RFK children speak about assassination in Dallas
Source: AP
Jan 12, 3:24 AM EST
DALLAS (AP) -- Robert F. Kennedy Jr. is convinced that a lone gunman wasn't solely responsible for the assassination of his uncle, President John F. Kennedy, and said his father believed the Warren Commission report was a "shoddy piece of craftsmanship."
Kennedy and his sister, Rory, spoke about their family Friday night while being interviewed in front of an audience by Charlie Rose at the Winspear Opera House in Dallas. The event comes as a year of observances begins for the 50th anniversary of the president's death.
Their uncle was killed on Nov. 22, 1963, while riding in a motorcade through Dallas. Five years later, their father was assassinated in a Los Angeles hotel while celebrating his win in the California Democratic presidential primary.
Robert F. Kennedy Jr. said his father spent a year trying to come to grips with his brother's death, reading the work of Greek philosophers, Catholic scholars, Henry David Thoreau, poets and others "trying to figure out kind of the existential implications of why a just God would allow injustice to happen of the magnitude he was seeing."
Read more: http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_JFK_ANNIVERSARY_KENNEDYS?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2013-01-12-03-24-26
Lone gunman = Twin Towers in Freefall. Total BS!
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)But the same questions could be raised about their own father's assassination.
Response to Ken Burch (Reply #1)
Jenoch This message was self-deleted by its author.
99th_Monkey
(19,326 posts)in Oregon and California. He was so wise beyond his years, and
his eyes shone with such a clear blue, like the forever sky.
And he was so ready to fight the good fight, full-on, once elected.
Too ready apparently for the Dark Side to tolerate.
oldhippydude
(2,514 posts)I worked for Gene Mc Carthy in 68, was involved in the Oregon Primary.. spent q couple of weeks in Pendleton.. by that time we pretty much knew we would be all working for Bobby by the convention.. I was catching California returns live on the TV, when Bobby was shot...
I sometimes wonder what the hell is in Sirhan Sirhan's head...
99th_Monkey
(19,326 posts)I worked as his PSU student coordinator, and set up his phone bank at Portland
Hdqrs, then he hired me and my wife to go w/ campaign to work in LA. We flew
back to pdx the night of the assassination ...were also watching it on TV in Portland.
As for the goings on in Sirhan Sirhan's head, this 2005 article in the Guardian
pretty much sums up my suspicions. The CIA knew full well that Bobby was going
to finish what JFK started, in terms of dismantling and defanging the CIA.
_______*_______*_______*_______*_______*_______*_______*_______*
As Kennedy lies dying on the pantry floor, Sirhan is arrested as the lone assassin. He carries the motive in his shirt-pocket (a clipping about Kennedy's plans to sell bombers to Israel) and notebooks at his house seem to incriminate him. But the autopsy report suggests Sirhan could not have fired the shots that killed Kennedy. Witnesses place Sirhan's gun several feet in front of Kennedy, but the fatal bullet is fired from one inch behind. And more bullet-holes are found in the pantry than Sirhan's gun can hold, suggesting a second gunman is involved. Sirhan's notebooks show a bizarre series of "automatic writing" - "RFK must die RFK must be killed - Robert F Kennedy must be assassinated before 5 June 68" - and even under hypnosis, he has never been able to remember shooting Kennedy. He recalls "being led into a dark place by a girl who wanted coffee", then being choked by an angry mob. Defence psychiatrists conclude he was in a trance at the time of the shooting and leading psychiatrists suggest he may have be a hypnotically programmed assassin.
~snip~
As I researched the case, I uncovered new video and photographic evidence suggesting that three senior CIA operatives were behind the killing. I did not buy the official ending that Sirhan acted alone, and started dipping into the nether-world of "assassination research", crossing paths with David Sanchez Morales, a fearsome Yaqui Indian.
Morales was a legendary figure in CIA covert operations. According to close associate Tom Clines, if you saw Morales walking down the street in a Latin American capital, you knew a coup was about to happen. When the subject of the Kennedys came up in a late-night session with friends in 1973, Morales launched into a tirade that finished: "I was in Dallas when we got the son of a bitch and I was in Los Angeles when we got the little bastard." From this line grew my odyssey into the spook world of the 60s and the secrets behind the death of Bobby Kennedy.
Working from a Cuban photograph of Morales from 1959, I viewed news coverage of the assassination to see if I could spot the man the Cubans called El Gordo - The Fat One. Fifteen minutes in, there he was, standing at the back of the ballroom, in the moments between the end of Kennedy's speech and the shooting. Thirty minutes later, there he was again, casually floating around the darkened ballroom while an associate with a pencil mustache took notes.
For Whole Story: http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2006/nov/20/usa.features11
baby_bear
(5,645 posts)I was just a young teenager but I loved Bobby. My parents worked for McCarthy
but loved Bobby too. My dad took me to the town square in my town where Bobby
spoke days before his assassination. (My dad handed me a hair pin to put on my shirt: I said,
"What's this?" and he said, "It's a Bobby pin'."
I'll never forget it.
grasswire
(50,130 posts)Tom Brokaw was the local NBC nightly news anchor in Los Angeles. We saw it happen live. I don't think there was a delay then like there is now to protect viewers.
Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)They wouldn't have any of the footage of the shooting aftermath in the pantry until a couple of hours later, because the cameramen following Bobby through the pantry only had film cameras, rather than video cameras, and there was a lag while the film was developed. I've read that, as soon as he realized Bobby was hit, the CBS camera guy in the pantry deliberately broke his camera so he wouldn't have to film the nightmare he was seeing, but I don't have full verification of that.
(nobody was filming Bobby at the moment he was hit...the cameras were all off because the camera crews were carrying them to what was meant to be a press conference with the candidate in another room, and had no reason to think that anything newsworthy was going to happen before then. There was a still cameraman who was shooting pictures when Bobby was actually hit, but his camera was confiscated by the LAPD, and when they finally returned it to him, the portion of the film that had captured the shootings had been ruined-while the shots taken before and after the shots were fired were just fine).
For anyone too young to remember that night(I was seven), or who was born later, there is a large collection of raw CBS video footage of the scene in the ballroom that's been posted on You Tube...an hour-and-a-half or so, in eight-minute segments(it was posted when Emilio Estevez' film BOBBY was released, and at that time You Tube had a nine minute limit on clip length).
msanthrope
(37,549 posts)
ReRe
(12,189 posts),,,after his brother was assassinated, i.e. about why, if there truly is a "GOD", why he allows such horrible things to happen. I never have figured that one out.
karynnj
(60,949 posts)I think it hits hardest those people who think there is a God who micromanages the world - deciding the fate of each person on things large and small. That is also the "God" that is easiest to teach to children and to suggest prayer to influence God's decisions. (It is not just kids though - look at the prayers included in the liturgy for many Jewish and Christian services. )
I almost would prefer thinking of a hands off God, than the God where genuinely bad things - like the assassination of JFK - are said to probably make sense in some vast plan that we can not fully see or understand. That just strikes me as an intellectual cop out - especially when some suggest that it is arrogant (thinking too much of your own intelligence) to reject that.
ReRe
(12,189 posts)I was raised a Protestant. Married a Catholic. Have close Jewish & Muslim friends. We were all raised in our prospective "religions", but yet we respect each others beliefs and do not end in a harangue argument over it all, ever. We love each other and wouldn't think of imposing our beliefs on each other. The things that we all have in common is a being of spirituality, and a belief that "God", whatever he is/was is present in each of us. God is in us, not somewhere in another world up above or in the afterlife. When I said, I have doubt in God, I think I AM reaching back to that God I was taught about as a child, that you spoke of.
Maybe what I have lost faith in is human beings. We are more knowledgeable than ever, Yet we are bereft of stopping the violence and hate in our world.
karynnj
(60,949 posts)My background is mixed as well. I grew up Catholic, converted to Judaism and later met and married a Jewish man.
I think I too reach back to that earlier image of God - especially when something is wrong.
ancianita
(43,303 posts)Larrymoe Curlyshemp
(111 posts):/
ancianita
(43,303 posts)to have to speak up at this late date shows how weak our leaders try to keep us by hiding the truth of powermongers' evils. We're not a free people when the truth is systematically hidden.
Larrymoe Curlyshemp
(111 posts)Or just a nation with less restrictions than, say, China? Or North Korea?
ancianita
(43,303 posts)
lunatica
(53,410 posts)
Selatius
(20,441 posts)Our current government, overrun by corporate lobbyists where many bills are written by corporations, probably wouldn't exist as it is today if progressive leaders were allowed to challenge that dynamic and break the power of the corporate oligarchy. Eisenhower gave the country fair warning as well about the undue influence of the military-industrial complex.
Even if all those assassinations were mere coincidence, the benefactors from the death of progressive leaders would undoubtedly be the oligarchy. Their profits are secure. Our misery is assured.
The Wizard
(13,721 posts)and all to real. Their goals: cheap labor just above slavery, world domination, a quasi military dictatorship in a cheap disguise, cheap flat screen TVs to distract and influence thinking (see the trailer)
The realization of Huxley's Brave New World Huxley died on November 22, 1963 and no one noticed.
Gore1FL
(22,943 posts)Would hate for you to have to use a little deductive reasoning.
How about this? Jane Stanley's psychic prediction of WTC7 collapse = total BS.
Gore1FL
(22,943 posts)This requires data. There is none to support the truther argument.
I don't know who Jane Stanley is, but would agree in the sense that all psychic prediction = total BS.
Larrymoe Curlyshemp
(111 posts)Coyotl
(15,262 posts)Lone gunman = total BS!
Festivito
(13,878 posts)Same as how "Twin Towers in Freefall" is designed to keep us from investigating how much Bush knew before 911, before those towers fell -- so we would concentrate on that irrelevant point instead.
It's the kind of thing the CIA does to keep this country in harms way while making their inheritances grow, further hurting our country.
GHW Bush called in a report to the FBI about an hour after JFK's assassination giving a lead on a Mr. Parrot. That could keep the FBI busy until they could strongarm Hoover.
That line is disinformation poster Larrymoe Curlyshemp.
Larrymoe Curlyshemp
(111 posts)The only part you left out is that Nicole Kidman is blowing me as I type these words! 
Festivito
(13,878 posts)And, if that last thought were the case, such posts would have an ecstatically genial tone. You can guess I'm not getting it from Jane Fonda, either.
AntiFascist
(13,751 posts)"He said his father had investigators do research into the assassination and found that phone records of Oswald and nightclub owner Jack Ruby, who killed Oswald two days after the president's assassination, "were like an inventory" of mafia leaders the government had been investigating."
Much of that research may be covered in the book "Farewell America: The Plot to Kill JFK". From the introduction to the book (by William Turner):
MinM
(2,650 posts)having a personal interest in these matters. Just a short time after publicly dismissing the notion.
(25-minutes or so into the clip below):
http://www.blackopradio.com/pod/black529c.mp3
I'm glad they're taking this public now.
MrMickeysMom
(20,453 posts)I find this whole thread interesting and related to what Black Op Radio has been cataloging for years, which is interviews with noted researchers of assassinations, and fact-based research.
MrMickeysMom, it's a great resource.
MrMickeysMom
(20,453 posts)Of the great books to read to understand the "why" is this one -
"Destiny Betrayed,,, JFK, Cuba and The Garrison Case", by James DiEugenio
It does make you "think again".
Octafish
(55,745 posts)Law professor Wilkes reviews di Eugenio:
DESTINY BETRAYED:
THE CIA, OSWALD, AND
THE JFK ASSASSINATION
Published in Flagpole Magazine, p. 8 (Dec. 7, 2005).
Author: Donald E. Wilkes, Jr., Professor of Law, University of Georgia School of Law.
In place of the strong sense of faith in man and mankind, we now have a heavy feeling of a failed mission, of destiny betrayed and unfulfilled. – Rav Alex Israel
The deepest cover story of the CIA is that it is an intelligence organization. – Bulletin of the Federation of American Scientists
Today, 42 years after President John F. Kennedy was assassinated in Dealey Plaza in Dallas, Texas, on November 22, 1963, few responsible researchers who have studied JFK’s murder accept the Warren Commission’s main conclusion that Lee Harvey Oswald, acting alone, committed the crime. (The Warren Commission was the body appointed by President Lyndon B. Johnson to investigate the Kennedy assassination; it released its Report in September 1964.) As these researchers have shown again and again in scores of books and articles, evidence available to the Commission but improperly evaluated, erroneously rejected, or simply not pursued by that body, together with new evidence unavailable to the Commission, discredits the principal finding of the Warren Report. JFK’s death was, these researchers believe, carried out by a conspiracy; it was not the act of a lone assassin. Different researchers, however, have different conspiracy theories. Conspiracy theorists also disagree about Oswald: some maintain that he was simply one of the conspirators; others claim that, while he was a member of the conspiracy, he was also unknowingly a dupe of the other conspirators who intended for him to be the fall guy; and still other theorists think that Oswald was a wholly innocent person set up by the conspirators as the patsy. Furthermore, the theorists who regard Oswald as a conspirator disagree as to whether he fired any of the shots in Dealey Plaza.
Currently, the conspiracy theories most worthy of consideration are these: (1) the Mafia did it; (2) the CIA did it; (3) the anti-Castro Cubans–that is, opponents of Cuba’s communist leader, Fidel Castro–did it; (4) white-supremacist racists and right-wing extremists did it; and (5) the conspiracy consisted of persons who were affiliated with the Mafia, the CIA, or various anti-Castro or extreme rightist groups, but who were acting as individuals (albeit perhaps with some connivance from the organizations with which they had affiliations). Although still the subject of lively discussion in JFK assassination literature, conspiracy theories that the assassination was attributable to the FBI or the Secret Service, to the Soviet Union, to Fidel Castro’s Cuba and pro-Castroites, or to Kennedy’s vice president, Lyndon B. Johnson (and Johnson’s supporters), appear less credible with the passing of each year.
The theory that JFK’s murder was engineered by the CIA (or by persons affiliated with the CIA), and that the CIA covered up its connections to the murder, warrants serious consideration and should not be peremptorily rejected. In the 1960’s the CIA more resembled an untouchable crime syndicate than a legitimate government entity. Lavishly but secretly funded, unrestrained by public opinion, cloaked in secrecy, conducting whatever foreign or domestic clandestine operations it wished without regard to laws or morals, and specializing in deception, falsification, and mystification, the CIA was riddled at all levels with ruthless, cynical officials and employees who believed that they were above the law, that any means were justified to accomplish the goals they set for themselves, and that insofar as their surreptitious activities were concerned it was justifiable to lie with impunity to anyone, even presidents and legislators. Many of these individuals, thinking he was soft on communism, that he would reduce the size of the military industrial complex, and that he was to blame for the Bay of Pigs disaster (the failed CIA-sponsored invasion of Cuba in 1961), hated and despised Kennedy. The CIA routinely circumvented and defied attempts by the executive and legislative branches to monitor its activities. It was involved in innumerable unlawful or outrageous activities. It illegally opened the mail of Americans. It interfered with free elections in foreign countries and arranged to destabilize or overthrow the governments of other countries. It plotted the murder of various foreign leaders. It arranged to hire the Mafia to help with some of these proposed murder plots. It unlawfully stored–in quantities, UGA political science professor Loch K. Johnson notes, sufficient “to destroy the population of a small city”–exotic toxic agents, including cobra venom and shellfish toxin, for the purpose of committing murders. It manufactured and used sinister lethal weaponry, including what Prof. Johnson calls “the ultimate murder weapon,” an electric handgun (the CIA called it a “noise-free disseminator”) with a telescopic sight which could noiselessly and accurately fire poison-tipped darts (the CIA called them “nondiscernible microbioinoculators”) up to a distance of 250 feet. It undoubtedly carried out multiple secret murders and other heinous crimes which it successfully kept hidden. Furthermore, it is now firmly established that after the JFK assassination the CIA simultaneously lied to, and withheld important information from, the Warren Commission.
One of the first serious investigators to raise credible claims that CIA operatives or ex-CIA operatives were involved in the JFK assassination was Jim Garrison, who served as the district attorney in New Orleans, Louisiana from 1962 to 1974. (A brief chronology of Garrison’s life and investigation is set forth at the end of this article.) Garrison and his office investigated the assassination for about five years, from late 1966 until early 1971. His investigation led Garrison to believe that, regardless of whoever actually fired the shots in Dealey Plaza, the assassination was the result of a plot hatched in New Orleans by persons with CIA connections. Furthermore, Garrison concluded, following the assassination the CIA engaged in a coverup to protect itself and the assassins. Garrison brought to trial the only criminal proceeding in which someone was actually charged with involvement in the JFK assassination. Garrison wrote two important books, the first published in 1970, the second in 1988, in which he recounted his investigation and shared the important new facts he had discovered.
In the words of journalist Fred Powledge, who wrote a magazine article on Garrison published in 1967, Garrison thought that “the assassins were CIA employees who were angered at President Kennedy’s posture on Cuba following the Bay of Pigs disaster, and that the CIA was frustrating his investigation, although the agency knew the whereabouts of the assassins.” Philosophy professor Richard H. Popkin, in another magazine article published in 1967, summarized Garrison’s views on the assassination as follows: “The thesis Garrison has set forth is that a group of New Orleans-based, anti-Castroites, supported and/or encouraged by the CIA in their anti-Castro activities, in the late summer or early fall of 1963 conspired to assassinate John F. Kennedy. This group, according to Garrison, included [Clay] Shaw, [David] Ferrie, [Lee Harvey] Oswald, ... and others, including Cuban exiles and American anti-Castroites.... [T]heir plan was executed in Dallas on November 22, 1963. At least part of their motivation ... was their reaction to Kennedy’s decisions at the Bay of Pigs and the changes in U.S. policy toward Cuba following the missiles crisis of 1962.”
In a 1967 interview, Garrison himself phrased his basic conclusions this way: “[A] number of the men who killed the President were former employees of the CIA involved in its anti-Castro underground activities in and around New Orleans.... We must assume that the plotters were acting on their own rather than on CIA orders when they killed the President. As far as we been able to determine, they were not on the pay of the CIA at the time of the assassination.... The CIA could not face up to the American people and admit that its former employees had conspired to assassinate the President, so from the moment Kennedy’s heart stopped beating, the Agency attempted to sweep the whole conspiracy under the rug.... In this respect, it has become an accessory after the fact in the assassination.”
Jim Garrison’s theory of the assassination clashed with that of the Warren Commission, which denied there had been a conspiracy. According to the Warren Report, 24-year old Lee Harvey Oswald, supposedly a twisted, embittered, discontented, hate-filled Marxist and ex-Marine who had once defected to the Soviet Union, assassinated JFK, acting alone and without assistance. Using an old, flimsy, cheap, second-hand bolt-action 6.5 mm Italian carbine, Oswald allegedly fired three shots in less than 10 seconds from a sixth floor window of the Texas School Book Depository at the president’s open limousine, which was moving at an angle, downhill, and away from the Depository. The fatal head shot occurred when Kennedy was 265 feet from the window. (Two days later Oswald, a handcuffed prisoner surrounded by dozens of police officers inside a police station, was shot dead by Jack Ruby, an organized crime figure who operated a Dallas night club and strip joint. Oswald’s murder occurred on live TV and was witnessed by millions.)
President Lyndon B. Johnson, who appointed the Warren Commission, described Lee Harvey Oswald as “quite a mysterious fellow.” Political science professor and JFK assassination authority Philip H. Melanson agrees, noting that “[f]rom the time he was an eighteen-year old Marine until his murder at twenty-four, [Oswald] lived a secret life.” What we know of Oswald’s life from 1959 to 1963, Melanson adds, appears to be “strpouctured by endless coincidences and heavy doses of good and bad luck” and includes a “pattern of mysteries and anomalies” and “frequent and unusual interactions with government agencies” that can hardly be “random and innocent” or the result of “coincidence or happenstance.”
CONTINUED...
http://www.law.uga.edu/dwilkes_more/jfk_22destiny.html
SidDithers
(44,333 posts)Octafish
(55,745 posts)The important issue is that he and his sister reported their father said about the assassination of President Kennedy:
A conspiracy was behind the assassination.
The Warren Commission report was "shoddy workmanship."
Attorney General Kennedy knew about the Ruby-Mafia connections immediately.
It is difficult to imagine why that would elicit your attack on RFK, Jr.'s character, siddithers.
eric saunders
(3 posts)This is a transparently silly rhetorical technique. The poster obviously is invested in supporting the official story so he cites the most damning information he can think of to discredit RFK Jr. even though his ideas on vaccines have absolutely no relevance to the matters at hand. Obviously if RFK Jr. took a position on, say, gun control, this poster would not be bringing up some strange non sequitor to discredit him.
What I think is really interesting about the RFK Jr. interview is what it reveals about the media's devotion to the Establishment. When RFK Jr. slams the Warren Commission, Rose immediately tries to bring up the second patsies: organized crime. And he fails to ask the obvious follow up questions about the death of RFK. This fear of Rose reminded me of Amy Goodman when John Pilger stated that he was with RFK when he got shot and everyone there knew there more shooters. Amy Goodman stammers and quickly changes the subject. These exchanges are so telling...
MrMickeysMom
(20,453 posts)Release the fucking dogs, why don't you?
You can keep up the non sequesters and other red herrings you hurl at stuff you don't bother to read, or just pick up a book and read.
Reading is good, Dithers... Open up your tired eyes.
SidDithers
(44,333 posts)
Sid
RobertEarl
(13,685 posts)So you disagree with the RFK Jr. idea that ingesting or having mercury injected into a body is bad?
Some might think you are arguing that mercury is good for a person. RFK Jr. is saying mercury is bad for the human body. Surely you agree that mercury is bad for a body. So why would you post such a thing?
SidDithers
(44,333 posts)and think that mercury in vaccines causes autism.
Golly, what a strange belief.
Sid
RobertEarl
(13,685 posts)But I think that you think mercury is ok to put in people's bodies.
RFK Jr. and I and quite a few others understand that mercury is not good in a person's body. Surprised you might support mercury being put in bodies.
Maybe you don't, but think if big medicine says it is ok, it must be ok?
SidDithers
(44,333 posts)where did I say anything about mercury being good for you?
I don't even think I said that RFK Jr. thought mercury in vaccines was bad for you. I said that RFK Jr. thought mercury in vaccines causes autism.
So, what you're saying is that you agree with me that RFK Jr. is wrong about mercury in vaccines causing autism.
Sid
RobertEarl
(13,685 posts)We know it is bad for a person. And we know that one thing leads to another in bodies that are not completely understood.
What i see from your post about RFK Jr. is an unsubstantiated cheap shot.
A cheap shot against someone who is looking out for the best interest of children as opposed to those who just want to make a buck.
But hey, you want to make a thread about how much you know about mercury and autism and how you are certain that there is no correlation between mercury in vaccines and autism, you are free to do so. But I have a feeling your cheap shot here is all you will deliver, eh?
SidDithers
(44,333 posts)and who haven't developed autism are a pretty clear indication that mercury in vaccines doesn't cause autism.
But you can keep supporting RFK Jr, and Andrew Wakefield and Jenny McCarthy. I'll go with science, thanks.
Sid
RobertEarl
(13,685 posts)Post an OP about your findings if you are so sure that you feel you can attack RFK Jr.
The science is not settled on the matter as far as I know. And I tend to believe RFK Jr. over someone like you who is an anonymous. And also tend to question big pharma, who has been known to kill people with their products just to make a few extra bucks. Whom, I would surmise, are quite happy that you'd defend.
SidDithers
(44,333 posts)I'm sure you've got just tons of links to peer-reviewed studies that back up that claim. Why don't you go ahead and post some of them.
In the meantime:
Health Canada: http://www.phac-aspc.gc.ca/im/q_a_thimerosal-eng.php
FDA: http://www.fda.gov/BiologicsBloodVaccines/SafetyAvailability/VaccineSafety/UCM096228
CDC: http://www.cdc.gov/vaccinesafety/concerns/thimerosal/
WHO: http://www.who.int/vaccine_safety/committee/topics/thiomersal/Jun_2012/en/index.html
AAP: http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/content/131/1/149.full
I look forward to your links. Please don't waste our time with Wakefield, or anything from the Geiers.
Sid
RobertEarl
(13,685 posts)Mercury has been removed from many vaccines. That is proof right there they found putting mercury in vaccines was a huge mistake, otherwise they would have kept using it in all vaccines. Way to go Sid, you just proved RFK Jr. has a good pattern of thinking and RFK Jr. is backed up by the evidence that mercury has been removed from most vaccines for over a decade!
You know as well as anyone such a huge costly process does not happen without VERY good reasons whether they want to let us in on the secret or not. But it is no secret, mercury in vaccines has been almost eliminated.
SidDithers
(44,333 posts)The WHO and AAP are recommending putting thimerosal back into vaccines.
In fact, I'm beginning to doubt your knowledge of chemistry, too. You do know that thimerosal is a compound of mercury, don't you?
I only wish that these replies to this month-old post were kicking it back up to the top of GD, so that a whole bunch of posters could see how badly misinformed you are in your belief that vaccines cause autism.
Sid
RobertEarl
(13,685 posts)Seems when they pack a bunch of vaccine doses in one bottle the vaccine can become contaminated by fungus or viruses. So now that they have admitted a problem with that and have moved to single doses. They find they do not need thimerosal in single doses, just in the multiple dose containers.
But, the question is... what hare-brained chemist/scientist/medicine man first convinced them they needed to remove thimerosal from the vaccines to start with? Huh? Why'd they do that? Are they admitting to a mistake?
Those scientists made a mistake? Are you going to sit there and tell us scientists made a mistake by forcing the REMOVAL of mercury from vaccines? Of course you are. Because you think they made a mistake.
Imagine that, a big mistake, according to those experts.
SidDithers
(44,333 posts)you gonna be much longer with those?
Sid
RobertEarl
(13,685 posts)They removed the stuff from vaccines years ago. Before you were even Sid on DU. Hell, before there was even a DU, they removed it from most vaccines. What, you don't trust that decision?
Isn't your schtick trusting decisions made by those who claim to be the experts? My Gosh, you must be feeling bad they made a decision that you now, yourself, Sid, thinks was wrong. Who can you trust, if the very same people you trust are now claiming they made a mistake?
Like I says, given that they are going back and forth on a decision made years ago, the science is not settled. How can you argue that? They are going back and forth, you yourself even proved it right here and now.
SidDithers
(44,333 posts)So, no studies?
Fact is, the science is settled. Thimerosal does not cause autism.
It doesn't matter how much you, or Andrew Wakefield, or Jenny McCarthy or RFK Jr. wishes it did. The science says it doesn't.
Everything else you've posted in this thread is just noise, intended to distract from the only point I made about RFK Jr.
He, and you, believe that mercury in vaccines causes autism. It doesn't. Period. End of story.
Sid
RobertEarl
(13,685 posts)But the science back then, pre-DU Sid, said otherwise. Remove mercury from vaccines, said the science. And they did.
Or are you saying they did not base their decision on science? Of course not. Of course the removal was based on science.
What you have proven here, and thanks for your diligence, is that they once decided, over a decade ago, to remove thimerosal from vaccines, but now some scientist are arguing that that decision was a mistake. Is there a better word for all this back and forth, than unsettled?
I know it hurts to have trust in these people be eroded. Any way I can help to ease the pain is offered. I've been where you are now.
SidDithers
(44,333 posts)in your twisted logic, removing thimerosal from vaccines proves that thimerosal causes autism, because it wouldn't have been removed from vaccines if it didn't cause autism.
You're really not making any sense at all, you know that, right?
Sid
RobertEarl
(13,685 posts)I don't know how they arrived at the decision that thimerosal should be removed, but there must have been compelling reasons to do so. Because they sure as heck did.
And now there are some compelling reasons being made to reintroduce it.
That's what we know.
If you read what RFK Jr. is saying about the decision to remove thimerasol from vaccines, it isn't just autism that concerns him and others. It is the whole idea of putting mercury into vaccines and the host of problems mercury can cause. And that since they DID remove it, his point has a very large, science based foundation.
I noticed that you have not been using science and facts in this discussion and begun to make personal attacks on me. You do know what that means, right?
AntiFascist
(13,751 posts)Do you have anything negative to say about RFK Jr.'s father? After all, RFK Senior is the one who questioned the validity of the Warren Report, not just according to his son, but also others who were close to him.
MrMickeysMom
(20,453 posts)You can look forward to illogical fallacies and emoticons, me thinks.
Archae
(47,245 posts)And conspiracy theory material.
It's also been hashed over before.
Besides, all the *CREDIBLE* evidence says Lee Harvey Oswald shot Kennedy, and two airliners brought down the WTC.
"JFK" and "Loose Change" are 99.999% fiction.
