CIRCLE WITH A DOT

@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>

@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?