quote:

He doesn't realize he's more like a Gong Show contestant, a spectacle just to help give them ratings.

HAHAHAHAHAHHAAHHAAHAH!

All of this is academic, as he'll never be POTUS.

^^^ Yeah, but he's raising issues the Democrats don't want to talk about.

quote:

Originally posted by chellim1:
^^^ Yeah, but he's raising issues the Democrats don't want to talk about.

While this is true, I want to make this observation respectfully: Biden doesn't even ever have to mention this guy's name to win a primary bid. He has ZERO chance against Biden, and is even "in" this because the news is bored and want to artifically drum up some "controversy" to make 1/2 the primary race "interesting" to help sell air time/views/Clicks.

quote:

If vaccines don't cause autism, then how do you explain all this evidence?
We see an odds ratio of 5 when comparing autism in vaxxed vs. unvaxxed in MULTIPLE studies. The before:after odds are even more extraordinary. How can we ignore all this evidence?

Evidence?
Saying that autism occurs mostly in the vaccinated is because almost everybody today is vaccinated.
You could make a similar statement about drinking water, mothers milk, or Coca Cola.
He's great at using innuendos, just a little short on facts.

^^^Dude, EVERYTHING you've posted in this thread is short on specifics, largely conjecture and full of innuendo! It's clear you really don't know that much about him (don't want to know?), or at least believe what the media wants you to know about him. He's NOT the 'Anti-Vaxxer' Loon/Conspiracy Theorist the media makes him out to be!

You could start here if you're looking for some facts --> https://childrenshealthdefense.org/

He did an interview in Chicago a few days ago. He said a lot of things that I agree with. He's against the Ukraine war and says it could have been avoided, that it was the U.S that pushed it because Biden wants regime change in Russia. He supports the 2nd and is against an AWB. He's not an anti-vaxxer as some try to portray him, he just has questions about the vaccine and how we handled the lock down. He's anti-big pharma, Big tech. I would never vote for him at least not with the current political situation but he does say some things I agree with that make sense.

RFK, Jr. gets his shot on Jesse Watters Primetime?

On Monday, Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. appeared on FOX News in what was at least his sixth one-on-one interview on the country’s number one cable news channel since he declared his candidacy for the Democrat presidential nomination last April 19. His platform on this occasion was Jesse Watters’s 7 PM ET program Primetime, which next week will move to 8 PM ET, taking over the coveted time slot vacated when Tucker Carlson was fired by FOX News on April 21.

Watters at 7 PM during the past year-plus has covered many important stories and conducted some noteworthy interviews. Ultimately, his approach is lighter than Carlson’s and includes humorous elements that appear to be increasingly in sync with the latest direction of FOX News in prime time, which next week will see Greg Gutfeld’s comedy show move from late night (11 PM ET) to one hour earlier, considered the last hour of prime time.

Right off the bat, Kennedy’s sit-down in New York City with Watters (the segment was recorded shortly before the program aired) started on a lighter note. (Transcript courtesy of FOX News. Video here.)



JESSE WATTERS, FOX NEWS ANCHOR: Let's turn it over to Robert F. Kennedy Jr. He's a 2024 Democratic presidential candidate.

Mr. Kennedy, why have you been dodging Primetime?

ROBERT F. KENNEDY JR. (D), PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: I'm telling you, Jesse, I had to fire a lot of my staff....


(LAUGHTER)

KENNEDY: ... because I kept seeing you on the air saying, why won't he come on my show? And I would call them and say, why am I not on your show?

Those guys are all gone now.

WATTERS: They're -- good. Good. I'm glad. I'm glad you have gotten your campaign figured out.
recommended by
Hear.com
This Is The Highest-Rated Hearing Aid In The US
Learn more

KENNEDY: Happy birthday.

WATTERS: Thank you very much. Now I'm going to take it easy on you.

(LAUGHTER)

Off to a light start: As the chyron says, “Why Did RFK, Jr Dodge Jesse?”

The numerous references to “Laughter” noted in the FOX-provided transcript are indicative of the overall tenor of the encounter.

When they finally got down to business, Watters opened with a question about – what else, and how predictable – Kennedy’s alleged vaccination denialism.

WATTERS: My mother, when she found out you were coming on -- she's a big Democrat -- she says: “He's dangerous. He's an anti-vaxxer. He says that autism comes from vaccines, and you must challenge him on that.”

Is my mom crazy?

KENNEDY: Well, I do believe that autism does come from vaccines.

But I think most of the things that people believe about my opinions about vaccines are wrong. I -- all I have said about vaccines, we should have good science. We should have the same kind of testing, placebo-controlled trials, that we have for every other medication.

Vaccines are exempt from pre-licensing placebo-controlled trials, so that there's no way that anybody can tell the risk profile of those products or even the relative benefits of those products before they're mandated. And we should have that kind of testing.

And I think most people...

(CROSSTALK)

WATTERS: So, my kids got vaccinated. Are they going to have problems?

KENNEDY: Well, do they have problems now?

WATTERS: Well, they have problems because I'm their father, but not those types of problems.

(LAUGHTER)

Jesse Watters next turned the discussion to Anthony Fauci, M.D. -- who retired recently after four decades as the director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases at the National Institutes of Health, better known as the federal government’s “czar” of AIDS and then Covid-19.

WATTERS: Tell me about Fauci. You wrote this big fat book. I could only get through a little bit of it. I can't read anything longer than 700 pages.

(LAUGHTER)

WATTERS: And you think Fauci is the devil. Would you prosecute him if you ever got to the White House?

KENNEDY: I mean, if -- if there were crimes that he committed, of course, we would. I would tell the attorney general to prosecute him and not hold off.

Do I think that he committed crimes? I think he caused a lot of injury. I think that he -- particularly by withholding early treatment from Americans, we racked up the highest death count in the world. We only have 4.2 percent of the globe's population, but we had 16 percent of the COVID deaths in this country, and that is -- that was from bad policy.

There's country countries [sic] that did the opposite of what we did, that provided ivermectin, hydroxychloroquine, other early treatments to their populations, and had 1/200th of our death rate. So there are many, many things that we did wrong in this country, and some of those were, I would say, knowing, knowingly, that some of the things that were done by public health officials at that time, that they knew that they would be harmful to…

The big news there was Kennedy’s answer that he would see to it that his attorney general prosecuted Fauci if the evidence showed that “there were crimes committed.”

Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. in the New York City studios of FOX News on Jesse Watters Primetime, July 10, 2023.

The next questions were about U.S. policy towards China.

WATTERS: Why hasn't the Biden administration punished China?

KENNEDY: Punished China. For what?

WATTERS: For the lab leak.

KENNEDY: Oh, for the Wuhan lab?

WATTERS: For withholding PPE during the pandemic.

KENNEDY: Well, I think one of the reasons we haven't investigated the Wuhan lab is because the U.S. government, not just through NIH, but through the CIA and through USAID, was actually funding the studies in the Wuhan lab.

And we did a very, very big technology transfer of bioweapons technology to the Wuhan lab, and bioweapons technology that was developed at NIH expense.

Watters next pivoted from the present and the future (re: China) to the past, and the possible role of the Central Intelligence Agency in the assassinations of RFK, Jr.’s uncle President John F. Kennedy in 1963 and his father, former Attorney General and U.S. Senator Robert F. Kennedy in 1968.

WATTERS: You have seen what the government's capable of with regard to your uncle, possibly with regard to your father.

We have seen evidence that suggests the CIA was involved in assassinations here on American soil. In 2023, do you still think the CIA is capable of something like that?

KENNEDY: Well, I think the CIA was involved in -- certainly in this research. They were funding it through USAID.

And NIH, I think, in the end, gave about $26 million in funding to the Wuhan lab. But USAID, which was functioning as a CIA surrogate, gave over 64 million. And the Pentagon also gave a lot of money.

(CROSSTALK)

WATTERS: But you didn't answer my question. The question was, is the CIA still capable of political assassinations in the United States?

KENNEDY: I couldn't say yes or no to that question.

I think that there's -- I couldn't say. And even with my uncle's assassination, you can't really say the CIA killed John F. Kennedy. You can say members at the CIA, people who were working for the CIA were definitely involved, people like E. Howard Hunt, David Atlee Phillips, David Morales, people who've already -- who have confessed to it, many of them in deathbed confessions.

But they may have been operating on a rogue basis, rather than the CIA doing it. These were people who were involved in the Miami station who were angry at President Kennedy for refusing to invade Cuba. And, also. . .

Eventually, the questions moved to domestic politics.

WATTERS: You're an avenger, in a way, because you're coming back. You're saying unpopular things, kind of a populist on the left.

Do you think you actually might be running against Kamala Harris, instead of Joe Biden?

KENNEDY: What do you mean?

(CROSSTALK)

WATTERS: Because Joe Biden does not seem like he might be able to make it across the finish line.

Do you think Kamala is your real opponent?

KENNEDY: Well, if Joe Biden drops out, then I think Kamala will -- I would assume Kamala would come in, but, also, many other people would come in.

So I may be running against a field of Democrats at that point. I mean, I think that has to happen before November of this year.

And finally, back to the beginning of the interview, and a lighter than air send off.

WATTERS: You saw him at the beach, President Biden, with his shirt off, probably trying to copy you.

Were you impressed?

KENNEDY: I didn't see that picture.

(LAUGHTER)

WATTERS: It's good you didn't.

Many of our female producers would like you to take your shirt off.

KENNEDY: I will do it if you do it.

(LAUGHTER)

WATTERS: Here we go, everybody. No, we don't want to do that to the audience.

RFK Jr., thank you very much for joining us. And I'm glad you fired everybody that said that you shouldn't come on the show.

KENNEDY: That will never happen again, Jesse.

WATTERS: Now I'm going to vote for you. Thank you very much.

(LAUGHTER)

KENNEDY: Thank you.

And so it ended, a quick seven minutes after it began. In the opinion of this reporter, it missed the mark in a number of ways, primarily in focusing on issues that are not exactly central to the 2024 presidential race – including the economy, the open border, the recent Supreme Court decisions that RFK, Jr. has expressed opinions on via his tweets, and more.

As I noted earlier, Watters’ show seems to be in sync with where FOX News, at least in prime time, is now heading: emphasizing a lighter take on the news, and what used to be called infotainment. And the frequent presence of comedians in prime time like Kat Timpf, Tyrus, and Jimmy Failla and “infobabes” (a term coined by the late Rush Limbaugh) like Tomi Lahren and Charly Arnolt who have become regular contributors to Sean Hannity’s 9 PM ET program.

Where are serious analysts and former regular guests like Victor Davis Hanson and Glenn Greenwald to be found? Maybe we can hope, at most occasionally, on Laura Ingraham’s Ingrahan Angle show, which is moving to 7 PM ET next Monday,

And to wrap this review up with a bow: At least we still have FOX News. Neither of the other major cable news channels, CNN and MSNBC, has had, nor will likely ever have, RFK, Jr. on their channels. Not to mention the fact that they will never express anything other than the government-media complex party line on current affairs.

https://www.americanthinker.co...ers_primetimeem.html

quote:

Originally posted by 220-9er:

quote:

If vaccines don't cause autism, then how do you explain all this evidence?
We see an odds ratio of 5 when comparing autism in vaxxed vs. unvaxxed in MULTIPLE studies. The before:after odds are even more extraordinary. How can we ignore all this evidence?

Evidence?
Saying that autism occurs mostly in the vaccinated is because almost everybody today is vaccinated.
You could make a similar statement about drinking water, mothers milk, or Coca Cola.
He's great at using innuendos, just a little short on facts.

Children have been drinking water and mother's milk since a million years ago. They've been drinking Coca-Cola for a century. But a multitude of chronic health issues such as autism, auto-immune conditions, and allergies are very very highly correlated to the rollout of some specific vaccinations as well as the rapid expansion of the number of jabs children get.

So, you'll have to do better if you want to debunk RFK Jr.

Here's an excellent interview from 2021. Available on Rumble, Apple Podcasts, and youtube. Long but worth listening even in segments as you can. (Only use YouTube if you must - they've de-monitized the DarkHorse channel yet google still collects ad revenue)

https://rumble.com/v2wro8d-rfk...dcast-late-2021.html
https://podcasts.apple.com/us/...1521?i=1000618819193
https://youtu.be/Ocxl_Do1nx8

It's true that there are a lot more shots given to children now than when I was a child (I'm 85). The only vaccination I received as a child was for Smallpox. Children were just expected to get through chicken pox, measles (several kind), whooping cough, and mumps with treatment at home. In fact, they were encouraged to get mumps as children because that disease in an adult was often fatal. (My dad caught it from me and it almost killed him.) I'm not sure that shots for those are the best, since we have much better treatments available now.

flashguy

The diagnosed rate for autism has been increasing for decades. Most medical groups attribute this to more being diagnosed, especially milder cases, not more cases overall. When I was a child (1950's) it was called by other names and became more recognized starting in the 1980's.

As it has become more understood, doctors and parents have become more aware of the signs.
Many of the less severe cases were not identified or diagnosed, or misdiagnosed as other problems in earlier times.
Here are the rates from 2000 to 2020.

https://www.cdc.gov/ncbddd/autism/data.html

Since it often takes many years of development before being diagnosed, more recent numbers are hard to come by and will likely trend upward.

The country with the highest Autism rate is Qatar, and the lowest is France. Might be interesting to look up which of those countries is more vaccinated vs Autism, so lets give it a try.

https://countryeconomy.com/cou...qatar/france?sc=XOC5

I couldn't find that number for regular childhood vaccinations but here's the numbers for their respective COVID vaccination rate.
I suspect the trend is similar for their regular vs COVID vaccination rate but that's just a guess on my part.
The doses look like about 154 million for France (population 154m) vs 7.6 million in Qatar (population 2.7m).

So that works out to about 2.26 doses average in France vs 2.8 doses in Qatar. Qatar has a slightly higher rate of COVID vaccinations than France (1.24 times).

The Autism rates are 1 in 144 children for France, 1 in 66 in Qatar.

So all things being being equal, Qatars Autism rate is 2.18 times higher than the rate in France, while the vaccination rate is only 1.23 times higher.

https://countryeconomy.com/cou...qatar/france?sc=XOC5

quote:

Originally posted by 220-9er:
The diagnosed rate for autism has been increasing for decades. Most medical groups attribute this to more being diagnosed, especially milder cases, not more cases overall. When I was a child (1950's) it was called by other names and became more recognized starting in the 1980's.

As it has become more understood, doctors and parents have become more aware of the signs.
Many of the less severe cases were not identified or diagnosed, or misdiagnosed as other problems in earlier times.
Here are the rates from 2000 to 2020.

https://www.cdc.gov/ncbddd/autism/data.html

Since it often takes many years of development before being diagnosed, more recent numbers are hard to come by and will likely trend upward.

The country with the highest Autism rate is Qatar, and the lowest is France. Might be interesting to look up which of those countries is more vaccinated vs Autism, so lets give it a try.

https://countryeconomy.com/cou...qatar/france?sc=XOC5

I couldn't find that number for regular childhood vaccinations but here's the numbers for their respective COVID vaccination rate.
I suspect the trend is similar for their regular vs COVID vaccination rate but that's just a guess on my part.
The doses look like about 154 million for France (population 154m) vs 7.6 million in Qatar (population 2.7m).

So that works out to about 2.26 doses average in France vs 2.8 doses in Qatar. Qatar has a slightly higher rate of COVID vaccinations than France (1.24 times).

The Autism rates are 1 in 144 children for France, 1 in 66 in Qatar.

So all things being being equal, Qatars Autism rate is 2.18 times higher than the rate in France, while the vaccination rate is only 1.23 times higher.

https://countryeconomy.com/cou...qatar/france?sc=XOC5

It isn't as simple as simple math. Are the recipes for all the vaccinations exactly the same? Are the ages they are given the same? Dosages the same? How many are given at one time? Are there any demographic issues (race, overall health, diet, etc)?

I believe one of the main concerns is the adjuvants, another big concern is the combination of vaccines given for some of them.

It certainly seems likely to me that more autism cases are being identified which in the past would not have been. However, I don't remember any kids until the last 25 years who seemed "on the spectrum". There may have been some and we just thought they were different, yet it seems there are far more young children through about 30 yrs old that I personally know who are significantly affected.

And that's just autism. There has been an explosion of auto-immune and allergy problems with children which simply did not exist prior to about 1990.

As I understand RFK's position, there needs to be a serious and honest look at the entire landscape of vaccines and child vaccination schedules. He doesn't question the validity of the underlying biology of inoculation, he simply points out the vast increase in all kinds of health problems which correlate very closely to vaccines and especially in children.

quote:

It isn't as simple as simple math.

We can beat this subject to death if we want to. I don't know your background but I myself don't have the extensive technical knowledge to be able to say with 99% certainty. I just have my own opinion based on what I've read and my life experiences. His claims mostly do not pass the smell test with me.
I understand you think he's credible. That's your right.

I think he's a loon and carnival barker playing as a Presidential candidate. He seems to like the attention. That's just my opinion, for what it's worth.
The fact he's recently adopted a number of positions that play well to Republicans and conservatives is just part of his strategy to gain some sort of traction. They sound good to us but he's just using those to appeal to another audience. They do play well to the more Republican side. His problem is he's running as a Democrat. I don't want to say anyone has zero chance but I believe his is close to that.
Lets move on.

quote:

He seems to like the attention. That's just my opinion, for what it's worth.

Of course he likes the attention.
People run for differing reasons. Most of the candidates on the Republican side don't stand a snow-ball's chance in hell either. People like Chris Christie like the attention too.

They raise their profile, they may sell some books, or they may raise awareness of certain issues the 'mainstream' candidates would rather not talk about.

Still... Kennedy is polling around 20% among Democrats. It's not going to win him the nomination but he can be a thorn in the side of Joe Biden... and/or Gavin Newsom.

It's No Fluke: RFK Jr. Is Consistently Polling at 20 Percent Against Biden
https://freebeacon.com/electio...rcent-against-biden/

quote:

Originally posted by 220-9er:

quote:

It isn't as simple as simple math.

We can beat this subject to death if we want to. I don't know your background but I myself don't have the extensive technical knowledge to be able to say with 99% certainty. I just have my own opinion based on what I've read and my life experiences. His claims mostly do not pass the smell test with me.
I understand you think he's credible. That's your right.

My point is that the difference in autism rates between Qatar and France does not by itself prove anything at all. The fact that one has more Covid vaccinations than the other also does not by itself prove anything.

There are a lot of variables which an honest, skilled researcher will have to deal with before coming to any conclusion. Even something as mundane as sunlight exposure (vitamin D) could be at play.

As you point out, and which I think most everyone agrees with, autism is probably more likely to be formally diagnosed today than, say, 50 years ago. Just because there are more cases does not mean it is actually happening more. Anecdotally, though, everyone I know older than about 55 says they don't remember anything in the past like what we are seeing today.

The data RFK Jr quotes is thoroughly documented as true, and it does show a clear connection in time between several aspects of childhood vaccination and the explosion in autism, allergies, and auto-immune disease. We need really smart and honest researchers to look at this to determine if in fact childhood vaccinations are causing these things. That is RFK Jr's position. We don't know what is causing these diseases. Which means we don't know what isn't causing these diseases.

Anyone remember Operation Chaos?

quote:

Still... Kennedy is polling around 20% among Democrats. It's not going to win him the nomination but he can be a thorn in the side of Joe Biden... and/or Gavin Newsom.

That's the point. Thorn in the side doesn't equal credible candidate. I suspect at least 50% of that 20% are just saying anyone but Joe, not that they like Kennedy so much. If a waek Biden is able to hang in there until the primary season but is weak enough that Newsom then steps in, you'll get to see better by how many defect to Newsom.
Since neither one (or their party) appeals to me in any way, I'm probably not the best judge of Democrat preferences.

Whoever wins the Democrat nomination, likely Biden or Newsom at this point, will easily beat Kennedy, and then their voters will mostly be scared into line to vote Democrat. A few might stay home.

He could then decide to run as a third party candidate but unless he could siphon off enough Democrat votes to throw a critical state to the Republican, whoever that is, it still won't matter in the general election.

In either case, it won't be RFK Jr.

quote:

Originally posted by 220-9er:

quote:

Still... Kennedy is polling around 20% among Democrats. It's not going to win him the nomination but he can be a thorn in the side of Joe Biden... and/or Gavin Newsom.

That's the point. Thorn in the side doesn't equal credible candidate. I suspect at least 50% of that 20% are just saying anyone but Joe, not that they like Kennedy so much.

What is a "credible" candidate?
Is Chris Christie a "credible" candidate? Is Mike Pence?
They are currently splitting the Never-Trump vote on the Republican side.

quote:

If a waek Biden is able to hang in there until the primary season but is weak enough that Newsom then steps in, you'll get to see better by how many defect to Newsom.

Yep, probably. Newsom would likely do well in the Dem. primary.

quote:

Whoever wins the Democrat nomination, likely Biden or Newsom at this point, will easily beat Kennedy, and then their voters will mostly be scared into line to vote Democrat. A few might stay home.

Now you're on to something...
If Kennedy gains traction with say, 15-20% of Democrats... and they don't like either Biden OR Newsom, a substantial number may stay home. In this case 2% would be a very substantial number.

He won't run as a third party candidate.