Just so EVERYONE understands this:
-
Just so EVERYONE understands this:
Moderna has a flu shot. It works. It works well. It is safe. It is safe in people with compromised immune systems (like cancer patients!).
Trump’s nutjob at FDA, Robert F. Kennedy Jr., appears to have ordered FDA to refuse to even accept the application to review the shot for approval.
RFK wants to kill your grandma. Fuck RFK.
@mcnado MADA : Make America Dead on Arrival.
-
Just so EVERYONE understands this:
Moderna has a flu shot. It works. It works well. It is safe. It is safe in people with compromised immune systems (like cancer patients!).
Trump’s nutjob at FDA, Robert F. Kennedy Jr., appears to have ordered FDA to refuse to even accept the application to review the shot for approval.
RFK wants to kill your grandma. Fuck RFK.
@mcnado “wants to kill your grandma”—(raises hand—that’d be me, huh?)
Why kill grandmas, you might ask?
We’re on social security.
We use Medicare.
We might live in a house (lookin’ at you, Sec Bessent—ahem!)Now imagine millions of us die
less social security to pay out
less Medicare to pay for
more houses on the marketI’ve never felt so determined to live to be 100+
-
@petealexharris oui, ça ne fait pas longtemps que je me suis inscrit. je ne connaissais même pas mastodon la semaine dernière.
-
Just so EVERYONE understands this:
Moderna has a flu shot. It works. It works well. It is safe. It is safe in people with compromised immune systems (like cancer patients!).
Trump’s nutjob at FDA, Robert F. Kennedy Jr., appears to have ordered FDA to refuse to even accept the application to review the shot for approval.
RFK wants to kill your grandma. Fuck RFK.
@mcnado Let's hope Moderna still goes to the EU for approval.
-
@mcnado “wants to kill your grandma”—(raises hand—that’d be me, huh?)
Why kill grandmas, you might ask?
We’re on social security.
We use Medicare.
We might live in a house (lookin’ at you, Sec Bessent—ahem!)Now imagine millions of us die
less social security to pay out
less Medicare to pay for
more houses on the marketI’ve never felt so determined to live to be 100+
@grammasaurus @mcnado Uff. I actually never thought about the Medicare and house part. That really hits...
And it's just pure logic evilness. As can be expected of those people currently in charge in the US...
-
@mcnado Your thread revealed two anti-vaxxers I was pleased to block. Other Kennedy family members should do more to publicly condemn RFK, Jr’s nonsense on a regular basis.
At least on my instance, disinformation about public health is a violation of server rules, so it's worth looking into if you can report them before you block them.
-
@mcnado probably has access to an evidenced case that RFK's policy is dangerous, misguided, and wicked. (Whether mcnado can articulate that case in another matter.)
But I see no evidence that RFK actively wants to kill anyone's granny.
This sort of hyperbolic falsehood is used by both sides of the #vaccine wars. So I disengage
@2legged @mcnado
MRNA vaccines have been proven to work for people who are otherwise unable to take vaccines. Many of these people are grannies.
Refusing to allow MRNA vaccines to be studied (after they have proven to be effective) means that RFK is actively cutting off ways to prevent people being killed by disease.So...At best he doesn't care if grannies die, as long as it's in service of not further testing MRNA vaccines, and he's doing this while taking actions which all available evidence shows will raise grannies' chance of death.
That's close enough for me. Is there a leap in logic that I missed? At the very worst I see slightly exaggerated representation of the truth. Where is the falsehood on the side of vaccines?
-
@2legged @mcnado
MRNA vaccines have been proven to work for people who are otherwise unable to take vaccines. Many of these people are grannies.
Refusing to allow MRNA vaccines to be studied (after they have proven to be effective) means that RFK is actively cutting off ways to prevent people being killed by disease.So...At best he doesn't care if grannies die, as long as it's in service of not further testing MRNA vaccines, and he's doing this while taking actions which all available evidence shows will raise grannies' chance of death.
That's close enough for me. Is there a leap in logic that I missed? At the very worst I see slightly exaggerated representation of the truth. Where is the falsehood on the side of vaccines?
@yesh Tthat's a very longwinded way of confirming that as I suspected, there is no evidence that RFK wants to kill grannies.
You seem to have retreated from @mcnado's claims, to a charge of reckless endangerment. That is a very different matter to an active desire to kill.
The failure to respect such distinctions is part of the hyperbolic propaganda which has spewed from both sides of the vaccine debates nearly for two centuries. This is a good illustration of how little has changed.
-
Just so EVERYONE understands this:
Moderna has a flu shot. It works. It works well. It is safe. It is safe in people with compromised immune systems (like cancer patients!).
Trump’s nutjob at FDA, Robert F. Kennedy Jr., appears to have ordered FDA to refuse to even accept the application to review the shot for approval.
RFK wants to kill your grandma. Fuck RFK.
@mcnado Not just my grandma.
-
Big surprise they created the Death Panels they screeched about.
But with just the 1 guy. -
@yesh Tthat's a very longwinded way of confirming that as I suspected, there is no evidence that RFK wants to kill grannies.
You seem to have retreated from @mcnado's claims, to a charge of reckless endangerment. That is a very different matter to an active desire to kill.
The failure to respect such distinctions is part of the hyperbolic propaganda which has spewed from both sides of the vaccine debates nearly for two centuries. This is a good illustration of how little has changed.
@2legged
Your answer, basically
1) 'You used too many words and retreated from @mcnado's position',
2) 'reckless endangerment isn't as bad as murder', and
3) 'both sides are bad'
Short answer? 'As if that makes it okay!?!'Long answers:
1) I replied to a post and made my own claim. The 'change' to my position was to make it known. That is not a retreat.
RFK has been shown evidence that more grannies are likely to die if we disallow MRNA vaccine approval going through a scientific process.
Assuming RFK wants to do what he does… with no hyperbole we see: RFK's desire not to endanger grannies is weaker than his desire to kill MRNA vaccines' approval.2) Heads of HHS shouldn't kill at a population level by way of reckless endangerment either.
3)@mcnado at _worst_ exaggerated, and the effect is RFK could hear about it and feel bad.
Can you show me an anti-vax position which does as little harm? Can you show me you publicly criticizing anti-vax beyond 'both sides' critiques?
'Both sides are bad' <thbbptttttt> -
@mcnado probably has access to an evidenced case that RFK's policy is dangerous, misguided, and wicked. (Whether mcnado can articulate that case in another matter.)
But I see no evidence that RFK actively wants to kill anyone's granny.
This sort of hyperbolic falsehood is used by both sides of the #vaccine wars. So I disengage
-
@mcnado probably has access to an evidenced case that RFK's policy is dangerous, misguided, and wicked. (Whether mcnado can articulate that case in another matter.)
But I see no evidence that RFK actively wants to kill anyone's granny.
This sort of hyperbolic falsehood is used by both sides of the #vaccine wars. So I disengage
-
@mcnado probably has access to an evidenced case that RFK's policy is dangerous, misguided, and wicked. (Whether mcnado can articulate that case in another matter.)
But I see no evidence that RFK actively wants to kill anyone's granny.
This sort of hyperbolic falsehood is used by both sides of the #vaccine wars. So I disengage
@2legged that’s some semantic dumbfuckery bothsidesing. Get wrecked.
-
@mcnado Do you think it would do any good to write our congress people about this?
@freyjfreyj won’t hurt
-
@2legged that’s some semantic dumbfuckery bothsidesing. Get wrecked.
-
@2legged
Your answer, basically
1) 'You used too many words and retreated from @mcnado's position',
2) 'reckless endangerment isn't as bad as murder', and
3) 'both sides are bad'
Short answer? 'As if that makes it okay!?!'Long answers:
1) I replied to a post and made my own claim. The 'change' to my position was to make it known. That is not a retreat.
RFK has been shown evidence that more grannies are likely to die if we disallow MRNA vaccine approval going through a scientific process.
Assuming RFK wants to do what he does… with no hyperbole we see: RFK's desire not to endanger grannies is weaker than his desire to kill MRNA vaccines' approval.2) Heads of HHS shouldn't kill at a population level by way of reckless endangerment either.
3)@mcnado at _worst_ exaggerated, and the effect is RFK could hear about it and feel bad.
Can you show me an anti-vax position which does as little harm? Can you show me you publicly criticizing anti-vax beyond 'both sides' critiques?
'Both sides are bad' <thbbptttttt> -
@riley @mcnado@mstdn.social Most political actions have a range of objectives and a range of consequences. Political actions require weighing a basket of objectives and consequences.
Reducing everything to a simple binary choice on one point is a lie about the nature of the decision.
-
@tonwood You and McNado assome that
1/ the consequences are understood as you understand them, and
2/ that the adverse consequence you identify are an actual goal rather than a side-effect.This is a precise mirror of the simplistic binary logic of the extremist anti-vaxxer logic that administering a vaccine with known possible side effects is evidence of a desire to kill people.
The world is more complex and nuanced than either tribe wants to acknowledge.
.
@mcnado@mstdn.social -
@riley @mcnado@mstdn.social Most political actions have a range of objectives and a range of consequences. Political actions require weighing a basket of objectives and consequences.
Reducing everything to a simple binary choice on one point is a lie about the nature of the decision.
@2legged Hey, if the right-wing politicians are completely willing to impute intent on criminal defendants on the basis of allowing crimes to happen, why shouldn't we hold them to this same standard?
