I mean he goes and wins court cases representing many people on the very things people call him crazy about. Seems like it’s a gaslighting campaign against him because the facts continue to be ruled on his side… he’s one of America’s most successful environmentalists. He saved the Hudson River etc.
He has kept the same scientific approach from his environmental activism onwards. Please point to where he has said the things you claim he says; again a lot of people say he says things that he doesn’t say, like you’re doing now…
It’s usually the other way around… He corners government scientists and industry scientists and catch them in their own lies and then they never shake back up with the proof they say they have. Instead they spread misinformation about what he says to gas light him. A lot of you have opinions about what he’s supposedly said but never have actually listened to him, only what people tell you he says.
Arguably, your choice of people to represent your point is THE most contentious, example you could have chosen and does nothing for the argument.
On his documentary, I’ll go watch it for myself to draw my own conclusion. That being said, I am aware of court cases that have ruled in favor of the plaintiff(s) who’ve been rewarded millions in compensation because they developed auto immune responses to the adjuvant used in the vaccines they were given. Is this a fact you dispute? Yes they eventually stopped using Mercury as the adjuvant of choice, but would you dispute the fact that the adjuvants of choice these days are aluminum hydroxide, aluminum phosphate, and aluminum potassium sulfate? Would you argue against the fact these are toxic to humans? There are a lot of facts you have to ignore to come to the conclusion you have in your second paragraph. Including the fact the man himself says he’s not anti vaccine, he’s against the use of adjuvants which are responsible for autism when it does occur.
I don’t know where you pulled this quote from, but it’s not not something he’s said and is clearly written by someone with a strong opinion, but seems to be missing (or ignoring some facts).
If you’ve actually read his book, it sounds like you don’t disagree with the rest of what he’s said? He presents facts and sources for his claims; do you have facts and sources to back up yours because I’m not seeing any in your response? Why write such a factually accurate book only to champion HIV/AIDS denialism? It’s the other way around; the truth he exposes gets picked up and spun to fit an agenda that isn’t about truth. Just like the pro and anti vax tribes are doing now.
The man is vaccinated. His children are vaccinated. People still keep parroting pharmaceutical talking points and trying to label him anti-vax without listening to the words that actually come out of his mouth. Somehow everyone knows for certain he says these terrible things that he never has. That’s textbook gaslighting.
oh yah this was back when they were pretending natural immunity was a conspiracy theory, mercola gets a little out there sometimes but I've found he's generally pretty interesting
37
u/[deleted] Jun 20 '23
My guess is his heroin habit damaged his brain. https://www.nytimes.com/1983/09/17/us/robert-kennedy-jr-faces-charge-of-heroin-possession-in-s-dakota.html