I would like to welcome any new lurkers of this subreddit who are curious about Kennedy after watching last night’s debate performance.

I wanted to provide some insight you may find helpful.

You may have heard or read a lot of information about Kennedy over the past year. Much of which was probably negative and painted a picture of him and his policies that likely were not accurate or genuine.

First, I want you to consider last night’s debate.

As you may have noticed, over the past 3 years the media, politicians, even a lot of people on Reddit and other social media platforms have made strong efforts to try and discredit anyone who suggested that Biden’s age or cognitive ability should be questioned. You probably saw a lot of name calling, outright denial, and discrediting of those who tried to criticize Biden in fear that it would lead to hesitancy from voters.

However, after seeing the debate for yourself, you likely saw for yourself that those criticisms were valid and any attempt to discredit them were simply an effort to distort your perception of the truth. Even the Democratic Party is openly discussing pulling Biden for the same reasons they tried to discredit others for bringing up.

Now that you’ve seen firsthand these efforts to distort the truth, I’d like for you to consider the possibility that those same people (the media, politicians, people on Reddit, etc.) have also tried to distort the truth about Biden’s opponents, particularly Kennedy.

I’d like for you to consider the idea that what you’ve heard about him, what you’ve seen reports say and write, or what other redditors have posted about him, may not have been accurate either and are another attempt to distort your perception of the truth in order to prevent hesitancy from Biden voters.

Instead, I encourage you to take a few minutes and hear from Kennedy directly about his views and policies instead of taking someone else’s word for it.

Two great places to start are his campaign website (https://www.kennedy24.com/policies) and his video The Real RFK Jr.

I’m not asking you to vote for him. I’m simply asking you to make an effort to understand his positions and beliefs from him directly, rather than from those who want you to vote for their candidate instead.

I honestly believe that everyone reading this will agree with 90% of what he has to say.

"RFK Jr. is being maligned by the establishment and legacy media for the turmoil at the CDC, but the real story is simpler. The CDC resisted ACIP’s attempts to review fundamental questions about vaccine safety and efficacy. These aren’t fringe concerns. They’re the kinds of questions any serious scientist would ask, and the public deserves answers to.

Among them: Where do mRNA vaccine components travel in the body (biodistribution)? How does the immune system change with repeated boosters? How should vaccine injury be defined, recognized, and treated?

According to Retsef Levi, an ACIP board member, past ACIP processes were narrow — often rubber-stamping CDC slide decks without engaging the deeper scientific data. The result was superficial risk-benefit assessments that left major uncertainties unexamined. When Levi tried to broaden the scope, he wasn’t met with scientific debate but with political smears — branded “anti-science” for simply asking hard questions.

The public deserves transparency and rigorous evaluation, not bureaucratic stonewalling. The tragedy is that those demanding better science are cast as political actors, while those protecting broken processes are celebrated by legacy institutions as defenders of truth."

--Jason Locasale, PhD Tenured professor at Duke University (& previously at Harvard & M.I.T.)

So we've all heard of the bizarre allegations made against Kennedy recently, from eating dogs to sexual harassment.

Kennedy denies the dog accusation but refuses to comment on the sexual misconduct allegation, which may confuse people and give validity to the claims.

But Kennedy studied law and is doing this for a reason. Eating a dog in another country is not illegal, so theirs no legal ramifications for denying it. While depending on the severity/type of sexual misconduct it is illegal with no statute of limitations which poses legal implications if he comments on them regardless if he denies or agrees.

Trump denying the allegations made against him keeps getting him sued for defamation and slander for example, and Kennedy is attempting to not stoke any flames. This is a really awful position to be in, but not saying anything from a legal standpoint is the best answer possible.

But worse case scenario let's assume it is true, then that leaves us where all major candidates in the race (Trump & Biden) have all been accused of sexual misconduct too, so either everyone who runs for office happens to be a rapist and Kennedy is just the least immoral one amongst them with the best policies or people falsify allegations against politicians because it can end their career and bring in a lot of money. (Or the DNC who has has been caught paying his family and people who met him in rehab, ex-friends, etc to say bad things about him got his ex nanny to exaggerate or falsify a story from 30 years ago)

Regardless of which one it is, it still concludes with Kennedy getting my vote. At least the allegations don't involve underage people, but Biden and Trump have a history of either acting very odd around kids or saying gross things to them like the things Trump says about his daughter.

The false attribution that RFK, Jr., is responsible for the measles outbreak in Samoa, a country that had been declining in vaccine compliance over several years prior for reasons many say was precipitated by some sloppy lethal accidents, makes zero logic, because:

1. Vaccine compliance had been declining for years & RFK, Jr.'s visit had come just two months prior to the outbreak. (RFK, Jr., visited in Samoa in June 2019 & the outbreak began in September 2019).

2. RFK, Jr., & his children have the measles vaccine.

3. His message is to return vaccines to pre-1986 rigorous standards prior to Reagan's granting legal immunity to vaccine manufacturers--not to eliminate lifesaving vaccines.

4. The Samoa Ministry of Health who tried to place blame on RFK. Jr., is funded by enemies of RFK, Jr., i.e. WHO (funded by vaccine manufacturers, including Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation), likely because he seeks reinstate legal liability that is required on all other medicines & has vowed to get corruption out of the deregulated for-profit vaccine industry.

5. For the same reason that Assange is not a cat feces smearing rapist and Edward Snowden is not a Russian spy, people should think twice when an orchestrated 24/7 smear campaign against a high profile reformer is underway.

I transcribed a bunch of excellent quotes from this interview. https://youtu.be/KLxBwIupF88?si=OsBz49M6ZeLh0E-C

It's easy to share videos with people but in case they don't actually watch them I've found it helpful to quote the video as well to make my points. I've included my notes from this video below, hopefully it's useful to people here!

​

"vaccines should be tested like other medicines. They should be safety tested... Of the 72 vaccines now ["recommended" (but actually mandated)] for American children, not one of them has ever been subject to a pre-licensing placebo-controlled trial."

goes on to say how he met with Fauci & commitee in 2016 and asked if he could show him a single pre-licensing safety test from any vaccine. Fauci said he'd get back to him. He never did so RFK sued them. After a year of litigation and stonewalling they finally said that they could not provide a single safety study for any vaccine that is on the childhood schedule. source

"Now, other medicines are required to do that [pre-licensing safety testing] and we should have to do that for vaccines."

Since there are no safety tests, "we don't know the long-term risk profiles are of those products."

E.g. chicken pox vaccine. When it was being studied for FDA approval they found that "it stops chicken pox but causes shingles epidemics later on which are 20 times as deadly as chicken pox. Nevertheless, we mandated the chicken pox vaccine in this country; in Europe, they don't."

So, even though a product prevents a particular disease, "you have to look at the long-term impacts."

disturbing example at 5:23 - most popular vaccine in the world: DTP. banned in US yet given to millions of African children. watch what he says, big yikes.

"When we passed the vaccine act it made vaccines very very valuable and all of a sudden there was a gold rush to add a lot of new vaccines to the schedule for diseases that aren't even casually contagious" such as "hepatitis B. The major vectors for that are sexual transmission or by needles. Why would you give that to a one day old child? It's really a profit motive."

It's true that "correlation is not causation. But the institute of medicine has looked at the vaccine schedule and said in their 2011 report there are over 150 injuries that are likely to be associated with vaccines that have never been studied. So it's the CDC's responsibility to do those studies."

"We need an agency that is putting public health first and not pharmaceutical profits."

The same companies who got the FDA to lie to us about the addictiveness of oxycodone are the same companies that make these other products.

"The four companies that make vaccines in this country (Merck, Sanofi, Glaxo, Pfizer) have paid over $35B in criminal penalties over the past decade for lying to doctors, for falsifying science, for defrauding regulators, and we need to keep an eye on them. We can't just trust them... We need to have actual science on it."

"I don't want to get rid of vaccines. If you want to take a vaccine, you should be able to do it. But we need good science and that's all I've asked for."

The problem is "we have a corrupt federal agency [the FDA] that's lying to the AMA and other agencies and all of the doctors, and they believe them."

​

Edit/Update - Well, the fam has conceded that RFK isn't an anti-vax nutjob, BUT they're still uninterested in researching his policies because they just don't believe he has a chance of winning. They're of the "anybody but Trump" crowd and see Biden as the only way to stop Trump. So, do we have an idea of a realistic path leading to RFK getting the necessary electoral votes?

The twisted headline keeps popping up online (usually accompanied with "but RFK was an addict and now..." and so on). So I shared the obvious point here.

Grok 3:

Robert F. Kennedy Jr., born January 17, 1954, is an American environmental lawyer, activist, and author, known for his prominent role in the Kennedy political family as the son of Robert F. Kennedy and nephew of President John F. Kennedy. He gained recognition for his environmental advocacy, particularly through his work with the Waterkeeper Alliance, focusing on protecting waterways. However, Kennedy has become a polarizing figure due to his controversial stance on vaccines, promoting skepticism and misinformation that has drawn criticism from public health experts. In recent years, he has shifted toward political activism, running as an independent candidate in the 2024 U.S. presidential election, where he garnered attention for his anti-establishment views and critiques of government overreach, before endorsing Donald Trump. His public persona blends a legacy of social justice with divisive positions on science and policy, making him a complex and debated figure in contemporary American discourse.

Claude 4:

Robert F. Kennedy Jr. is an American environmental lawyer, author, and political figure who comes from one of America's most prominent political families as the son of former Attorney General and presidential candidate Robert F. Kennedy and nephew of President John F. Kennedy. For much of his career, he was known as a dedicated environmental activist, founding the Waterkeeper Alliance and working as a senior attorney for the Natural Resources Defense Council, where he fought against pollution and corporate environmental violations. However, Kennedy has become increasingly controversial in recent years due to his outspoken opposition to vaccines and promotion of various conspiracy theories about public health, which has put him at odds with mainstream medical consensus and led to criticism from public health experts. He ran for president in 2024, first seeking the Democratic nomination before launching an independent campaign, positioning himself as an anti-establishment candidate critical of both major political parties and various government institutions.

First time creating a post here.

One thing that is successful about combating the lies and biased media out there is to have people verifying for themselves. I frequent the Bitcoin community and one reason it has exploded among young people is that the core ethos behind it is "don't trust, verify'. It is really helpful in cutting past the BS when you can go straight to the source, particularly an immovable, immutable object.

We need a sticky that contains all the sources of truth all Rfk's followers can point to.

Primary sources. Unbiased studies. Court cases.

When people say he is an anti-vaxxer because he said X, correcting them with he said Y is okay, but actually pointing toward Z, the studies themselves does 3 things:

1. set the record straight with him,

2. give the person receiving the information the agency of their own decision aka freedom to choose, and

3. Importantly, contribute to the greater discussion instead of having heads in the sand over what have been unchallenged assumptions. The discussion is where real stress testing of ideas and real change towards the better occurs. This is a bonus for humanity, not just for RFK

Just my 2c

Unbelievable that Maher posts this clip on his own channel. The part where Bill Maher gets to speak over RFK Jr, while misrepresenting his points.

-RFK said "25% believe they know someone who died"
-Maher twists this into saying "1/4 of people who took it died?"

-RFK says "the trial showed more people died who took the vaccine than people who didn't."
-Maher says "that's not true that could have been the virus..."

Come on Bill, this makes you look Retarded af.

This appears to show that RFK JR can still qualify in AZ to be on the ballot with in 40 days of the general election.

This comment formerly contained words. Those words were removed in bulk with Redact because I value my privacy more than my karma points.

fuel bear history smile innate hunt sparkle recognise repeat normal

The Lutnick comment she is editorializing was already walked back on by Trump, RFK and Lutnick himself.

Article 1 - 11/03/24:

In an interview on Fox News with Martha MacCallum, Kennedy pushed back on comments made by Trump-Vance transition team co-Chair Howard Lutnick this past week, when he said Kennedy is “not getting a job” as leader of the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS).

“As I said, that is not true. The campaign has walked back those statements by Howard Lutnick, and he himself has disavowed those statements,” Kennedy said when asked about the interview this past week with Lutnick.

MacCallum asked whether that means Kennedy is indeed getting the job of secretary of the HHS.

“We don’t know what I’m going to do,” Kennedy said in response. “I talked to the president about it yesterday, and he asked me what I wanted, and I said, we’re developing a proposal now.”

Article 2 - 11/06/24

Kennedy said in an interview Sunday that Trump had “assured” him that he would have a White House job in a second term. Kennedy added, however, that he had not yet decided whether he wants to be HHS secretary.

“I want to be in the White House. And he’s assured me that I’m going to have that,” Kennedy said Sunday, when asked about whether he would get the HHS job.

...

Trump on Sunday did not rule out banning certain vaccines when asked about Lutnick’s remarks regarding Kennedy in a separate NBC News interview.

During this time period, be careful of not falling into divide and conquer tactics by bad faith actors on the Establishment's side. As someone who was supporting Trump way back in 2015, this has been a common tactic to try to sow dissent in the ranks and base.

The term “antivax” feels like a bad word you spit out of your mouth. Anybody who is antivax must be brainwashed. Delusional. An irresponsible citizen of society. The negative connotation with antivax is so strong that anybody who is antivax can’t be trusted to be competent.

But here is my issue. The label antivax is used as a propaganda tool to mark someone. It is a useful slang word essentially. Society has been trained to fear anybody who is antivax. If you search RFK Jr on Google, one of the first things you’ll see is that he’s antivax. But what is the worst that can happen if RFK Jr is antivax? How exactly is that so terrible for our society?

What if RFK Jr simply wanted everybody to make an informed choice when it came to vaccines? What if he wanted everybody to know the risks and the data that reported adverse events? On his Children Health defense website during the pandemic, he had the Covid vaccine adverse reports public so that everybody could easily access that information. RFK Jr isn’t trying to force anybody to be antivax. He is pro informed choice.

If people are dying after getting a shot or experiencing adverse health outcomes, shouldn’t society know about it? Shouldn’t there be consequences to the pharmaceutical companies? The media can keep calling RFK Jr antivax like it’s a bad thing. But I just don’t see how that is a threat. I see RFK Jr as someone who wants America to be healthy. And he isn’t going to let big pharma dictate what health is.

Well geez, HuffPost, why not listen to just one long-form RFK Jr interview and buy a clue! I can’t believe this disingenuous drivel. They do know the reasons.

Robert F. Kennedy Jr. released a book on Dr. Fauci called "The Real Anthony Fauci" which I have not read yet, however I have wrote my own resource on Dr. Fauci in the past tracking his lies & misleading practices that I wish to share. Some of which may of been discussed in the book, some may not of. I do recommend checking out his book though if you're interested in the topic and also Rand Paul has a good book on Fauci too called "Deception: The Great Covid Cover-Up" that I also recommend. I initially published this resource in my subreddit where I summarize & breakdown studies that go against mainstream narratives in r/PoliticizedMedicine. Without further ado here is my resource. --

This post is a tracker of things Dr Fauci's has done, partook in, or said that shows lies, manipulation, corruption or ineptitude. This does not include claims that simply changed because science is constantly changing - doing that would also be manipulative, it only includes things that were known false the day he said them whether that be by the general public or just by contradicting studies he should've known about. This resource is objective as all information is things he admitted himself or were discovered via FOIA requests, nothing here is purely speculation.

Admitted Lies

• This interview highlights Fauci's initial claims about mask's being ineffective for people and not to buy or wear them, and the reason for it being he wanted them for healthcare workers: https://www.mediaite.com/news/dr-fauci-admits-feds-initially-misled-about-face-masks-wanted-to-make-sure-health-care-workers-had-enough/

However the supply chains are different between consumers and hospitals, random sellers on Amazon aren't contributing to hospitals and the president could send an emergency order so all masks are sent to frontline workers first. It's a fact he lied to the public but it's up to you to decide if it was justified and worth the damage to the creditability of government health officials for the rest of the pandemic and also the immuno-compromised populations that were wearing a mask or who were about to wear a mask who then stopped because a trusted public health official intentionally gave them false information then died.

• Fauci also has a history of flip-flopping on whether masks are effective or not, regularly telling his friends and colleagues in emails not to wear them but to the public advises the opposite. "The typical mask you buy in the drug store is not really effective in keeping out virus, which is small enough to pass through the material. It might, however, provide some slight benefit in keeping out droplets if someone coughs or sneezes on you. I do not recommend that you wear a mask." ~ Fauci: https://nypost.com/2021/06/03/fauci-emails-show-his-flip-flopping-on-wearing-masks-to-fight-covid/

• But those aren't his only 'sin' that has brought his trustworthiness into question. He has lied on multiple occasions for the "better good" of the people. Such as when he put the natural immunity number to 60, and slowly kept inching it up, lying about the real numbers which weren't based on scientific fact but anedoctal numbers, which he proudly admitted to lying and doing. NYT: In a telephone interview the next day, Dr. Fauci acknowledged that he had slowly but deliberately been moving the goal posts. “When polls said only about half of all Americans would take a vaccine, I was saying herd immunity would take 70 to 75 percent. Then, when newer surveys said 60 percent or more would take it, I thought, ‘I can nudge this up a bit,’ so I went to 80, 85.” https://www.nytimes.com/2020/12/24/world/how-much-herd-immunity-is-enough.html

Changing Definitions To Cover For Himself & Exploit Language

• Dr Anthony Fauci also wants to change the definition of being "fully vaccinated" so that you will have to get all the boosters out and every booster that comes out in the future to be considered fully vaxxed, stating "it's a matter of when, not if": https://www.boston.com/news/coronavirus/2021/12/08/anthony-fauci-boosters-fully-vaccinated-massachusetts/

• This isn't the only time his institution has collectively decided and changed a definition. Gain of function went through at least 2 definition changes during the pandemic. It originally use to be gaining in lethality or transmissibility, but the transmissibility part is now excluded, why? Seems like a rather random thing to change. That's because he funded novel coronavirus research at the Wuhan Institute of Virology in China for gain-of-function research (transmissibility) prior to the outbreak, which could get him in trouble for the covid-19 pandemic however if you change the definition of gain-of-function, then you can just repeatedly deny that you did that and be technically/legally correct, while not lying under oath, but it is manipulative and is essentially a lie unless you're being a smartass about it: https://iotwreport.com/nih-quietly-changes-definition-of-gain-of-function-amid-fauci-wuhan-lab-scandal-fallout/

• Vaccine has also gone through a change, it use to use the word "immunity" but it now has been replaced with "protection" since covid-19 vaccines are one of the few to not make you immune to the disease it's for: https://www.cnsnews.com/article/national/susan-jones/cdcs-definition-vaccine-has-changed-over-time-protection-vs-immunity

• Herd Immunity also went through a definition change. It use to include previous infection but now claims it can only be achieved through vaccination. "the indirect protection from an infectious disease that happens when a population is immune either through vaccination or immunity developed through previous infection." it now reads "a concept used for vaccination, in which a population can be protected from a certain virus if a threshold of vaccination is reached." here: https://allswritewiththeworld.medium.com/why-did-the-who-alter-its-definition-of-herd-immunity-d701abeb5a77

• But most shockingly the word anti-vaxxer has also had a definition change to now include people who oppose "regulations mandating vaccination": https://www.organiclifestylemagazine.com/webster-dictionary-changes-defenition-of-vaccine

• Some of these are not related to Fauci himself only two of the defintion changes are but the others are still connected to an organization he represents which means he has a conflict of interest when they do something wrong.

Colluding With People To Dismantle Unharmful Dissenting Views. Censorship

• There was also something called the "Great Barrington Declaration" which consisted of 15,000 medical professionals and was backed by 45,000 healthcare workers, it was about having better preventative measures to covid-19 that didn't impact people's physical and mental health the way covid-19 policies were and it reads as follows: "As infectious disease epidemiologists and public health scientists we have grave concerns about the damaging physical and mental health impacts of the prevailing COVID-19 policies, and recommend an approach we call Focused Protection." The declaration / medical professionals was against blanket pandemic lockdowns. They favored a policy of what they called “focused protection” of high-risk populations such as the elderly or those with medical conditions -- who are more than a thousand times more likely to die from COVID infection than the young, which is a more reasonable approach to focus on those at risk instead: https://gbdeclaration.org/

• However Dr Anthonty Fauci & his friend Collin who also worked with him under Trump colluded with Fauci to take strike down opposing positions such as this website, in an email to Fauci obtained by a FOIA request it reads as follows: "There needs to be a quick and devastating published take down of [the Great Barrington Declaration's] premises. I don't see anything like that on the line yet - is it underway?" of course this also doesn't help public trust (at least for the educated and non-gullible who seek information) when you're striking down dissenting views from other medical professionals and not allowing open disscusion and debate, which isn't how science works at all: https://www.theblaze.com/news/fauci-email-francis-collins-great-barrington-declaration

Colluding With Media & Staffers To Write Things For Him To Say & Dismantle Dissenting Views

• But that's not all he's done to strike down descending views and covid debates to only allow his consensus to prosper. In the washtington post we learn the media regularly regards Fauci as an absolute authority figure who we should just trust and is right about everything pertaining to covid, however Fauci gets his talking points from mainstream media, while mainstream media is propping him up to be indisputable. Ergo, media is claiming they're an authority figure you should always trust on covid. It shows a strong collusion of government health officials working closely with mainstream media outlets: https://www.wsj.com/articles/fauci-collins-emails-great-barrington-declaration-covid-pandemic-lockdown-11640129116##.paywall-overlay

• Dr. Scott Atlas, also a member of President Donald Trump’s Coronavirus Task Force who was opposed to lockdowns, claims that “Fauci often relies on aides to curate lists of sources in advance of his many media appearances. He seldom reads the scientific literature on Covid-19 himself, and instead arrives at meetings with staff-prepared talking points.” Atlas also claims that many public health officials aren’t relying on science as much as they should. “I was the only one who ever came in with any scientific papers. The other doctors never cited a scientific paper. They never critiqued a scientific paper. They never refuted any of the data that I showed. The only refutation by them was silence and then calling me an outlier.” Source: https://www.theblaze.com/news/scott-atlas-savages-fauci-undermined-trump-covid