The Anti Anti-Vaccine Kennedy
The Anti Anti-Vaccine Kennedy
Will the real anti-vaxxer please stand up?
There is a new Kennedy in town, and he is on a mission to end vaccine hesitancy and reestablish trust in science once-and-for-all via his Academy Award nominated documentary filmmaking skills. His name is Scott Hamilton Kennedy and his claim to fame came with his 2008 documentary The Garden, a story about a 14-acre community garden that arose from the ashes of the L.A. riots that was in threat of being wiped out by bulldozers. Eight years later, Kennedy unleashed his well-received Neil DeGrasse Tyson-narrated documentary Food Evolution, where he aimed his sights on the fear and “misinformation” over genetically modified foods (GMO's):
Scott’s previous documentary, Food Evolution, narrated by the esteemed science communicator Neil deGrasse Tyson, uses the controversy and confusion around GMOs to highlight the importance of using the scientific method to help everyone – from parents to politicians – make better food and agricultural decisions.
https://www.ncicp.org/staff-member/scott-hamilton-kennedy/
After attempting to make the case that the scientific method should somehow help to build trust in the “science” behind genetic food, Kennedy turned his attention to the vaccine debate in order to explain why people should “trust the science” behind the fictional “viruses” which, ironically, have never been proven pathogenic via the scientific method. The documentary is called Shot in the Arm, and while it has yet to be widely released, we can get a pretty good idea about the over-arching message of Kennedy, Tyson, and others involved in the project:
Science is getting a bad rap.
The vaccines are safe and effective.
Googling does not make one an expert.
People are too cynical and mistrusting of the scientific institutions.
‘Shot In The Arm’ Shows How Disinformation Can Be Deadly
“Shot in the Arm also explores the erosion of the sanctity of science and specifically the dissolution of trust in scientists, experts and public health professionals who have devoted their careers to the pursuit of medical innovations to keep people safer and healthier. “Vaccines have been a victim of their own success,” states director, Scott Hamilton Kennedy, pointing out that people today have not witnessed the devastation of smallpox or polio. While skepticism in science is not new, the Covid-19 pandemic created a fertile breeding ground for social and technological phenomena to join forces and amplify both disorder and distrust.
“Data doesn’t matter. It’s the culture,” states Paul Offit, MD and Director of the Vaccine Education Center, Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia. Dr. Offit, an internationally recognized expert in virology and immunology and advisor to the CDC, was featured throughout the documentary, sharing memories of his own lonely childhood in a polio ward (he had a different illness). “When the polio vaccine came out, people universally embraced it. Now … [vaccine refusal] has nothing to do with safety. We live in a more cynical and divisive time. People don’t trust institutions.”
“Tyson shared his frustrations as a science educator. “What concerns me most is when people learn just enough about a topic to think they’re right, but not enough to know they’re wrong,” describes the astrophysicist and host of the podcast, StarTalk. “An hour-long Google search does not make you an expert.”
If the above excerpts from Forbes didn't make it abundantly clear what this propaganda disguised as a documentary is all about, the film's poster and “Disinformation is its own disease” tag line most likely will:
As Kennedy touts the scientific method as a barometer to judge GMO's and vaccines, it is rather odd that he fails to see how neither subject actually adhere to the method. He also admittedly starts his documentary filmmaking off with a preconceived bias. In a recent article promoting his film, Kennedy recalled that his journey began with the 2019 measles outbreaks where he assumed that it had nothing to do with a new “strain” but was instead brought about by the unvaccinated who were influenced by powerful and nefarious people. It was during the making of Food Evolution that Kennedy learned that it was his job to defend the “science” and he applied this mentality to his new vaccine venture. He ended up meeting with real “scientists” such as Dr. Anthony Fauci, Director of the Vaccine Education Center Dr. Paul Offit, and Dean of the National School of Tropical Medicine Dr. Peter Hotez in order to present their…. ahem, I mean his, argument.
However, in an attempt to ensure that his documentary was not biased, Kennedy also met with well-known activist, media personality and Informed Consent Action Network CEO Del Bigtree as well as founder and chairman of Children's Health Defense Robert F. Kennedy Jr. As these men were presented as leaders of the anti-vaccine movement, Scott directed his lens and his questions to them in order to present the anti-vaccine argument:
'Shot in the Arm,' documentary on vaccine hesitancy, to premiere at Palm Springs film fest
“Before anyone heard about COVID-19 or knew the global devastation it would cause, Academy Award nominated documentary filmmaker Scott Hamilton Kennedy was looking at another viral outbreak.”
"I was like, this is being fomented by under-vaccination, not by some powerful new measles strain," Kennedy said. "Those people not getting vaccinated are being influenced by very powerful and very nefarious and clever anti-vaxxers."
The filmmaker then decided to do what he knows best: grab a camera and capture the truth. His new documentary, "Shot in the Arm," will have its world premiere Jan. 6 at the Palm Springs International Film Festival. Other screenings will take place Jan. 7 and 9. Kennedy will be in attendance for the premiere, along with executive producer and astrophysicist Neil deGrasse Tyson.”
“Kennedy has covered a number of topics in his previous films, but "didn't know science needed to be defended" until he started doing research for his documentary "Food Evolution," focused on the conversation around genetically modified foods and anti-GMO/pro-organic confusion around the subject, he explained. During filming, he was able to connect with many individuals in the science industry, including John Swartzberg, a clinical professor emeritus at University of California Berkeley’s School of Public Health, who suggested the director should tackle anti-vaccine sentiments in his next film.
"In my brilliance, I said, 'Oh no, those guys are going to go away, they're going to burn out. How could they survive?'" he said. "Cut to spring 2019, and I'm faced with this record-breaking measles outbreak, state of emergency in New York, state of emergency in Washington state, measles outbreaks all over Europe."
“Kennedy began to film at the CDC with leading experts in the health and science fields, including former chief medical advisor to the president Dr. Anthony Fauci, Director of the Vaccine Education Center Dr. Paul Offit, Director of Voices for Vaccine Karen Ernst and Dean of the National School of Tropical Medicine Dr. Peter Hotez. He also followed Blima Marcus, an ultra-Orthodox nurse practitioner from New York City, who at one point was distrustful of vaccines herself. She was recommended the book "Vaccine Epidemic" when she was a new mother, and it led her to believe that vaccinating her daughter would injure her. As a result, she decided to delay the rest of her daughter's immunizations.”
“The director wanted to give those who are opponents of vaccines a voice in the documentary as well. Featured throughout the film are interviews with parents who allege vaccines caused health problems for their children, as well as well-known anti-vaccine activists like media personality and Informed Consent Action Network CEO Del Bigtree and founder and chairman of Children's Health Defense Robert F. Kennedy Jr.
"I don't want the pro-science side to just say these are the antis and this is who they are," the Oscar nominee said. "I want the antis to represent themselves as best they can and with their own words, and to be honest, because I find the evidence is clear that many of them are manipulators and downright liars, to 'hang themselves by their own petard.'"
"Underneath it all, did I make a movie to promote vaccines? No. Did I make a movie to defend science? Yes. But more importantly it's the zeitgeist ... that I had a feeling about in 2019 but it wasn't until COVID that we really saw that the film is about the social contract," Kennedy said. "It's about defending democracy and truth and decency and that's what really inspired me to make the film, complete the film, and I've seen the response to the film in early sneak preview screenings as a healing film for the enormous public health community to say it was worth it."
https://www.yahoo.com/news/shot-arm-documentary-vaccine-hesitancy-213019343.html
There is a bit of a problem with Kennedy's approach to presenting the anti-vaccine argument in an unbiased manner. To present the position, Scott Hamilton Kennedy went to the two most high-profile health freedom crusaders in Del Bigtree and Robert Kennedy Jr. In one breath, Kennedy claimed that this was an attempt to present a fair and balanced approach whereas in another breath, he admitted that it was meant to let these “manipulators and liars hang themselves on their own petard.” However, in his quest to get the anti-vaccine position, Kennedy went to two people who are admittedly not anti-vaccine. While they may highlight the dangers of the vaccine ingredients and the current vaccination schedule, both Del Bigtree and RFK Jr. admit that they are working to create “safer” vaccines. Thus, by relying on these men as his main source of information for the anti-vax position, Scott Hamilton Kennedy never truly represented the anti-vaccine side. This is a major problem that needs to be addressed.
“We want safe vaccines, robust transparent science and an honest and independent regulatory agency focused narrowly on public health rather than industry profit.”
-Robert Kennedy Jr.
https://childrenshealthdefense.org/about-us/mercury-vaccines-cdcs-worst-nightmare/
For most people, when they hear the phrase anti-vaxxer, they think of those who are entirely opposed to the idea of vaccination. Anti-vaxxers are well aware of the danger’s vaccines pose due to the numerous toxic elements these injections are composed of. Anti-vaxxers have committed countless hours examining the ingredients lists and researching the available literature, shedding light on the harms of this dangerous practice. There is no amount of safety testing that will convince someone who is truly anti-vax to allow an injection into their arms or into those of their children. Thus, when we see the so-called “leaders” of the anti-vaccine movement regularly calling for “safer” vaccines (an oxymoron), we need to be aware that the anti-vaccine label given to them is entirely unjustified. Del Bigtree and Robert Kennedy Jr. may shine a spotlight on the harmful ingredients of vaccines; however, they are not opposed to the idea of vaccination and are actively working towards a “safer” version.
In order to provide some clarity, let’s take a brief look at both Del Bigtree and Robert Kennedy Jr. and see what the record shows. With Bigtree, we can find a few instances which shed some light on the true purpose of his mission. For starters, according to an article highlighting the Selz Foundation's financial backing of Bigtree and ICAN, it is stated that the groups mission is to promote vaccine safety:
“According to the Washington Post, the Selz Foundation provides approximately 75% of the funding for the Informed Consent Action Network, a charity for which Lisa Selz serves as president, whose mission is described as “promoting drug and vaccine safety and parental choice in vaccine decisions.”
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.vanityfair.com/news/2019/06/bernard-selz-lisa-selz-vaccines/amp
According to the biography on ICAN's site, Del is the preeminent voice of the “vaccine risk awareness” movement, not the anti-vaccine movement:
“Del Bigtree is one of the preeminent voices of the vaccine risk awareness movement around the world. He is the founder of the non-profit, Informed Consent Action Network, and host of a rapidly growing internet talk show The HighWire, boasting over 33 million views to date. Del’s multi-pronged approach incorporates legal, legislative, and media actions to expose the fraud, lies, and conflicts of interest that have allowed the pharmaceutical industry to evade standardized safety testing for vaccines.”
https://icandecide.org/team-member/del-bigtree/
In a November 2017 interview with Dr. Ben Weitz, it is said that Del believes that vaccines are a great idea and that they need to be made as safe as possible:
“Del said that he also believes that it is a noble pursuit for science to figure out a way to protect us from infectious diseases and that vaccines are a great idea. But have we have to make them as safe as possible and it is really law suits that forces companies to make safer products.”
https://www.drweitz.com/2017/11/rational-wellness-podcast-032-vaccine-safety-with-del-bigtree/
In a August 2021 interview with AnneMarie Schieber, it is said that Bigtree defends his organization from the anti-vaccine perception:
“Del Bigtree, founder and CEO of the Informed Consent Action Network (ICAN), is a leading voice on vaccine risk awareness. ICAN filed lawsuits against health agencies for vaccine misinformation and is demanding more meaningful drug trials. Bigtree discusses how vaccines are not required to advertise side effects as opposed to other pharmaceuticals. Bigtree expresses his disgust of the video showing terrified special needs children being forced to take COVID-19 vaccines linked below. Bigtree then explains how he defends his organization from the perception that they are anti-vaxxers. The conversation concludes with advice for members of the public who want to be left alone from vaccine ambassadors.”
It seems rather clear that Del Bigtree and ICAN are not truly anti-vaccine, even though they are regularly paraded around as such by the media. Judging by these sources, Del is more concerned with making vaccines as safe as possible but not eliminating the dangerous practice altogether. His group is about raising awareness in regard to the current state of the vaccines and ensuring that the public is informed. While this is a noble goal and the information Del and ICAN have provided has been invaluable to waking up many to the harms of vaccination, this is not a real anti-vaccine position and thus, they should not be at the forefront of an anti-vaccine movement.
In regard to Robert Kennedy Jr., he couldn't have made it any clearer where he stands on the vaccine issue. During a Q and A with Science in January 2017, Kennedy Jr. responded with “I am for vaccines” to a question asking if he was returning us to the Dark Ages. However, apparently fearing the readers may not get the right message, Kennedy Jr. rephrased his position a moment later by stating “I am pro-vaccine.” Like Bigtree, Kennedy Jr. is not looking to eliminate vaccines, he only wants to make them “safer.” In fact, Kennedy bragged that all of his children are vaccinated and that he believes that vaccines save lives:
Q: Rates of childhood infectious diseases have plummeted over the past half-century or so. Are you out to return us to the dark ages?
A: I am for vaccines. I have been tracking mercury in fish for 30 years and nobody has called me antifish. I am pro-vaccine. I had all my kids vaccinated. I think vaccines save lives. But we are also seeing an explosion in neurodevelopmental disorders and we ought to be able to do a cost-benefit analysis and see what's causing them. We ought to have robust, transparent science and an independent regulatory agency. Nobody is trying to get rid of vaccines here. I just want safe vaccines.
In an August 2017 interview with Helen Branswell about the Vaccine Safety Commision that RFK Jr. was supposed to head for President Trump, he admitted that he is happy with steps to make vaccines safer and that vaccines must be held to the same safety standards as pharmaceutical drugs:
“The commission was not my idea. I was asked to chair a commission and I agreed that if the commission were created that I would do that, I would sit on it. [But] that’s up to the White House how they want to handle this issue. It wasn’t my idea. I am happy with any steps that are taken to make vaccines safer and to improve the scientific integrity around the process. To reform the process so that vaccines are subject to the same kind of safety scrutiny and safety testing that other drugs are subject to. We need to, prior to licensing vaccines, we need to do gold standard safety testing, like every other drug approval requires.”
“And I think people understand that my position is clear and that my work on vaccine safety and public health and child safety is not an endorsement of President Trump’s environmental policies.”
https://www.statnews.com/2017/08/21/robert-kennedy-vaccines-question-answer/
In his book Thimerosal: Let the Science Speak: The Evidence Supporting the Immediate Removal of Mercury—a Known Neurotoxin—from Vaccines, Kennedy Jr. announced that he is pro-vaccine, stating that vaccines have saved hundreds of millions of lives and are critical to public health:
“People who advocate for safer vaccines should not be marginalized or denounced as anti-vaccine. I am pro-vaccine. I had all six of my children vaccinated. I believe that vaccines have saved the lives of hundreds of millions of humans over the past century and that broad vaccine coverage is critical to public health. But I want our vaccines to be as safe as possible.”
https://www.counterpunch.org/2023/05/12/should-the-left-give-rfk-jr-a-chance/
In a recorded 2015 address for a planned October 20th march on the CDC, Kennedy stated empathetically that he is “fiercely” pro-vaccine, and that we ought to have policies that encourage full vaccination for all Americans:
Looking to Kennedy Jr.’s non-profit organization Children's Health Defense, we can see that there is nothing in its mission statement about the elimination of this harmful practice:
The Mission of Children’s Health Defense
“The mission of Children’s Health Defense (CHD) is to work tirelessly to end the childhood health epidemics by working to expose causes, eliminate harmful exposures, hold those responsible accountable, seek justice for those injured, and establish safeguards to prevent future harm. As part of holding those responsible accountable, CHD plans to initiate multiple legal initiatives in an effort to defend the health of our children and obtain justice for those already injured.”
https://childrenshealthdefense.org/about-us/childrens-health-defense-mission/
While some may see the “elimination of harmful exposures” as if it could apply to the elimination of vaccines, any remaining doubt can easily be put to rest by a CHD article promoting a video the group created for Robert Kennedy Jr.’s 6 Steps to Vaccine Safety presentation.
“The Children’s Health Defense has created a video of Robert F. Kennedy, Jr.’s comprehensive PowerPoint presentation that reviews the process of vaccine approvals, recommendations, post-marketing safety monitoring and concludes with necessary recommendations for improving vaccine safety and protecting our children from vaccine injuries. We hope that parents and vaccine safety advocates will use this video presentation as a tool to educate local policy makers, state and federal legislators and public health officials who need to know the facts about our federal vaccine programs, vaccine safety and the Vaccine Injury Compensation Program.”
https://childrenshealthdefense.org/members-only/
As Robert Kennedy Jr. has been very upfront about his belief in vaccines and his organization works to make vaccines “safer” rather than eliminate them altogether, it may not come as much of a surprise to learn that guests attending a holiday party hosted by Kennedy Jr. in December 2021 were requested to be vaccinated and/or tested for “Covid-19” in order to attend. While Kennedy Jr. shifted the blame to his wife Cheryl Hines, it is not really a promising look for a leader of the anti-vaccine movement to promote the same vaccines he is rallying against:
Guests urged to be vaccinated at anti-vaxxer Robert F Kennedy Jr’s party
“Guests invited to a holiday party at the home of the leading anti-vaxxer Robert F Kennedy Jr. were urged to be vaccinated or tested for Covid-19 because, Kennedy said, he is “not always the boss at my own house”.
Speaking to Politico, which reported the request before the party in California last week, Kennedy said his wife, the actor Cheryl Hines, was behind it.
He also said no effort was made to check if guests had been vaccinated or recently tested.”
Both Del Bigtree and Robert Kennedy Jr. support vaccines and work towards the goal of making them “safer” rather than eliminating the practice altogether. Thus, it starts to make sense why neither of these men want to focus on the most important issue relating to vaccines; the question over the existence of the “viruses” they are used to “protect” against. While both men promote scientific integrity, transparency, and ensuring that the scientific evidence is sound, neither man wants to actually investigate virology to see if the evidence for the entire field is scientifically sound. In an interview in August 2022, Del Bigtree made the case that the world was not ready to discuss whether or not “viruses” exist. He felt that the best approach was to work within the current paradigm.
Robert Kennedy Jr., on the other hand, completely punted on the issue when he was asked about Christine Massey’s excellent Freedom of Information request work by investigative journalist Eric Coppolino in April 2022:
“Yeah, I really am not qualified to comment but I…my inclination if there are people who say the viruses don’t exist that there is no virus… I don’t, you know, my inclination is that, um, that simply is not, you know, that’s not true.”
“And I am kind of amused reading the exchanges and my inclination is that the viruses do exist and they do make people sick. I could be wrong. It could all be a big hoax, but to me, it all seems like, you know, viruses are real, and um so, look, I should have just shut up from the beginning and say I’m not gonna answer that question.”
“Again, I am not a good a good per— I am not a scientist. I don’t pretend to be. I find those arguments interesting.”
-Robert Kennedy Jr.
In a November 2022 email to Christine Massey about the organizations lack of coverage on the no “virus” topic, Mary Holland, CHD's president, anonymously quoted their science advisor, Jay Couey:
"While we agree that there have been many, many lies during covid, we believe that the situation is complicated, and that the ‘no virus’ stance lacks sufficient nuance to be the most viable position.”
According to Massey, both Holland and Kennedy Jr. were unable to say if they had read the methods section of any “SARS-COV-2” paper or whether they knew of any papers which scientifically showed the existence of the “virus.” They were unable to provide answers in regard to valid controls, why the “virus” cannot be found within the human body, nor whether they would stop promoting the pseudoscience known as virology. For Kennedy Jr., who claims an expertise in filtering out “junk science,” it is very concerning to learn that he hasn't even bothered to look into the “science” behind the very entity the vaccines are supposed to protect against.
It is clear that neither Bigtree, Kennedy Jr., nor Children’s Health Defense want to discuss the lack of actual science involved in virology. They would rather ignore the issue altogether and continue fighting over the ingredients that make up the vaccine in an attempt to bring a “safer” product to the market. This is definitely not an anti-vaccine position.
While I highly disagree with their position, I want to be clear that this is not meant as an attack of either men or their organizations. Both Bigtree/ICAN and Kennedy Jr./CHD have done amazing work highlighting the dangerous poisons filling these deadly injections. They have raised awareness to the plight of many who have been injured and they have worked to ensure that everyone has the right to an informed choice in the matter. However, continuing to work towards the impossible goal of a safer vaccine is a wasted effort. Continuing to promote the existence of pathogenic “viruses” as well as the potential catastrophic dangers of genetically engineered gain of function lab leaks, perpetuates a needless cycle of fear. By not addressing the lack of scientific evidence for the existence of “viruses,” these men are unintentionally keeping the lie alive while creating the illusion for the need of a “safer” vaccine.
One must wonder why these men do not want to tackle what should be the very core of the anti-vaccine argument. If “viruses” do not exist, then there is no need for any vaccine. Ever. Period. There would be no need to discuss the efficacy of vaccines as the truth will be revealed that the perceived protection afforded by vaccination is a mirage. There would be no need to try and make vaccines safer as there is no reason to inject anything into the body in any form regardless of the ingredients and the manufacturing processes. The sole purpose of vaccination implodes with the realization that “viruses” have never been proven to exist within the fluids of a sick host and have never once been proven pathogenic by adherence to the scientific method. Once the “virus” lie is presented to a larger audience and it is finally exposed on a massive scale, the very purpose of both ICAN and CHD can shift to actually working towards finding how to deal with the real causes of disease, not on preventing imaginary ones. They can present real world solutions for the well-being of children rather than wasting time arguing over protecting them from the harmful ingredients in a pointless and dangerous injection that should never have been used in the first place.
ICAN states that their goal is “to put the power of scientifically researched health information in your hands” while CHD wants to “subject vaccines to a scientifically rigorous approval process.” Both organizations and their founders preach a science-based mentality. In the same January 2017 interview with Science shared earlier, Kennedy Jr. stated that, while he is not a scientist, he has an expertise “in reading science and spotting junk science” because that is what he does with most of his time. Why are these men and their organizations not poring over the original virology papers in order to spot the “junk science?” If Kennedy Jr. has the expertise in picking out pseudoscience, it should be very easy for him to see the “virus” scam for what it is. There is no science going on in virology and exposing the decades of junk science holding up the lie is just as important, if not more so, than alerting the public about the “junk science” in regard to vaccines. While it is great to inform the public over the dangers of vaccines, it is even more pressing to awaken them to the wider “viral” lie that is keeping these injections in use. Kennedy Jr. and Bigtree need to expand their scope and tackle the root of the problem rather than trying to wack at the weeds. The weeds will always come back until you pull them out from the soil that they grow in.
That being said, I do not follow either Robert Kennedy Jr. or Del Bigtree very often. Perhaps I am mistaken and there is evidence that these men and their organizations are truly anti-vaccine. It would have to be evidence that is more convincing than the label erroneously provided to them by the mainstream media. Maybe I missed these men finally admitting that there is no such thing as a safe vaccine and that there is no need for this dangerous practice to carry on any longer. However, I have yet to see such a statement from either of them or their organizations. Thus, it is entirely unjustified to present these men as leaders of the anti-vaccine movement. They do not represent the movement at all. It would be more appropriate to say that they are leading figures of the health freedom movement and the vaccine safety awareness club. If Scott Hamilton Kennedy truly wanted to represent the anti-vaccine movement, he could have chosen many people who actually fit the anti-vaccine description and are much more qualified to speak on the topic. He could have interviewed Dr. Stefan Lanka, Dr. Tom Cowan, Dr. Andrew Kaufman, Dr's. Sam and Mark Bailey, Dr. Suzanne Humphries, and many others. In doing so, he would have fairly represented the anti-vaccine movement by giving the spotlight to those who truly understand the rotten foundation propping up the vaccine movement that is ready to crumble at any moment. Instead, he chose as the representatives two pro-vaccine figures who, while speaking openly about the dangers involved, are working to make vaccines “safer.” It is very clear that Scott Hamilton Kennedy had no intention of accurately representing the anti-vaccine argument. Instead of choosing an actual leader of the anti-vaccine movement to present the case, Scott went with the anti anti-vaccine Kennedy.
Jr.
Thanks, Mike. Indeed, Scott Kennedy seems to serving the function of building up the likes of Bigtree and RFK Jr as alleged "leaders" of the resistance, both for those who believe the official narrative as well as people within the "resistance" who are thus encouraged to line up behind the "leaders" so as to defend them against such attacks, reinforcing the false binary which is meant to obscure the fact that neither perspective actually questions the science, which is basically flawed at its foundations.
I'm reminded of that old joke that politicians should wear a suit with many patche showing all the brands that finance them, like Formula 1 pilots.
That recommendation can be applied to many other people.
Even then, some people would still believe the lies.