If I am reading this correctly, this argument against RFK, Jr. relies entirely on his public statements about the potential risks of vaccines.
The implication is that any figure who dares to make public statements about the potential risks of vaccines is somehow "culpable" for any deaths associated with the illnesses that these vaccines p…
If I am reading this correctly, this argument against RFK, Jr. relies entirely on his public statements about the potential risks of vaccines.
The implication is that any figure who dares to make public statements about the potential risks of vaccines is somehow "culpable" for any deaths associated with the illnesses that these vaccines purport to protect against.
What would happen if we were to extend this "logic" to all potentially life-saving medical interventions? Should we disallow any public mention of their potential risks as well?
If I am reading this correctly, this argument against RFK, Jr. relies entirely on his public statements about the potential risks of vaccines.
The implication is that any figure who dares to make public statements about the potential risks of vaccines is somehow "culpable" for any deaths associated with the illnesses that these vaccines purport to protect against.
What would happen if we were to extend this "logic" to all potentially life-saving medical interventions? Should we disallow any public mention of their potential risks as well?