I have not studied in detail all his claims about vaccines. I tried to find out precisely what his current views were from an ABC interview with him a few months back, when he announced his candidacy, but ABC news deleted a whole section of an interview with him, condemning his views as unscientific while preventing ABC viewers from finding out from his own words in the interview what those unscientific views were:
In any case, he is not a medical scientist with peer-reviewed publications, and my comments made very clear that I was talking about debates between scientific peers, not debates between scientists and non-scientists. Remember whom I was replying to: Mercer. Mercer in the past here has made clear that it’s not just about debates with cranks; he’s against scientific debates, period. He thinks debates have no place in science or in public discussions of matters where science is concerned. His use of the “crank” trope was merely a cover for his general dislike of public dialogue about the claims of scientists, even when both sides in the dialogue are represented by trained, peer-reviewed scientists. My remarks were responding to that. And there’s no excuse for your not perceiving that, as you’ve been here when I’ve had the same debate with Mercer many times before.
By the way, if RFK Jr. thinks all vaccines are bad and that no one should take any vaccines, I would disagree with him. I think millions of lives (including children’s lives) and much suffering have been avoided by the use of vaccines (for polio, diphtheria, etc.), and I would call a view that vaccines are never effective a “crank” view. On the other hand, there is nothing “crank” about European medical scientists who have advised their governments that COVID vaccinations and boosters for young healthy people are not necessary and can be discontinued. But if those same scientists had given the same advice in the USA just two years ago, during the height of COVID panic, you can be sure that Fauci and the establishment would have shouted them down and called them cranks.
I ignore your other paragraph, which is just more of your usual one-sided, intellectually inflexible dogmatism.
You could not possibly have got that message from what I wrote above – not if you read its careful qualifications with any care or attention. (Especially since I’ve never even discussed the general questions of vaccinations here.) It appears you have read into what I wrote (eisegesis) instead of drawing out my stated meaning (exegesis). But of course, eisegesis is the normal hermeneutical practice around here, so nothing new there.