ABC News Hit Piece on RFK, Jr. Illuminates the Vaccine Religion

Like the Daily Beast, ABC News has put out a mindless hit piece on Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. in response to the announcement of his candidacy for president. The article, written by Laura Romero and titled “Some experts fear rise in medical misinformation following RFK Jr.’s presidential announcement”, is a useful example of how professional propagandists masquerade as journalists, doing policy advocacy instead of journalism.

Indeed, the article illuminates how the mainstream media perpetually refuse to substantively address any of the countless legitimate concerns people have about vaccines and instead proclaim official dogma in service to the high priesthood of the vaccine religion.

The term “anti-vaccine” appears three times in just the first two paragraphs. Kennedy is “an anti-vaccine activist”; “one of the most prominent faces of the anti-vaccine movement”; the founder of Children’s Health Defense (CHD), “known mainly for its anti-vaccine efforts.”

As usual, the term “anti-vaccine” is then euphemistically equated with “misinformation” because, to the faithful adherents to the religion, it is axiomatic that any information that doesn’t align with their dogma that vaccines are “safe and effective” must be untrue.

Children’s Health Defense, Romero tells us, was “kicked off Instagram and Facebook last year for spreading misleading claims about vaccines and other public health measures.”

Tellingly, throughout the entire article, Romero doesn’t bother to identify even a single claim from Kennedy or CHD that isn’t true. Instead, she lazily expects her readers to accept the false premise that social media companies like Facebook never ban anybody for telling the truth on the false pretext of having spread “misinformation”.

To illustrate, I was myself permanently banned from LinkedIn for accurately reporting how the CDC’s ridiculous claim that COVID‑19 vaccines conferred greater protection against SARS‑CoV‑2 than natural immunity, apart from being contradicted by virtually all of the non-CDC-originating scientific literature, was also subsequently falsified by the CDC’s own data as reported by the CDC’s own researchers in the CDC’s own journal.

Even though I was literally citing the CDC, since my reporting made the CDC look bad by exposing what a bald-faced lie their ridiculous claim was, the priests at LinkedIn deemed my repeated attempts to share that information to be in violation of LinkedIn’s community guidelines, which insanely equates any information that does not align with the public messaging from the so-called “public health authorities” to “misinformation”.

Despite LinkedIn’s user agreement promising me an opportunity to appeal the decision, I was never presented an opportunity to defend myself against the accusation of having spread misinformation for the simple reason that LinkedIn adamantly refused my repeated requests for them to specify what it was I wrote that they were claiming to be untrue or misleading.

I further requested LinkedIn to tell me whether their community guidelines prohibited me from sharing factually accurate information exposing official disinformation from “public health authorities”. The unhelpful but revealing response I received was that LinkedIn does not provide interpretations of its guidelines. (We can take that as a “Yes.”)

As another relevant example, mentioned also in my rebuttal to the Daily Beast’s stupidly misinformative hit piece on RFK, Jr., in November 2019, the media exploded with headlines about CHD being the top spreader of “misinformation” via advertisements on Facebook, which headlines were based on a study published in the journal Vaccine leveling that same accusation at CHD. In fact, the authors of that study failed to produce even a single example of a CHD post on Facebook containing untrue or inaccurate information.

Instead, the study authors lazily and dishonestly dubbed any information that did not align with the CDC’s policy goal of achieving high vaccination rates as “anti-vaccine”, and then they even more lazily equated anything “anti-vaccine” with “misinformation”. By this means, the study authors even went so far as to define the simple act of advocating informed consent as spreading “misinformation”.

Usefully illustrating the dogmatism, Romero goes on in the ABC article to quote Brian Castrucci, president of “a group dedicated to advancing public health policy”, saying that Kennedy’s candidacy “puts science squarely on the ballot”. Using that word “science” again in a way that shows he doesn’t even understand what it means, Castrucci added, “His campaigns make the benefits of vaccines a question up for debate rather than settled science.” (Emphasis added.)

Thus, we can see that Kennedy’s sin is committing heresy against the vaccine religion by the mere act of raising questions about the safety and effectiveness of these pharmaceutical products. In the parlance of the religion’s faithful adherents, making reasonable inquiries into what science really says about vaccines is “anti-science”.

Romero quotes Castrucci dogmatically droning on about how awful it is that Kennedy’s campaign will serve as a platform for “spreading scientific misinformation” and “dangerous beliefs” that are “harming the health of the public”. Why, with Kennedy running for president, he will even be “legitimizing vaccine hesitancy and resistance”!

How do you like that? “Resistance”. These people remind me of the Borg in Star Trek. Resistance is futile. All will be assimilated.

Castrucci’s comments, of course, all stem from the same anti-scientific premise that any information that does not align with the CDC’s policy goal of achieving high vaccination rates is “misinformation”.

Never mind how the “public health” establishment has continually proven its complete untrustworthiness and willingness to brazenly lie in furtherance of the policy goal of increasing demand for these pharmaceutical products. Who could forget, for example, how the COVID‑19 vaccines were sold to the public on the basis of lies, including the lie that two doses would confer durable protection against infection and transmission of SARS‑CoV‑2?

Somehow, we are expected to believe that the “public health” establishment is trustworthy, whereas anyone who speaks out against the establishment is bad. Facts are irrelevant.

Romero goes on to accuse Kennedy of “efforts to push conspiracy theories and misleading claims about COVID‑19 and vaccines”, but once again, we are left wondering what alleged “conspiracy theories” and “misleading claims” she is talking about.

How about the “conspiracy theory” that SARS‑CoV‑2 might have been created in a laboratory? Remember how the media idiotically dismissed that legitimate scientific hypothesis as a “conspiracy theory”, and how Facebook even went so far as to ban users from sharing facts that support that hypothesis?

Well, Facebook eventually had to drop that shameful prohibition after one of the leading scientists in the field of genetic engineering of viruses, Dr. Ralph Baric, joined other scientists in signing a letter published in the journal Science acknowledging the possibility that SARS‑CoV‑2 has a lab origin.

Or how about the “conspiracy theory” that the government would try to coerce the population into accepting the experimental mRNA COVID‑19 vaccines? Remember how those of us warning how the endgame of the lockdown regimes was coerced mass vaccination were dismissed as “conspiracy theorists” because, obviously, the government would never try to coerce people into getting vaccinated!

Why does it seem like the “conspiracy theorists” got everything so right while the mainstream media continually propagated official disinformation throughout the COVID‑19 pandemic?

Lazily refusing to even try to substantiate her accusations against Kennedy, Romero goes on to provide yet another useful illustration of how Kennedy is being condemned not for spreading misinformation but for committing heresy against the vaccine religion.

She quotes infectious disease doctor Dr. Peter Chin-Hong objecting, “Anybody who is a leader of our country needs to be a voice of reason and somebody who stands up for science and does not discredit science.” Revealing that Chin-Hong, too, uses the word “science” as a euphemism for “public vaccine policy”, he went on to express his concern that, “If you don’t believe in vaccines, you’re probably not going to be sympathetic to funding many arms of public health.” (Emphasis added.)

So, there you have it: Kennedy simply does not share Chin-Hong’s faith in these pharmaceutical products. He is not a believer. He’s a heretic.

Next, Romero quotes Dr. Nick Sawyer, a physician who founded a group that targets doctors who dissent from official dogma, such as by treating COVID‑19 patients with ivermectin or expressing opposition to useless mask mandates and the disastrously harmful lockdown measures. The group, named “No License for Disinformation”, tries to get state medical boards to suspend the licenses of or otherwise penalize such dissident physicians.

Sawyer accuses Kennedy of “lying to people about critical things that have to do with our nation’s children’s health”—as though the devastating harms caused by the lockdown measures that he supported were not disproportionately borne by children. And, of course, Romero does not cite the hypocrite Sawyer even attempting to substantiate his accusation against Kennedy.

Sawyer has a particularly good reason to dislike Children’s Health Defense, we learn in the next paragraph of the ABC article, which is that CHD had previously reported how Sawyer’s group was pushing a bill in California that would strip licenses from doctors “if they express medical views that the state does not agree with.”

Tellingly, there is no objection in the ABC article to CHD’s characterization of the bill, for the obvious reason that it was accurate.

Next, Romero quotes “health communication researcher” Dr. Elizabeth Glowacki saying that there are “some serious health consequences if people don’t have accurate information about vaccines”, which is certainly true; but we know she’s not talking about how, for example, the COVID‑19 vaccines were sold to the public on the basis of lies, including the lie that natural immunity to SARS‑CoV‑2 is weak and short-lived, thus depriving the population of properly informed consent.

Every member of the “public health” community who participated in the official lies and deceptions is guilty of violating human rights.

Kennedy is standing against such human rights violations, and it is understandable that people who have been complicit in perpetrating them would attack him for it.

The job description of “health communication researcher” sounds an awful lot like “professional propagandist”, which would be in keeping with the entire body of literature on what is termed “vaccine hesitancy”, which research starts with the assumption that there are no legitimate reasons for anyone not to comply with the CDC’s vaccine recommendations; the conclusion that anyone who declines vaccination must simply be a victim of “misinformation” is presumed in the premise, the fallacy of begging the question.

This body of research is essentially aimed at figuring out how to produce more effective propaganda to manufacture consent for vaccination in keeping with the CDC’s policy goal of achieving high vaccination rates, which is a very different goal from achieving a healthy population.

As I detail in my book The War on Informed Consent, scientific evidence indicates that parents who choose not to vaccinate their children achieve better health outcomes than parents who do.

As far as achieving a healthy population, as also detailed in the book, the CDC has failed miserably, a parsimonious explanation for which is that this is not the CDC’s goal. The CDC, rather than serving the interests of the public, serves the pharmaceutical industry.

Indeed, it is a mistake to think of the CDC as separate from the vaccine industry; the CDC is the vaccine industry. The CDC receives funding from pharmaceutical companies through the Congressionally created CDC Foundation and is involved in distribution and marketing of vaccines in addition to its key role in establishing routine vaccinations as “standard of care” in medical practice.

As a salient example of how the CDC faithfully serves Big Pharma, if the manufacturers of flu shots and COVID‑19 shots were to make the same claims as the CDC about how “safe” these products are for pregnant women, they could be sued for fraud. Avoidance of that outcome is precisely why the manufacturers disclose in their product package inserts that safety and effectiveness of their products for pregnant women has not been established.

To directly quote from the Pfizer-BioNTech mRNA COVID‑19 vaccine package insert, “Available data on COMIRNATY administered to pregnant women are insufficient to inform vaccine-associated risks in pregnancy.”

That acknowledgment alludes to how pregnant women were excluded from COVID‑19 vaccine clinical trials. It’s considered unethical to include pregnant women in clinical trials, yet it’s somehow considered ethical by the CDC to instead effectively treat the entire population of pregnant women as subjects of a mass uncontrolled experiment.

The conclusion is inescapable that neither Laura Romero and her editors at ABC News nor any of the people she quoted for the story have a problem with misinformation. On the contrary, the thought-controllers clearly believe that misinformation is just fine as long as it persuades people to adhere to the CDC’s vaccine recommendations. If, on the other hand, someone tells truths that do not align with that policy goal, then it amounts to condemnable heresy.

The fact that Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. is being condemned for this sin by the high priests of the vaccine religion is as good a reason as any to support his candidacy for president. It’s past time for someone to be in the White House who takes our children’s health seriously and is willing to stand up against the corruption and the dangerous disinformation incessantly emanating from the government and mainstream media.