Just so EVERYONE understands this:
Moderna has a flu shot. It works. It works well. It is safe. It is safe in people with compromised immune systems (like cancer patients!).
Trump’s nutjob at FDA, Robert F. Kennedy Jr., appears to have ordered FDA to refuse to even accept the application to review the shot for approval.
RFK wants to kill your grandma. Fuck RFK.
@mcnado probably has access to an evidenced case that RFK's policy is dangerous, misguided, and wicked. (Whether mcnado can articulate that case in another matter.)
But I see no evidence that RFK actively wants to kill anyone's granny.
This sort of hyperbolic falsehood is used by both sides of the #vaccine wars. So I disengage
@2legged @mcnado
MRNA vaccines have been proven to work for people who are otherwise unable to take vaccines. Many of these people are grannies.
Refusing to allow MRNA vaccines to be studied (after they have proven to be effective) means that RFK is actively cutting off ways to prevent people being killed by disease.
So...At best he doesn't care if grannies die, as long as it's in service of not further testing MRNA vaccines, and he's doing this while taking actions which all available evidence shows will raise grannies' chance of death.
That's close enough for me. Is there a leap in logic that I missed? At the very worst I see slightly exaggerated representation of the truth. Where is the falsehood on the side of vaccines?
@yesh Tthat's a very longwinded way of confirming that as I suspected, there is no evidence that RFK wants to kill grannies.
You seem to have retreated from @mcnado's claims, to a charge of reckless endangerment. That is a very different matter to an active desire to kill.
The failure to respect such distinctions is part of the hyperbolic propaganda which has spewed from both sides of the vaccine debates nearly for two centuries. This is a good illustration of how little has changed.
@2legged
Your answer, basically
1) 'You used too many words and retreated from @mcnado's position',
2) 'reckless endangerment isn't as bad as murder', and
3) 'both sides are bad'
Short answer? 'As if that makes it okay!?!'
Long answers:
1) I replied to a post and made my own claim. The 'change' to my position was to make it known. That is not a retreat.
RFK has been shown evidence that more grannies are likely to die if we disallow MRNA vaccine approval going through a scientific process.
Assuming RFK wants to do what he does… with no hyperbole we see: RFK's desire not to endanger grannies is weaker than his desire to kill MRNA vaccines' approval.
2) Heads of HHS shouldn't kill at a population level by way of reckless endangerment either.
3)@mcnado at _worst_ exaggerated, and the effect is RFK could hear about it and feel bad.
Can you show me an anti-vax position which does as little harm? Can you show me you publicly criticizing anti-vax beyond 'both sides' critiques?
'Both sides are bad' <thbbptttttt>
@2legged @yesh @mcnado
The vaccine debate is not complicated
You reveal yourself by saying it is
Anti-vaccine “questions” about vaccines for decades are what has got these politicians in power so that my father who’s in the fucking hospital with kidney failure will now, this year not be able to access the flu vaccine and will likely die next flu season
Fuck both-sidesing the “vaccine debate”
You want to kill our grannies
McNadoMD
Claire McNab
Yesh
AccordionBruce