Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Yes of course that’s a fine question, which dedicated and meticulous scientists have been researching. What rfk jr means to say is he has rounded up some whackadoos to say it’s the MMR.

Are the non-“whackadoos” who attest that it has nothing at all to do with the MMR vaccine being funded by Pfizer? Moderna?
Or is it possible that it’s the same non-“whackadoos” who told us that covid probably came from some wet market in wuhan but couldn’t possibly have come from a bio lab in the same city that focuses on….oh—I dunno—virus testing!?!

Maybe people asking common sense questions should not be discouraged when you want people to trust “the science”? Does it mean their conclusions are accurate? No. But if the positions are so “whackadoo” then why the anger? Why not just present a study that demonstrates why the supposition isn’t accurate and explain why it is t plausible.

Once upon a time, “the science” wasn’t intimidating by people questioning the conclusions. In fact, “the science” welcomed the questions so that tests could be repeated and results could be duplicated to demonstrate proof.

You make no sense at all.

I have read the transcription of his speech.
He denied the validity of years of scientific research because it doesn't fit with his world view.
Why would you believe he will launch a new credible direction of research, IF HE CANNOT EVEN ACKNOWLEDGE THE ENTIRELY CREDIBLE WORK THAT HAS ALREADY BEEN MADE?

He contradicts himself, this man. He's a total clown.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Yes of course that’s a fine question, which dedicated and meticulous scientists have been researching. What rfk jr means to say is he has rounded up some whackadoos to say it’s the MMR.

Are the non-“whackadoos” who attest that it has nothing at all to do with the MMR vaccine being funded by Pfizer? Moderna?
Or is it possible that it’s the same non-“whackadoos” who told us that covid probably came from some wet market in wuhan but couldn’t possibly have come from a bio lab in the same city that focuses on….oh—I dunno—virus testing!?!

Maybe people asking common sense questions should not be discouraged when you want people to trust “the science”? Does it mean their conclusions are accurate? No. But if the positions are so “whackadoo” then why the anger? Why not just present a study that demonstrates why the supposition isn’t accurate and explain why it is t plausible.

Once upon a time, “the science” wasn’t intimidating by people questioning the conclusions. In fact, “the science” welcomed the questions so that tests could be repeated and results could be duplicated to demonstrate proof.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Yes of course that’s a fine question, which dedicated and meticulous scientists have been researching. What rfk jr means to say is he has rounded up some whackadoos to say it’s the MMR.

Are the non-“whackadoos” who attest that it has nothing at all to do with the MMR vaccine being funded by Pfizer? Moderna?
Or is it possible that it’s the same non-“whackadoos” who told us that covid probably came from some wet market in wuhan but couldn’t possibly have come from a bio lab in the same city that focuses on….oh—I dunno—virus testing!?!

Maybe people asking common sense questions should not be discouraged when you want people to trust “the science”? Does it mean their conclusions are accurate? No. But if the positions are so “whackadoo” then why the anger? Why not just present a study that demonstrates why the supposition isn’t accurate and explain why it is t plausible.

Once upon a time, “the science” wasn’t intimidating by people questioning the conclusions. In fact, “the science” welcomed the questions so that tests could be repeated and results could be duplicated to demonstrate proof.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don’t have faith in these individuals but the question is fair. What in the environment triggers autism in people with a genetic predisposition? Identical twins who have the same genetics don’t always both develop autism or at the same level of severity. Why?

What's heinous is that he denies the decades of research that have confirmed without a doubt the genetic origins of autism. Several mutations have been linked to autistic profiles. There is a lot more work that needs to be done to pinpoint exact functional pathways, however, that no one in the research field wants funding to leave that sphere - the research is vital to try to find treatments.

If we are going to ADD research on environmental toxins, that's great! Autism may well be what's called a multifactorial disease, meaning one that needs an environmental trigger on top of a genetic predisposition, to develop in the brain and body.

But no. Here it's very clear he wants to REPLACE existing and future studies on the genes involved in autism, to focus on environmental toxins. And if that happens, it will set autism research back for years. In research, you never abandon a promising path to pursue a wild goose chase! The wild goose chase should only ever be an additional tool in the already full toolbox.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Yes of course that’s a fine question, which dedicated and meticulous scientists have been researching. What rfk jr means to say is he has rounded up some whackadoos to say it’s the MMR.

Are the non-“whackadoos” who attest that it has nothing at all to do with the MMR vaccine being funded by Pfizer? Moderna?
Or is it possible that it’s the same non-“whackadoos” who told us that covid probably came from some wet market in wuhan but couldn’t possibly have come from a bio lab in the same city that focuses on….oh—I dunno—virus testing!?!

Maybe people asking common sense questions should not be discouraged when you want people to trust “the science”? Does it mean their conclusions are accurate? No. But if the positions are so “whackadoo” then why the anger? Why not just present a study that demonstrates why the supposition isn’t accurate and explain why it is t plausible.

Once upon a time, “the science” wasn’t intimidating by people questioning the conclusions. In fact, “the science” welcomed the questions so that tests could be repeated and results could be duplicated to demonstrate proof.

Anonymous wrote:Yes of course that’s a fine question, which dedicated and meticulous scientists have been researching. What rfk jr means to say is he has rounded up some whackadoos to say it’s the MMR.

Anonymous wrote:I don’t have faith in these individuals but the question is fair. What in the environment triggers autism in people with a genetic predisposition? Identical twins who have the same genetics don’t always both develop autism or at the same level of severity. Why?

Anonymous wrote:I'm just going to link the gift article and not say too much about it, because I just read it and, as a biomedical research scientist, my blood pressure went through the roof:

https://www.nytimes.com/2025/04/16/us/politics/rfk-jr-autism.html?unlocked_article_code=1.AE8.fmp1.8xeoN7g_LKh0&smid=url-share