ashamed than Mike Gundy wearing an OAN shirt.
Hence their long term accuracy ratings are low.
Tempus Edax Rerum said:Still waiting.EatMoreSalmon said:
https://www.allsides.com/news-source/new-republic
Very left publication. You should be more ashamed than Mike Gundy wearing an OAN shirt.
Our vibrations were getting nasty. But why? I was puzzled, frustrated... Had we deteriorated to the level of dumb beasts?
This thread makes me miss all those email forwards I used to get from my grandmother about conspiracy theories
I did, and I noticed that the rating was issued with "low confidence." It's based at least partly on user opinion, which is suspect to begin with, but even so a lot of people disagree with it. Historically TNR is one of the most respected magazines across the political spectrum.EatMoreSalmon said:Did you look at the link I gave above?Sam Lowry said:I've often disagreed with TNR, but unless something has drastically changed in the last few years, calling them extreme left is a joke.EatMoreSalmon said:Can you show me how reliable their information has been?Tempus Edax Rerum said:Can you show me where their information is wrong?EatMoreSalmon said:
https://www.allsides.com/news-source/new-republic
Very left publication. You should be more ashamed than Mike Gundy wearing an OAN shirt.
Here are the major news outlets biases rated by AllSides:
https://www.allsides.com/media-bias/media-bias-chart
These look pretty much on target to me.
Perhaps your personal view is different.
So were many publications decades ago that no longer can be viewed as respected. A journalistic endeavor, like a prophet of old, is judged by their accuracy over time. Some remain true. Others do not.Sam Lowry said:I did, and I noticed that the rating was issued with "low confidence." It's based at least partly on user opinion, which is suspect to begin with, but even so a lot of people disagree with it. Historically TNR is one of the most respected magazines across the political spectrum.EatMoreSalmon said:Did you look at the link I gave above?Sam Lowry said:I've often disagreed with TNR, but unless something has drastically changed in the last few years, calling them extreme left is a joke.EatMoreSalmon said:Can you show me how reliable their information has been?Tempus Edax Rerum said:Can you show me where their information is wrong?EatMoreSalmon said:
https://www.allsides.com/news-source/new-republic
Very left publication. You should be more ashamed than Mike Gundy wearing an OAN shirt.
Here are the major news outlets biases rated by AllSides:
https://www.allsides.com/media-bias/media-bias-chart
These look pretty much on target to me.
Perhaps your personal view is different.
So still no proof the article is incorrect? Got it.EatMoreSalmon said:So were many publications decades ago that no longer can be viewed as respected. A journalistic endeavor, like a prophet of old, is judged by their accuracy over time. Some remain true. Others do not.Sam Lowry said:I did, and I noticed that the rating was issued with "low confidence." It's based at least partly on user opinion, which is suspect to begin with, but even so a lot of people disagree with it. Historically TNR is one of the most respected magazines across the political spectrum.EatMoreSalmon said:Did you look at the link I gave above?Sam Lowry said:I've often disagreed with TNR, but unless something has drastically changed in the last few years, calling them extreme left is a joke.EatMoreSalmon said:Can you show me how reliable their information has been?Tempus Edax Rerum said:Can you show me where their information is wrong?EatMoreSalmon said:
https://www.allsides.com/news-source/new-republic
Very left publication. You should be more ashamed than Mike Gundy wearing an OAN shirt.
Here are the major news outlets biases rated by AllSides:
https://www.allsides.com/media-bias/media-bias-chart
These look pretty much on target to me.
Perhaps your personal view is different.
See the editorial below from the WSJ from January 23rd, 2025. Is the WSJ lying too? Is it a left wing nut job hack piece as well?
Senate Republicans are burying their heads to avoid many of Robert F. Kennedy Jr.'s positions. The question is whether the ostrich routine risks allowing Mr. Kennedy, should he win confirmation as health and human services secretary, to put trial lawyers in charge of American business, regulators and Congress itself.
The longtime Democrat's nomination hearings begin next week. The Republican effort to excuse or divert attention from Mr. Kennedy's disqualifying views has been a mix of hilarity and cringe. How to rationalize a nominee who rejects basic science, who labels U.S. farmers a greater threat than al Qaeda, who wants to "punish" climate "deniers," who loves big government? Senators have variously mumbled that Mr. Kennedy didn't understand, or was misunderstood, or has shed 50 years of leftist ideology.
Yet it all fails to confront the motivating impulse behind Mr. Kennedy's dubious positions. To understand how Mr. Kennedy arrived at his outlier views, one must first understand his interest in getting there. The short answer: He's a trial lawyer, a specialist in extortion by litigation, a practice he acknowledges he wants to encourage via public office.
His colorful past obscures the reality of Mr. Kennedy's lifetime calling: suing, and suing more. He started in the nonprofit world but joined the ranks of plaintiffs firms that squeeze companies for settlementsthe lawyers getting huge contingency fees while clients sometimes get little. His recent government ethics filing notes his continuing legal work or positions with trial firms that include Kennedy & Madonna (which changed its name to Madonna & Madonna on Jan. 13), Morgan & Morgan, and Wisner Baum.
That career puts Mr. Kennedy's campaigns in a different context. To listen to the nominee, his war against the weed killer glyphosate is motivated by his desire to save humans from "poison." Then again, it was Mr. Kennedy's claim that glyphosate is carcinogenica position rejected by most health agenciesthat enabled him and other lawyers to land a $289 million judgment against Roundup maker Monsanto. (The judgment was reduced on appeal.)
This tort mindset matters deeply because it isby Mr. Kennedy's own admissionbehind his goal of running HHS. In an interview in July with "Dr. Phil" McGraw, Mr. Kennedy, then an independent presidential candidate, said that Congress and regulators were all on industry "payrolls" and useless. So he had a different plan. He'd "go down to NIH"the National Institutes of Health, which is part of HHSand order it to "find out" what products are "causing" chronic disease. "Once you have that science that makes that causal connection between an exposure and an injury," he said, that "allows attorneys to bring lawsuits." He adds that "you can't do it through Congress," so "attorneys can come in and it's the market fixing the problem, rather than government."
He emphasized the same strategy after endorsing Mr. Trump. On Fox's "Jesse Watters Primetime" in September, he said that his "plan" to unravel "corporate capture" was to take the "$42 billion dollar budget of NIH," "figure out what is causing" chronic disease," and "name names." Then, "once we have a good science out there, the litigators come in and we'll solve the problem."
Mr. Kennedy still has his trial-lawyer friends in mind as he goes about his public campaigns. Consider his November tweet promising to "remove fluoride from public water" since he says it's behind everything from arthritis to thyroid disease. He tagged Michael Connett, an attorney suing the Environmental Protection Agency and makers of children's toothpaste and mouthwash over fluoride.
Even "Make America Healthy Again" becomes ethically suspect in Mr. Kennedy's hands. Consider his war on "junk" or "ultraprocessed" foods. Mr. Kennedy currently has a referral agreement and of-counsel position with Morgan & Morgan, a law firm that last month bragged it had filed a giant, "first of its kind" lawsuit against Kraft and others for engineering their "ultra-processed food products to be addictive" and causing "chronic disease." Every time an HHS Secretary Kennedy opens his mouth, he'd potentially be providing an in-kind contribution to trial lawyers who'll use his words as evidence in court. (The White House didn't respond to a request for comment.)
Which gets to Mr. Kennedy's own ethics issues. In his filing, he says he will relinquish his legal positions on confirmation, though he plans to continue collecting 10% of fees awarded in contingency cases he referred to Wisner Baum. That firm is suing Merck over its HPV vaccine. According to government records, Mr. Kennedy has collected $2.5 million from the firm over the past two years. While he says he'll collect fees only in cases where the U.S. isn't a party, that means little when he has the power to trash-talk the companies and products in the trial bar's sights.
The GOP has rightly taken a dim view of the trial bar's manipulation of the legal system. Every senator now must consider how to justify placing an unrepentant advocate of that industry in a position of power to facilitate further abuse in a way that negates the role of Congress.
Write to kim@wsj.com.
Senate Republicans are burying their heads to avoid many of Robert F. Kennedy Jr.'s positions. The question is whether the ostrich routine risks allowing Mr. Kennedy, should he win confirmation as health and human services secretary, to put trial lawyers in charge of American business, regulators and Congress itself.
The longtime Democrat's nomination hearings begin next week. The Republican effort to excuse or divert attention from Mr. Kennedy's disqualifying views has been a mix of hilarity and cringe. How to rationalize a nominee who rejects basic science, who labels U.S. farmers a greater threat than al Qaeda, who wants to "punish" climate "deniers," who loves big government? Senators have variously mumbled that Mr. Kennedy didn't understand, or was misunderstood, or has shed 50 years of leftist ideology.
Yet it all fails to confront the motivating impulse behind Mr. Kennedy's dubious positions. To understand how Mr. Kennedy arrived at his outlier views, one must first understand his interest in getting there. The short answer: He's a trial lawyer, a specialist in extortion by litigation, a practice he acknowledges he wants to encourage via public office.
His colorful past obscures the reality of Mr. Kennedy's lifetime calling: suing, and suing more. He started in the nonprofit world but joined the ranks of plaintiffs firms that squeeze companies for settlementsthe lawyers getting huge contingency fees while clients sometimes get little. His recent government ethics filing notes his continuing legal work or positions with trial firms that include Kennedy & Madonna (which changed its name to Madonna & Madonna on Jan. 13), Morgan & Morgan, and Wisner Baum.
That career puts Mr. Kennedy's campaigns in a different context. To listen to the nominee, his war against the weed killer glyphosate is motivated by his desire to save humans from "poison." Then again, it was Mr. Kennedy's claim that glyphosate is carcinogenica position rejected by most health agenciesthat enabled him and other lawyers to land a $289 million judgment against Roundup maker Monsanto. (The judgment was reduced on appeal.)
This tort mindset matters deeply because it isby Mr. Kennedy's own admissionbehind his goal of running HHS. In an interview in July with "Dr. Phil" McGraw, Mr. Kennedy, then an independent presidential candidate, said that Congress and regulators were all on industry "payrolls" and useless. So he had a different plan. He'd "go down to NIH"the National Institutes of Health, which is part of HHSand order it to "find out" what products are "causing" chronic disease. "Once you have that science that makes that causal connection between an exposure and an injury," he said, that "allows attorneys to bring lawsuits." He adds that "you can't do it through Congress," so "attorneys can come in and it's the market fixing the problem, rather than government."
He emphasized the same strategy after endorsing Mr. Trump. On Fox's "Jesse Watters Primetime" in September, he said that his "plan" to unravel "corporate capture" was to take the "$42 billion dollar budget of NIH," "figure out what is causing" chronic disease," and "name names." Then, "once we have a good science out there, the litigators come in and we'll solve the problem."
Mr. Kennedy still has his trial-lawyer friends in mind as he goes about his public campaigns. Consider his November tweet promising to "remove fluoride from public water" since he says it's behind everything from arthritis to thyroid disease. He tagged Michael Connett, an attorney suing the Environmental Protection Agency and makers of children's toothpaste and mouthwash over fluoride.
Even "Make America Healthy Again" becomes ethically suspect in Mr. Kennedy's hands. Consider his war on "junk" or "ultraprocessed" foods. Mr. Kennedy currently has a referral agreement and of-counsel position with Morgan & Morgan, a law firm that last month bragged it had filed a giant, "first of its kind" lawsuit against Kraft and others for engineering their "ultra-processed food products to be addictive" and causing "chronic disease." Every time an HHS Secretary Kennedy opens his mouth, he'd potentially be providing an in-kind contribution to trial lawyers who'll use his words as evidence in court. (The White House didn't respond to a request for comment.)
Which gets to Mr. Kennedy's own ethics issues. In his filing, he says he will relinquish his legal positions on confirmation, though he plans to continue collecting 10% of fees awarded in contingency cases he referred to Wisner Baum. That firm is suing Merck over its HPV vaccine. According to government records, Mr. Kennedy has collected $2.5 million from the firm over the past two years. While he says he'll collect fees only in cases where the U.S. isn't a party, that means little when he has the power to trash-talk the companies and products in the trial bar's sights.
The GOP has rightly taken a dim view of the trial bar's manipulation of the legal system. Every senator now must consider how to justify placing an unrepentant advocate of that industry in a position of power to facilitate further abuse in a way that negates the role of Congress.
Write to kim@wsj.com.
Pretty sure you are just listening to yourself talk. I don't know if anyone is reading your posts.
He's a narcistic whacko fraud, but I guess people like his position on seed oils . . . .Tempus Edax Rerum said:
See the editorial below from the WSJ from January 23rd, 2025. Is the WSJ lying too? Is it a left wing nut job hack piece as well?
Senate Republicans are burying their heads to avoid many of Robert F. Kennedy Jr.'s positions. The question is whether the ostrich routine risks allowing Mr. Kennedy, should he win confirmation as health and human services secretary, to put trial lawyers in charge of American business, regulators and Congress itself.
The longtime Democrat's nomination hearings begin next week. The Republican effort to excuse or divert attention from Mr. Kennedy's disqualifying views has been a mix of hilarity and cringe. How to rationalize a nominee who rejects basic science, who labels U.S. farmers a greater threat than al Qaeda, who wants to "punish" climate "deniers," who loves big government? Senators have variously mumbled that Mr. Kennedy didn't understand, or was misunderstood, or has shed 50 years of leftist ideology.
Yet it all fails to confront the motivating impulse behind Mr. Kennedy's dubious positions. To understand how Mr. Kennedy arrived at his outlier views, one must first understand his interest in getting there. The short answer: He's a trial lawyer, a specialist in extortion by litigation, a practice he acknowledges he wants to encourage via public office.
His colorful past obscures the reality of Mr. Kennedy's lifetime calling: suing, and suing more. He started in the nonprofit world but joined the ranks of plaintiffs firms that squeeze companies for settlementsthe lawyers getting huge contingency fees while clients sometimes get little. His recent government ethics filing notes his continuing legal work or positions with trial firms that include Kennedy & Madonna (which changed its name to Madonna & Madonna on Jan. 13), Morgan & Morgan, and Wisner Baum.
That career puts Mr. Kennedy's campaigns in a different context. To listen to the nominee, his war against the weed killer glyphosate is motivated by his desire to save humans from "poison." Then again, it was Mr. Kennedy's claim that glyphosate is carcinogenica position rejected by most health agenciesthat enabled him and other lawyers to land a $289 million judgment against Roundup maker Monsanto. (The judgment was reduced on appeal.)
This tort mindset matters deeply because it isby Mr. Kennedy's own admissionbehind his goal of running HHS. In an interview in July with "Dr. Phil" McGraw, Mr. Kennedy, then an independent presidential candidate, said that Congress and regulators were all on industry "payrolls" and useless. So he had a different plan. He'd "go down to NIH"the National Institutes of Health, which is part of HHSand order it to "find out" what products are "causing" chronic disease. "Once you have that science that makes that causal connection between an exposure and an injury," he said, that "allows attorneys to bring lawsuits." He adds that "you can't do it through Congress," so "attorneys can come in and it's the market fixing the problem, rather than government."
He emphasized the same strategy after endorsing Mr. Trump. On Fox's "Jesse Watters Primetime" in September, he said that his "plan" to unravel "corporate capture" was to take the "$42 billion dollar budget of NIH," "figure out what is causing" chronic disease," and "name names." Then, "once we have a good science out there, the litigators come in and we'll solve the problem."
Mr. Kennedy still has his trial-lawyer friends in mind as he goes about his public campaigns. Consider his November tweet promising to "remove fluoride from public water" since he says it's behind everything from arthritis to thyroid disease. He tagged Michael Connett, an attorney suing the Environmental Protection Agency and makers of children's toothpaste and mouthwash over fluoride.
Even "Make America Healthy Again" becomes ethically suspect in Mr. Kennedy's hands. Consider his war on "junk" or "ultraprocessed" foods. Mr. Kennedy currently has a referral agreement and of-counsel position with Morgan & Morgan, a law firm that last month bragged it had filed a giant, "first of its kind" lawsuit against Kraft and others for engineering their "ultra-processed food products to be addictive" and causing "chronic disease." Every time an HHS Secretary Kennedy opens his mouth, he'd potentially be providing an in-kind contribution to trial lawyers who'll use his words as evidence in court. (The White House didn't respond to a request for comment.)
Which gets to Mr. Kennedy's own ethics issues. In his filing, he says he will relinquish his legal positions on confirmation, though he plans to continue collecting 10% of fees awarded in contingency cases he referred to Wisner Baum. That firm is suing Merck over its HPV vaccine. According to government records, Mr. Kennedy has collected $2.5 million from the firm over the past two years. While he says he'll collect fees only in cases where the U.S. isn't a party, that means little when he has the power to trash-talk the companies and products in the trial bar's sights.
The GOP has rightly taken a dim view of the trial bar's manipulation of the legal system. Every senator now must consider how to justify placing an unrepentant advocate of that industry in a position of power to facilitate further abuse in a way that negates the role of Congress.
Write to kim@wsj.com.
I find the allegation that it "was Mr. Kennedy's claim that glyphosate is carcinogenica position rejected by most health agencies that enabled him and other lawyers to land a $289 million judgment against Roundup maker Monsanto," very interesting.
So, presumably, he tried a case that got past the dismissal stage, and then the summary judgment stage, went to a jury, and that jury decided, based on a qualified expert(s)' testimony, that glyphosate is carcinogenica, and then was appealed, and affirmed, although the jury award was reduced (which happens all the time).
That would suggest the case wasn't frivolous in the least, and apparently had a pretty solid factual and legal basis.
So, presumably, he tried a case that got past the dismissal stage, and then the summary judgment stage, went to a jury, and that jury decided, based on a qualified expert(s)' testimony, that glyphosate is carcinogenica, and then was appealed, and affirmed, although the jury award was reduced (which happens all the time).
That would suggest the case wasn't frivolous in the least, and apparently had a pretty solid factual and legal basis.
You're right on a long of things. This isn't one of them, nor is your position in vaccines.sombear said:He's a narcistic whacko fraud, but I guess people like his position on seed oils . . . .Tempus Edax Rerum said:
See the editorial below from the WSJ from January 23rd, 2025. Is the WSJ lying too? Is it a left wing nut job hack piece as well?
Senate Republicans are burying their heads to avoid many of Robert F. Kennedy Jr.'s positions. The question is whether the ostrich routine risks allowing Mr. Kennedy, should he win confirmation as health and human services secretary, to put trial lawyers in charge of American business, regulators and Congress itself.
The longtime Democrat's nomination hearings begin next week. The Republican effort to excuse or divert attention from Mr. Kennedy's disqualifying views has been a mix of hilarity and cringe. How to rationalize a nominee who rejects basic science, who labels U.S. farmers a greater threat than al Qaeda, who wants to "punish" climate "deniers," who loves big government? Senators have variously mumbled that Mr. Kennedy didn't understand, or was misunderstood, or has shed 50 years of leftist ideology.
Yet it all fails to confront the motivating impulse behind Mr. Kennedy's dubious positions. To understand how Mr. Kennedy arrived at his outlier views, one must first understand his interest in getting there. The short answer: He's a trial lawyer, a specialist in extortion by litigation, a practice he acknowledges he wants to encourage via public office.
His colorful past obscures the reality of Mr. Kennedy's lifetime calling: suing, and suing more. He started in the nonprofit world but joined the ranks of plaintiffs firms that squeeze companies for settlementsthe lawyers getting huge contingency fees while clients sometimes get little. His recent government ethics filing notes his continuing legal work or positions with trial firms that include Kennedy & Madonna (which changed its name to Madonna & Madonna on Jan. 13), Morgan & Morgan, and Wisner Baum.
That career puts Mr. Kennedy's campaigns in a different context. To listen to the nominee, his war against the weed killer glyphosate is motivated by his desire to save humans from "poison." Then again, it was Mr. Kennedy's claim that glyphosate is carcinogenica position rejected by most health agenciesthat enabled him and other lawyers to land a $289 million judgment against Roundup maker Monsanto. (The judgment was reduced on appeal.)
This tort mindset matters deeply because it isby Mr. Kennedy's own admissionbehind his goal of running HHS. In an interview in July with "Dr. Phil" McGraw, Mr. Kennedy, then an independent presidential candidate, said that Congress and regulators were all on industry "payrolls" and useless. So he had a different plan. He'd "go down to NIH"the National Institutes of Health, which is part of HHSand order it to "find out" what products are "causing" chronic disease. "Once you have that science that makes that causal connection between an exposure and an injury," he said, that "allows attorneys to bring lawsuits." He adds that "you can't do it through Congress," so "attorneys can come in and it's the market fixing the problem, rather than government."
He emphasized the same strategy after endorsing Mr. Trump. On Fox's "Jesse Watters Primetime" in September, he said that his "plan" to unravel "corporate capture" was to take the "$42 billion dollar budget of NIH," "figure out what is causing" chronic disease," and "name names." Then, "once we have a good science out there, the litigators come in and we'll solve the problem."
Mr. Kennedy still has his trial-lawyer friends in mind as he goes about his public campaigns. Consider his November tweet promising to "remove fluoride from public water" since he says it's behind everything from arthritis to thyroid disease. He tagged Michael Connett, an attorney suing the Environmental Protection Agency and makers of children's toothpaste and mouthwash over fluoride.
Even "Make America Healthy Again" becomes ethically suspect in Mr. Kennedy's hands. Consider his war on "junk" or "ultraprocessed" foods. Mr. Kennedy currently has a referral agreement and of-counsel position with Morgan & Morgan, a law firm that last month bragged it had filed a giant, "first of its kind" lawsuit against Kraft and others for engineering their "ultra-processed food products to be addictive" and causing "chronic disease." Every time an HHS Secretary Kennedy opens his mouth, he'd potentially be providing an in-kind contribution to trial lawyers who'll use his words as evidence in court. (The White House didn't respond to a request for comment.)
Which gets to Mr. Kennedy's own ethics issues. In his filing, he says he will relinquish his legal positions on confirmation, though he plans to continue collecting 10% of fees awarded in contingency cases he referred to Wisner Baum. That firm is suing Merck over its HPV vaccine. According to government records, Mr. Kennedy has collected $2.5 million from the firm over the past two years. While he says he'll collect fees only in cases where the U.S. isn't a party, that means little when he has the power to trash-talk the companies and products in the trial bar's sights.
The GOP has rightly taken a dim view of the trial bar's manipulation of the legal system. Every senator now must consider how to justify placing an unrepentant advocate of that industry in a position of power to facilitate further abuse in a way that negates the role of Congress.
Write to kim@wsj.com.
Respect your position as always, but fact is, if RFK Jr. had not become affiliated with Trump, conservatives would see him as the leftist radical he always was and I think still is.Mothra said:You're right on a long of things. This isn't one of them, nor is your position in vaccines.sombear said:He's a narcistic whacko fraud, but I guess people like his position on seed oils . . . .Tempus Edax Rerum said:
See the editorial below from the WSJ from January 23rd, 2025. Is the WSJ lying too? Is it a left wing nut job hack piece as well?
Senate Republicans are burying their heads to avoid many of Robert F. Kennedy Jr.'s positions. The question is whether the ostrich routine risks allowing Mr. Kennedy, should he win confirmation as health and human services secretary, to put trial lawyers in charge of American business, regulators and Congress itself.
The longtime Democrat's nomination hearings begin next week. The Republican effort to excuse or divert attention from Mr. Kennedy's disqualifying views has been a mix of hilarity and cringe. How to rationalize a nominee who rejects basic science, who labels U.S. farmers a greater threat than al Qaeda, who wants to "punish" climate "deniers," who loves big government? Senators have variously mumbled that Mr. Kennedy didn't understand, or was misunderstood, or has shed 50 years of leftist ideology.
Yet it all fails to confront the motivating impulse behind Mr. Kennedy's dubious positions. To understand how Mr. Kennedy arrived at his outlier views, one must first understand his interest in getting there. The short answer: He's a trial lawyer, a specialist in extortion by litigation, a practice he acknowledges he wants to encourage via public office.
His colorful past obscures the reality of Mr. Kennedy's lifetime calling: suing, and suing more. He started in the nonprofit world but joined the ranks of plaintiffs firms that squeeze companies for settlementsthe lawyers getting huge contingency fees while clients sometimes get little. His recent government ethics filing notes his continuing legal work or positions with trial firms that include Kennedy & Madonna (which changed its name to Madonna & Madonna on Jan. 13), Morgan & Morgan, and Wisner Baum.
That career puts Mr. Kennedy's campaigns in a different context. To listen to the nominee, his war against the weed killer glyphosate is motivated by his desire to save humans from "poison." Then again, it was Mr. Kennedy's claim that glyphosate is carcinogenica position rejected by most health agenciesthat enabled him and other lawyers to land a $289 million judgment against Roundup maker Monsanto. (The judgment was reduced on appeal.)
This tort mindset matters deeply because it isby Mr. Kennedy's own admissionbehind his goal of running HHS. In an interview in July with "Dr. Phil" McGraw, Mr. Kennedy, then an independent presidential candidate, said that Congress and regulators were all on industry "payrolls" and useless. So he had a different plan. He'd "go down to NIH"the National Institutes of Health, which is part of HHSand order it to "find out" what products are "causing" chronic disease. "Once you have that science that makes that causal connection between an exposure and an injury," he said, that "allows attorneys to bring lawsuits." He adds that "you can't do it through Congress," so "attorneys can come in and it's the market fixing the problem, rather than government."
He emphasized the same strategy after endorsing Mr. Trump. On Fox's "Jesse Watters Primetime" in September, he said that his "plan" to unravel "corporate capture" was to take the "$42 billion dollar budget of NIH," "figure out what is causing" chronic disease," and "name names." Then, "once we have a good science out there, the litigators come in and we'll solve the problem."
Mr. Kennedy still has his trial-lawyer friends in mind as he goes about his public campaigns. Consider his November tweet promising to "remove fluoride from public water" since he says it's behind everything from arthritis to thyroid disease. He tagged Michael Connett, an attorney suing the Environmental Protection Agency and makers of children's toothpaste and mouthwash over fluoride.
Even "Make America Healthy Again" becomes ethically suspect in Mr. Kennedy's hands. Consider his war on "junk" or "ultraprocessed" foods. Mr. Kennedy currently has a referral agreement and of-counsel position with Morgan & Morgan, a law firm that last month bragged it had filed a giant, "first of its kind" lawsuit against Kraft and others for engineering their "ultra-processed food products to be addictive" and causing "chronic disease." Every time an HHS Secretary Kennedy opens his mouth, he'd potentially be providing an in-kind contribution to trial lawyers who'll use his words as evidence in court. (The White House didn't respond to a request for comment.)
Which gets to Mr. Kennedy's own ethics issues. In his filing, he says he will relinquish his legal positions on confirmation, though he plans to continue collecting 10% of fees awarded in contingency cases he referred to Wisner Baum. That firm is suing Merck over its HPV vaccine. According to government records, Mr. Kennedy has collected $2.5 million from the firm over the past two years. While he says he'll collect fees only in cases where the U.S. isn't a party, that means little when he has the power to trash-talk the companies and products in the trial bar's sights.
The GOP has rightly taken a dim view of the trial bar's manipulation of the legal system. Every senator now must consider how to justify placing an unrepentant advocate of that industry in a position of power to facilitate further abuse in a way that negates the role of Congress.
Write to kim@wsj.com.
Been following RFK for about 14 years now. Heard his speak on several occasions, and have reviewed a lot of the evidence he's presented at his talks. I am not sure leftist is a word I would ever use to describe him, though he is certainly to the left of me.sombear said:Respect your position as always, but fact is, if RFK Jr. had not become affiliated with Trump, conservatives would see him as the leftist radical he always was and I think still is.Mothra said:You're right on a long of things. This isn't one of them, nor is your position in vaccines.sombear said:He's a narcistic whacko fraud, but I guess people like his position on seed oils . . . .Tempus Edax Rerum said:
See the editorial below from the WSJ from January 23rd, 2025. Is the WSJ lying too? Is it a left wing nut job hack piece as well?
Senate Republicans are burying their heads to avoid many of Robert F. Kennedy Jr.'s positions. The question is whether the ostrich routine risks allowing Mr. Kennedy, should he win confirmation as health and human services secretary, to put trial lawyers in charge of American business, regulators and Congress itself.
The longtime Democrat's nomination hearings begin next week. The Republican effort to excuse or divert attention from Mr. Kennedy's disqualifying views has been a mix of hilarity and cringe. How to rationalize a nominee who rejects basic science, who labels U.S. farmers a greater threat than al Qaeda, who wants to "punish" climate "deniers," who loves big government? Senators have variously mumbled that Mr. Kennedy didn't understand, or was misunderstood, or has shed 50 years of leftist ideology.
Yet it all fails to confront the motivating impulse behind Mr. Kennedy's dubious positions. To understand how Mr. Kennedy arrived at his outlier views, one must first understand his interest in getting there. The short answer: He's a trial lawyer, a specialist in extortion by litigation, a practice he acknowledges he wants to encourage via public office.
His colorful past obscures the reality of Mr. Kennedy's lifetime calling: suing, and suing more. He started in the nonprofit world but joined the ranks of plaintiffs firms that squeeze companies for settlementsthe lawyers getting huge contingency fees while clients sometimes get little. His recent government ethics filing notes his continuing legal work or positions with trial firms that include Kennedy & Madonna (which changed its name to Madonna & Madonna on Jan. 13), Morgan & Morgan, and Wisner Baum.
That career puts Mr. Kennedy's campaigns in a different context. To listen to the nominee, his war against the weed killer glyphosate is motivated by his desire to save humans from "poison." Then again, it was Mr. Kennedy's claim that glyphosate is carcinogenica position rejected by most health agenciesthat enabled him and other lawyers to land a $289 million judgment against Roundup maker Monsanto. (The judgment was reduced on appeal.)
This tort mindset matters deeply because it isby Mr. Kennedy's own admissionbehind his goal of running HHS. In an interview in July with "Dr. Phil" McGraw, Mr. Kennedy, then an independent presidential candidate, said that Congress and regulators were all on industry "payrolls" and useless. So he had a different plan. He'd "go down to NIH"the National Institutes of Health, which is part of HHSand order it to "find out" what products are "causing" chronic disease. "Once you have that science that makes that causal connection between an exposure and an injury," he said, that "allows attorneys to bring lawsuits." He adds that "you can't do it through Congress," so "attorneys can come in and it's the market fixing the problem, rather than government."
He emphasized the same strategy after endorsing Mr. Trump. On Fox's "Jesse Watters Primetime" in September, he said that his "plan" to unravel "corporate capture" was to take the "$42 billion dollar budget of NIH," "figure out what is causing" chronic disease," and "name names." Then, "once we have a good science out there, the litigators come in and we'll solve the problem."
Mr. Kennedy still has his trial-lawyer friends in mind as he goes about his public campaigns. Consider his November tweet promising to "remove fluoride from public water" since he says it's behind everything from arthritis to thyroid disease. He tagged Michael Connett, an attorney suing the Environmental Protection Agency and makers of children's toothpaste and mouthwash over fluoride.
Even "Make America Healthy Again" becomes ethically suspect in Mr. Kennedy's hands. Consider his war on "junk" or "ultraprocessed" foods. Mr. Kennedy currently has a referral agreement and of-counsel position with Morgan & Morgan, a law firm that last month bragged it had filed a giant, "first of its kind" lawsuit against Kraft and others for engineering their "ultra-processed food products to be addictive" and causing "chronic disease." Every time an HHS Secretary Kennedy opens his mouth, he'd potentially be providing an in-kind contribution to trial lawyers who'll use his words as evidence in court. (The White House didn't respond to a request for comment.)
Which gets to Mr. Kennedy's own ethics issues. In his filing, he says he will relinquish his legal positions on confirmation, though he plans to continue collecting 10% of fees awarded in contingency cases he referred to Wisner Baum. That firm is suing Merck over its HPV vaccine. According to government records, Mr. Kennedy has collected $2.5 million from the firm over the past two years. While he says he'll collect fees only in cases where the U.S. isn't a party, that means little when he has the power to trash-talk the companies and products in the trial bar's sights.
The GOP has rightly taken a dim view of the trial bar's manipulation of the legal system. Every senator now must consider how to justify placing an unrepentant advocate of that industry in a position of power to facilitate further abuse in a way that negates the role of Congress.
Write to kim@wsj.com.
But he's not all wrong on vaccines, or the vaccine schedule. I think you'd be surprised at the evidence, quite frankly.
Mothra said:Been following RFK for about 14 years now. Heard his speak on several occasions, and have reviewed a lot of the evidence he's presented at his talks. I am not sure leftist is a word I would ever use to describe him, though he is certainly to the left of me.sombear said:Respect your position as always, but fact is, if RFK Jr. had not become affiliated with Trump, conservatives would see him as the leftist radical he always was and I think still is.Mothra said:You're right on a long of things. This isn't one of them, nor is your position in vaccines.sombear said:He's a narcistic whacko fraud, but I guess people like his position on seed oils . . . .Tempus Edax Rerum said:
See the editorial below from the WSJ from January 23rd, 2025. Is the WSJ lying too? Is it a left wing nut job hack piece as well?
Senate Republicans are burying their heads to avoid many of Robert F. Kennedy Jr.'s positions. The question is whether the ostrich routine risks allowing Mr. Kennedy, should he win confirmation as health and human services secretary, to put trial lawyers in charge of American business, regulators and Congress itself.
The longtime Democrat's nomination hearings begin next week. The Republican effort to excuse or divert attention from Mr. Kennedy's disqualifying views has been a mix of hilarity and cringe. How to rationalize a nominee who rejects basic science, who labels U.S. farmers a greater threat than al Qaeda, who wants to "punish" climate "deniers," who loves big government? Senators have variously mumbled that Mr. Kennedy didn't understand, or was misunderstood, or has shed 50 years of leftist ideology.
Yet it all fails to confront the motivating impulse behind Mr. Kennedy's dubious positions. To understand how Mr. Kennedy arrived at his outlier views, one must first understand his interest in getting there. The short answer: He's a trial lawyer, a specialist in extortion by litigation, a practice he acknowledges he wants to encourage via public office.
His colorful past obscures the reality of Mr. Kennedy's lifetime calling: suing, and suing more. He started in the nonprofit world but joined the ranks of plaintiffs firms that squeeze companies for settlementsthe lawyers getting huge contingency fees while clients sometimes get little. His recent government ethics filing notes his continuing legal work or positions with trial firms that include Kennedy & Madonna (which changed its name to Madonna & Madonna on Jan. 13), Morgan & Morgan, and Wisner Baum.
That career puts Mr. Kennedy's campaigns in a different context. To listen to the nominee, his war against the weed killer glyphosate is motivated by his desire to save humans from "poison." Then again, it was Mr. Kennedy's claim that glyphosate is carcinogenica position rejected by most health agenciesthat enabled him and other lawyers to land a $289 million judgment against Roundup maker Monsanto. (The judgment was reduced on appeal.)
This tort mindset matters deeply because it isby Mr. Kennedy's own admissionbehind his goal of running HHS. In an interview in July with "Dr. Phil" McGraw, Mr. Kennedy, then an independent presidential candidate, said that Congress and regulators were all on industry "payrolls" and useless. So he had a different plan. He'd "go down to NIH"the National Institutes of Health, which is part of HHSand order it to "find out" what products are "causing" chronic disease. "Once you have that science that makes that causal connection between an exposure and an injury," he said, that "allows attorneys to bring lawsuits." He adds that "you can't do it through Congress," so "attorneys can come in and it's the market fixing the problem, rather than government."
He emphasized the same strategy after endorsing Mr. Trump. On Fox's "Jesse Watters Primetime" in September, he said that his "plan" to unravel "corporate capture" was to take the "$42 billion dollar budget of NIH," "figure out what is causing" chronic disease," and "name names." Then, "once we have a good science out there, the litigators come in and we'll solve the problem."
Mr. Kennedy still has his trial-lawyer friends in mind as he goes about his public campaigns. Consider his November tweet promising to "remove fluoride from public water" since he says it's behind everything from arthritis to thyroid disease. He tagged Michael Connett, an attorney suing the Environmental Protection Agency and makers of children's toothpaste and mouthwash over fluoride.
Even "Make America Healthy Again" becomes ethically suspect in Mr. Kennedy's hands. Consider his war on "junk" or "ultraprocessed" foods. Mr. Kennedy currently has a referral agreement and of-counsel position with Morgan & Morgan, a law firm that last month bragged it had filed a giant, "first of its kind" lawsuit against Kraft and others for engineering their "ultra-processed food products to be addictive" and causing "chronic disease." Every time an HHS Secretary Kennedy opens his mouth, he'd potentially be providing an in-kind contribution to trial lawyers who'll use his words as evidence in court. (The White House didn't respond to a request for comment.)
Which gets to Mr. Kennedy's own ethics issues. In his filing, he says he will relinquish his legal positions on confirmation, though he plans to continue collecting 10% of fees awarded in contingency cases he referred to Wisner Baum. That firm is suing Merck over its HPV vaccine. According to government records, Mr. Kennedy has collected $2.5 million from the firm over the past two years. While he says he'll collect fees only in cases where the U.S. isn't a party, that means little when he has the power to trash-talk the companies and products in the trial bar's sights.
The GOP has rightly taken a dim view of the trial bar's manipulation of the legal system. Every senator now must consider how to justify placing an unrepentant advocate of that industry in a position of power to facilitate further abuse in a way that negates the role of Congress.
Write to kim@wsj.com.
But he's not all wrong on vaccines, or the vaccine schedule. I think you'd be surprised at the evidence, quite frankly.
Actually, he is very wrong and the medical establishment has disowned this clown a long time ago.
The case was frivolous. The science does not back up the claim on Roundup and never has, but juries aren't too bright.Mothra said:
I find the allegation that it "was Mr. Kennedy's claim that glyphosate is carcinogenica position rejected by most health agencies that enabled him and other lawyers to land a $289 million judgment against Roundup maker Monsanto," very interesting.
So, presumably, he tried a case that got past the dismissal stage, and then the summary judgment stage, went to a jury, and that jury decided, based on a qualified expert(s)' testimony, that glyphosate is carcinogenica, and then was appealed, and affirmed, although the jury award was reduced (which happens all the time).
That would suggest the case wasn't frivolous in the least, and apparently had a pretty solid factual and legal basis.
So is the WSJ lying now too?EatMoreSalmon said:Don't really bother with untrustworthy news sites. You seem to lap it up hook, line and sinker. Typically sites slanted like yours either leave out any "troublesome" information or stretch info a la National Enquirer.Tempus Edax Rerum said:Still waiting.EatMoreSalmon said:
https://www.allsides.com/news-source/new-republic
Very left publication. You should be more ashamed than Mike Gundy wearing an OAN shirt.
Hence their long term accuracy ratings are low.
Once you said you had a family matter, the vax issue is off limits for me.Mothra said:Been following RFK for about 14 years now. Heard his speak on several occasions, and have reviewed a lot of the evidence he's presented at his talks. I am not sure leftist is a word I would ever use to describe him, though he is certainly to the left of me.sombear said:Respect your position as always, but fact is, if RFK Jr. had not become affiliated with Trump, conservatives would see him as the leftist radical he always was and I think still is.Mothra said:You're right on a long of things. This isn't one of them, nor is your position in vaccines.sombear said:He's a narcistic whacko fraud, but I guess people like his position on seed oils . . . .Tempus Edax Rerum said:
See the editorial below from the WSJ from January 23rd, 2025. Is the WSJ lying too? Is it a left wing nut job hack piece as well?
Senate Republicans are burying their heads to avoid many of Robert F. Kennedy Jr.'s positions. The question is whether the ostrich routine risks allowing Mr. Kennedy, should he win confirmation as health and human services secretary, to put trial lawyers in charge of American business, regulators and Congress itself.
The longtime Democrat's nomination hearings begin next week. The Republican effort to excuse or divert attention from Mr. Kennedy's disqualifying views has been a mix of hilarity and cringe. How to rationalize a nominee who rejects basic science, who labels U.S. farmers a greater threat than al Qaeda, who wants to "punish" climate "deniers," who loves big government? Senators have variously mumbled that Mr. Kennedy didn't understand, or was misunderstood, or has shed 50 years of leftist ideology.
Yet it all fails to confront the motivating impulse behind Mr. Kennedy's dubious positions. To understand how Mr. Kennedy arrived at his outlier views, one must first understand his interest in getting there. The short answer: He's a trial lawyer, a specialist in extortion by litigation, a practice he acknowledges he wants to encourage via public office.
His colorful past obscures the reality of Mr. Kennedy's lifetime calling: suing, and suing more. He started in the nonprofit world but joined the ranks of plaintiffs firms that squeeze companies for settlementsthe lawyers getting huge contingency fees while clients sometimes get little. His recent government ethics filing notes his continuing legal work or positions with trial firms that include Kennedy & Madonna (which changed its name to Madonna & Madonna on Jan. 13), Morgan & Morgan, and Wisner Baum.
That career puts Mr. Kennedy's campaigns in a different context. To listen to the nominee, his war against the weed killer glyphosate is motivated by his desire to save humans from "poison." Then again, it was Mr. Kennedy's claim that glyphosate is carcinogenica position rejected by most health agenciesthat enabled him and other lawyers to land a $289 million judgment against Roundup maker Monsanto. (The judgment was reduced on appeal.)
This tort mindset matters deeply because it isby Mr. Kennedy's own admissionbehind his goal of running HHS. In an interview in July with "Dr. Phil" McGraw, Mr. Kennedy, then an independent presidential candidate, said that Congress and regulators were all on industry "payrolls" and useless. So he had a different plan. He'd "go down to NIH"the National Institutes of Health, which is part of HHSand order it to "find out" what products are "causing" chronic disease. "Once you have that science that makes that causal connection between an exposure and an injury," he said, that "allows attorneys to bring lawsuits." He adds that "you can't do it through Congress," so "attorneys can come in and it's the market fixing the problem, rather than government."
He emphasized the same strategy after endorsing Mr. Trump. On Fox's "Jesse Watters Primetime" in September, he said that his "plan" to unravel "corporate capture" was to take the "$42 billion dollar budget of NIH," "figure out what is causing" chronic disease," and "name names." Then, "once we have a good science out there, the litigators come in and we'll solve the problem."
Mr. Kennedy still has his trial-lawyer friends in mind as he goes about his public campaigns. Consider his November tweet promising to "remove fluoride from public water" since he says it's behind everything from arthritis to thyroid disease. He tagged Michael Connett, an attorney suing the Environmental Protection Agency and makers of children's toothpaste and mouthwash over fluoride.
Even "Make America Healthy Again" becomes ethically suspect in Mr. Kennedy's hands. Consider his war on "junk" or "ultraprocessed" foods. Mr. Kennedy currently has a referral agreement and of-counsel position with Morgan & Morgan, a law firm that last month bragged it had filed a giant, "first of its kind" lawsuit against Kraft and others for engineering their "ultra-processed food products to be addictive" and causing "chronic disease." Every time an HHS Secretary Kennedy opens his mouth, he'd potentially be providing an in-kind contribution to trial lawyers who'll use his words as evidence in court. (The White House didn't respond to a request for comment.)
Which gets to Mr. Kennedy's own ethics issues. In his filing, he says he will relinquish his legal positions on confirmation, though he plans to continue collecting 10% of fees awarded in contingency cases he referred to Wisner Baum. That firm is suing Merck over its HPV vaccine. According to government records, Mr. Kennedy has collected $2.5 million from the firm over the past two years. While he says he'll collect fees only in cases where the U.S. isn't a party, that means little when he has the power to trash-talk the companies and products in the trial bar's sights.
The GOP has rightly taken a dim view of the trial bar's manipulation of the legal system. Every senator now must consider how to justify placing an unrepentant advocate of that industry in a position of power to facilitate further abuse in a way that negates the role of Congress.
Write to kim@wsj.com.
But he's not all wrong on vaccines, or the vaccine schedule. I think you'd be surprised at the evidence, quite frankly.
I'm talking about his historic positions on other issues - extreme left on abortion (through term), national health care, environment, business, taxes, 2A, student loan forgiveness, stronger hate crime legislation, Constitutionally recognized gay marriage, proposed cutting military spending by over half. He also has repeatedly defended Putin. On multiple occasions, he emphasized how much freedom Nazis allowed jews in Germany.
And yet, the gatekeeper - the court of appeals - upheld it, determining it wasn't frivolous.Tempus Edax Rerum said:The case was frivolous. The science does not back up the claim on Roundup and never has, but juries aren't too bright.Mothra said:
I find the allegation that it "was Mr. Kennedy's claim that glyphosate is carcinogenica position rejected by most health agencies that enabled him and other lawyers to land a $289 million judgment against Roundup maker Monsanto," very interesting.
So, presumably, he tried a case that got past the dismissal stage, and then the summary judgment stage, went to a jury, and that jury decided, based on a qualified expert(s)' testimony, that glyphosate is carcinogenica, and then was appealed, and affirmed, although the jury award was reduced (which happens all the time).
That would suggest the case wasn't frivolous in the least, and apparently had a pretty solid factual and legal basis.
Whoops. Have another theory?