I immediately was suspect of reporter Bickerton’s intentions considering that he had the word “anti-vaccine” in the title.

Right off Bickerton talked about VACCINES.

Notably [Kennedy] avoided direct mention of vaccines, the subject which catapulted his political standing, …

Bickerton next cited Callum Hood, head of research at the UK-based Centre for Countering Digital Hate, who was able to discern the “vaccine skepticism” that “ran like an iron rod through the address.”

Hood was quoted: Although he didn't mention vaccines in his launch speech the rhetoric is very much there, and we know from reporting that many of the people who turned out to support him are anti-vaccine activists. 

Hood continued deriding Kennedy, referring to him as “an anti-vaxxer.”

Bickerton cited other experts who also slammed Kennedy’s views.

Increasingly, though, Kennedy's focus has moved across to vaccines, promoting what New York University social media expert Professor Joshua A. Tucker described as "disinformation" about the threat he believes they can pose.

Bickerton lined up even more people against Kennedy, including Aoife Gallagher and Clara Martiny, researchers from the London-based Institute for Strategic Dialogue think tank.

They told Newsweek that the anti-vaccination activists were able to influence a "wider COVID-skeptical movement" using "recycled narratives and tactics they had honed over the years to spread fear about the COVID-19 vaccines," bringing many new people to their cause.

Bickerton named family members who criticized Robert Kennedy’s position on vaccines referring to his views as “dangerous misinformation.”

Bickerton criticized Kennedy’s involvement with the World Mercury Project/Children’s Health Defense and his following on Instagram, and how this is connected to growing skepticism over vaccine safety. 

Finally Bickerton dismissed the possibility that Kennedy could even get the Democratic nomination.

While none of the experts Newsweek spoke to thought Kennedy was likely to win the 2024 Democratic Party presidential nomination, a number did suggest that the race could boost his profile, and anti-vaccination politics in general. Hood described the bid as "potentially an opportunity for him to extend his reach beyond social and traditional media."

Gallagher and Martiny made a similar point, saying: "Kennedy's presidential bid will certainly give him the opportunity to spread his views to a new and more mainstream audience. He has built an empire for himself in the anti-vaccine world by using his clout as a Kennedy and he will be able to build on this further during the campaign."

Jacob Neiheisel, a political scientist who teaches at the University at Buffalo, agreed. In an interview, he told Newsweek: I think that any time someone with Kennedy's level of name recognition is given even more of a platform, there is the potential that the views that he or she espouses will spread. This is probably particularly true in the present case, given that positive affect toward the Kennedy name (largely among Democrats) may open up new audiences for his views.

Was this a call for censoring Kennedy?

Bickerton had one political expert who said that even though Kennedy ‘isn't a serious contender,’ he’s still going to be able to spread his ‘oddball views.’

Maybe Kennedy’s message is too dangerous to be allowed.

Jacob Neiheisel, a political scientist who teaches at the University at Buffalo, agreed. In an interview, he told Newsweek: "I think that any time someone with Kennedy's level of name recognition is given even more of a platform, there is the potential that the views that he or she espouses will spread. This is probably particularly true in the present case, given that positive affect toward the Kennedy name (largely among Democrats) may open up new audiences for his views."

Bickerton’s real purpose here was to denounce Kennedy’s position on vaccines and call for his banishment from the political scene. One fleeting reference was made to Kennedy’s views on the mercury-based preservative thimerosal used in vaccines. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention was cited as the last word on vaccine safety. Case closed. Vaccines are safe, vaccines save lives.

James Bickerton needs to listen to that clip included at the top of his article.

Kennedy talked about “corporate feudalism” and the poisoning of children with pharmaceuticals.

None of that mattered.

The truth is, Bickerton is part of the cover-up of the corporate takeover of the science on vaccines. He obviously knows nothing about the vaccine safety issues, as if a brief defense of thimerosal use has any bearing on the totality of the corruption, collusion and cover-up surrounding vaccines.

Bickerton cited the CDC without any acknowledgement of the vast web of financial ties between that agency and the industry they’re supposed to oversee.

In the real world people are aware of the faulty research and powerful money interests that control the science. News outlets like Newsweek are just one part of the lies the public is continually told.

Americans are not buying it anymore, no matter how many experts are cited.

 Anne Dachel is Media Editor for Age of Autism.

 ###

The Vaccine Court 2.0: Revised and Updated: The Dark Truth of America's Vaccine Injury Compensation Program

By Wayne Rohde

The Vaccine Court looks at the mysterious and often unknown world of the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program (NVICP), the only recourse for seeking compensation for those who have been injured by a vaccine. The NVICP, better known as the ”Vaccine Court,” however, is not without controversy.

Established by Congress as a direct result of the passage of the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act of 1986, the NVICP was supposed to offer a no-fault alternative to the traditional injury claims filed in state or federal courts and was to provide quick, efficient, and fair compensation for those who have been injured by vaccines. The reality, however, is that many cases take several years or longer to complete and require tremendous commitment from families already pushed to the brink of bankruptcy caring for the vaccine-injured family member, only to discover that the end result is manipulated by the government in defense of the US vaccine policy.

A Letter to Liberals: Censorship and COVID: An Attack on Science and American Ideals

By Robert Kennedy Jr.

A leading Democrat challenges his party to return to liberal values and evidence-based science
 
Democrats were the party of intellectual curiosity, critical thinking, and faith in scientific and liberal empiricism. They once took pride in understanding how to read science critically, exercising healthy skepticism toward notoriously corrupt entities like the drug companies that brought us the opioid crisis, and were outraged by the phenomenon of “agency capture” and the pervasive control of private interests over Congress, the media, and the scientific journals.
 
A Letter to Liberals is Robert F. Kennedy Jr.’s, challenge to “lockdown liberalism’s” embrace of policies that are an affront to once cherished precepts.

Denial: How Refusing to Face the Facts about Our Autism Epidemic Hurts Children, Families, and Our Future

By Mark Blaxill and Dan Olmsted

Even as the autism rate soars and the cost to our nation climbs well into the billions, a dangerous new idea is taking hold: There simply is no autism epidemic.

The question is stark: Is autism ancient, a genetic variation that demands acceptance and celebration? Or is it new and disabling, triggered by something in the environment that is damaging more children every day?