longer.blue

There are two kinds of anti-vaxxers: those who know better and are just trying to manipulate people, and those who...well, you can finish that sentence. I am no longer sure which one RFK Jr. is. But here is what I can tell you about the seemingly benign "isn't it right to question everything? sentiment that his supporters are trotting out: When someone challenges vaccine safety, they're often echoing claims that trace back to a single source: one fraudulent study in The Lancet that was later retracted. Yet this discredited paper spawned countless "do your own research" blog posts and talking points, including those repeated by RFK Jr. The scientific reality? There is zero evidence linking vaccines to autism or any claimed conditions beyond routine injection side effects. This pattern reveals a broader truth about how misinformation spreads. When challenged, supporters often retreat to "Shouldn't we be able to question everything?" The effective response is simple: "Yes. What is your question?" This cuts to the heart of an important distinction: Questioning seeks answers from qualified experts. "Calling into question" merely casts doubt. The first is genuine inquiry; the second is rhetorical manipulation. If they have real questions, they'll ask them. Then you can discuss: Who have they consulted? What did those experts say? What are their qualifications? But if they dodge these follow-ups, they're not questioning – they're just sowing doubt. Science isn't about proving yourself right. When someone refuses to accept well-established answers, they've abandoned inquiry for sophistry. Keep this in mind next time you find yourself in one of these debates – about vaccines or anything else.