RFK Jr. Responds To Murdoch Media Measles Attack By Penning Editorial About Measles: What Did It Actually Say?

Awful Headline and Subhead, Written By FOX Staff—But Why Do Anti-RFK Jr. Influencers Omit The Terrain Theory Bombshell? He Said Before The Measles Vaccine Was Produced, 98% Of Measles Deaths Stopped

RFK Jr.’s full statement here.

A sampling of reactions here:

Commentary:

Over the past few days, the Murdoch machine cornered RFK Jr. and threw corpses— children’s corpses—at him. One child in Texas has died; The Murdoch machine says it was Measles, and it’s “spreading” to numerous states etc etc. The usual.

What could he do? What did he do?

He put his name to an editorial published by FOX news, that anti-RFK Jr. accounts are casting as RFK Jr. openly pushing MMR shots.

I read the editorial, twice.

I took some screen shots—there is a lot in it. One way to interpret it is to say it pushed MMR. Another way to interpret it is that a US public health agency, for the first time, casts “infectious disease” as not “infectious,” but rather, the result of environment or “terrain.” It invokes the unspeakable—nutrition, and sanitation. Standard “anti-vaxx” talking points. So, in the end, what you pull from it, and shape from it, will be the sum total of your trust or lack of trust in RFK Jr.

Read the whole editorial, and bear this in mind: When any person writes any piece for any outlet, the outlet writes the “hed” and “dek,” which is ancient terminology for headline and subhead. FOX wrote the headline and subhead, which do mirror pro-MMR propaganda. (He would have had no say in the wording of the headline and subhead.)

But a careful reading of the piece does reveal an emphasis on these points:

—Measles is rarely deadly. Vanishingly rarely.

—By 1960, 98% of alleged measles deaths were conquered by sanitation and nutrition

—Vitamin A prevents measles. (This will set off the anti-Vitamin A factions.)

—Vaccination is a personal choice for parents

—Vaccines should never be forced or mandated

—He’s taking the situation seriously, etc.

This is what I find to be the core statement of the piece:

But anybody who wants to persuade their followers that they were right to distrust him, is free to do that.

What I see is the needle moved a little bit, toward a holistic view of how disease happens. In all my years of being caught in this nasty, deadly morass, this war, I’ve never seen that from a public health official. Nobody ever allowed for any role of nutrition or sanitation—ever. In AIDS, any mention of either was a career destroyer. In South Africa, the militant pharma activists (TAC) bullied Thabo Mbeki’s health minister to an early death—they used to throw plastic lemons and garlic bulbs at her head at AIDS conferences, because she wanted poor, sick South Africans to glean nutrition from food.

I’m grateful for any inch of ground gained against the single “virus” drugs-into-bodies chemical solutions only Bolsheviks.

In the editorial, and the headline, and the subhead, all positions can find justification: RFK Jr. betrayed the cause and'/or RFK Jr. trojan-horsed terrain theory, and threw a bone to contagion theory and vaccinology.

But anybody who radically de-contextualizes a piece of writing, strips the author of his entire documented history, is not being fair.

Influencers make money on both “hopium” and “hopelessness-ium.”

The current mood is very cutthroat, and that serves the powers that be very well.

It browbeats people not to trust anybody, and mocks their trusting nature. That’s fine.

But I draw the line at mis-characterizing a piece of text.

My father used to label this kind of exaggerated emotionalism as “…an orgasm in search of a wedding.”