All things can be, and usually are, true. It’s true that people surrounding RFK Jr. have influence—some of whom do not share our goals. It’s true that the opposition will make things as difficult as possible for him. It’s true that he is under attack and has weapons trained on him from all sides. It’s true that there is a certain amount of give-and-take required; he is not the only one in there, and he serves at the pleasure of the president… who is ALSO under fire and a tremendous amount of pressures and conflicts, and who has his own people leveraging him. All of these components and more enter into this soup… But it’s also true that we must accurately untangle some of the more obvious faulty and false narratives being pushed to manipulate public perception.
Bobby can’t steer this ship 180° overnight; no one can. The change we need will be gradual—a few degrees at a time – to ultimately get us to a different continent, and we’re not necessarily going to feel the adjustment right away. He has to be strategic and judicious about what he does, and when he does it. This isn’t about demanding an immediate summit of Everest; it’s about taking strategic steps to base camp first. His position requires careful navigation, and if we undermine him from within, we risk losing everything. We need to recognize that this is how it’s going to go for the duration.
I probably don’t need to say it but I will out of the gate, that the headline of RFK Jr’s op-ed was not reflective of the contents, which in my experience indicates the headline was added later, possibly by opposition, to mislead the public into a narrative not inherent in Bobby’s actual words. (Proverbial “they” do this to him a lot).
All of that being said, this is not binary or either/or. We need to accept that there are multiple relevant and minefield “sides” to this, and maybe that’s by design… but it is not black or white. We now have a situation that defines “systemic” and “endemic” simultaneously and in perpetuity. The medical paradigm is broken and, if we look at the 30,000 foot view, and we consider how long this has been going on, AND we consider what we have long speculated: that the agenda has been to create a vaccine dependent population…. well…. Here we are, to a large degree.
When we talked about measles in the 50s versus measles now it’s not the same thing, and the reason that’s true is because mothers in the 50s had not been vaccinated… so they were passing T cell immunity and antibodies down to their children. The truth is that vaccinated mothers (which today is virtually all of them) have not passed any of that immunity onto their children so we cannot rely on old arguments like measles is “just the sniffles” when we don’t fully understand the downstream effects of a highly vaccinated population. This doesn’t mean vaccines are safe—it means we need to be precise in how we frame the issue because there may be different downstream liabilities that were not prevalent then, or may have been occasional but were not widespread, but might now very well be, because we have a vastly different immunized population today than we did in the 50s. The alternative is that we risk falling into traps laid to discredit us. It’s probably also not a good strategy to sell how great measles is, and instead should be selling how flawed vaccines are. The reality is that we do have to accept that there are differences in the terrain and the landscape right now when it comes to these childhood vaccines. […]
— Read More: dallasexpress.com
