While he did visit the family whose child died with measles, he has visited FAR more families whose children have been gravely injured or who have died from vaccines. He has not forgotten them, and he knows too much. It is the same reasoning as a life-long believer in Christ who has done the research -- all the evidence -- and knows beyond a reasonable doubt that the Christian religion is true and God is real. I know too much to ever turn my back. Yes, I may disagree with our Lord and His timing or decision on things: I may even be bitterly mad at Him and want to leave, but in the end, where else can I go? It is the same question the disciples asked when they were confronted with hard truths. So I am comforted by the fact that Kennedy knows too much about the dangers of vaccine to ever go back or compromise doing what he knows to be right. Some have attributed his seeming lack of action about this issue to the possibility that his life has been threatened or that of his family has -- perhaps. (I mean I also am questioning why at least the Covid shot is not off the market or at least paused at this point.) But he has come too far to not trust God on this. I think it is the same with Trump. Kennedy says he has gotten down on his knees every day asking for an opportunity to right things. Trump nearly was taken out. I believe that both have been changed, and there is no going back. Both have been emboldened. So I am content, at this point, to wait it out and continue to pray that in the right timing, real change will come.
I don't care if he said the mmr is the most effective way to prevent measles. He still has my support. We should not be so thin skinned that we can't handle the conversation. It's still a person's choice, and that's where the conversation needs to go. Give people the choice. That's it.
I will say that, FOR ME, Bobby's statement did not feel like a recommendation to go out and get the shot. So maybe, instead of a -1 score, it should just be a neutral 0 score for that point.
Or maybe even a +1? To me, it feels more like he is making the vaccine easily available to anyone who wants it -- and for SOME PEOPLE, there may indeed be compelling reasons to get it.
But that's between them and their doctors. I sure as heck don't want to take away their choices.
I know. I'm saying that he is not pulling the vaccine off the market because many people want it, and some people may have a compelling reason to get it. If he pulls it off the market, and someone in Texas (where there are outbreaks) about to start chemotherapy (so, majorly immunocompromised) wants to get the vaccine, but can't if it's pulled off the market, then HE will be responsible if that person gets measles and suffers greatly or even dies.
Also, my understanding is that homeschoolers in California do have a choice.
I wish more in the freedom community were as balanced as you, in regards to this situation. I have a feeling any promises made during the confirmation hearings may be a big reason as to why we are seeing those kinds of statements.
THANK YOU SO MUCH FOR THESE ASSESSMENTS. It’s so valuable. I’ve been telling anyone who will listen that he’s our best shot, but that we have to keep all eyes ON.
Like you say, it’s business as usual for the rest of us …
"He included this statement, "The most effective way to prevent the spread of measles is the MMR vaccine." Now this is a 100% factually true statement. Both wild measles and vaccine strain measles, are the measles. Both can cause the exact same damage, but this is not a statement about safety, he made a statement about efficacy. And is is a true statement. The wild measles spreads much more quickly and far reaching then any case of vaccine strain measles that I have ever heard of."
What evidence do you have for anything in this paragraph - including contagion, the existence of a pathogenic particle which causes disease (whether "wild" or otherwise), even a clinically consistent definition of measles (compared to other skin "diseases")?
Virology is a massive fraud and vaccines are useless poisons. THAT is a 100% true statement.
When we have found cases of vaccine strain measles there are no one around them catching measles. This is true of the 2003 case and the 2015 infant case. I have never heard of a vaccine strain measles case causing an outbreak. But of course we have never gotten all of the information that we wanted on these outbreaks. They don't report strain. However vaccine strain measles are attenuated meaning that they have been run through animal cells repeatedly until they are far less adaptive to humans than they are to the animal cells they will run through. Which is why they are much less likely to cause symptomatic cases of measles whereas wild stream measles usually does cause symptom Of a fever and a rash etc. If you have evidence of vaccine straights measles outbreak I am all ears. Please send me the information.
Interesting, because in every publicized outbreak I have read that it WAS vax-strain measles that was circulating, and that wild measles was not the culprit. I don't have cites at my fingertips; I'm only saying it was in all the alt sources consistently (Highwire, for one; Disneyland's cases a while back, from memory).
But as to this writing, I can say the following. The best way to prevent the spread of measles is a vaccine that wreaks massive havoc on those who get it? (Vax-Unvax shows that vaccines damage health, period.) And WHY are we trying to prevent measles in the first place? Like a lifetime of immunity for most (99%+) is a bad thing? Or protection against at least certain cancers isn't something good?
Also: mom's immunity passed on is only necessary for the first year, maybe two (correct the number if way off, please). So 6- and 8-year olds are capable of handling the infection, so long as there isn't medical error, or a vitamin A deficiency. So the mom-immunity-conferred thing is irrelevant to the two cases discussed. No?
If you believe in viruses you are suffering from a thought disorder and/or denying and IGNORing that there is zero evidence of the existence of any virus.
For the sake of TRUTH and sanity, please watch this.
Have you ever discussed John Enders 1954 measles cell culture which proved virology to be a psudeoscience from the start.
How many children continue to be injured and killed because not enough parents have the courage to admit that they have a thought disorder and have poisoned their children based upon the psudeoscientific, religious dogma of 'contagion'.
Vaccines are pure eugenics. Eugenics is the highest level of satanism.
If he has dreams of the run for potus in 2028 he needs to make sure his base will back him up. So I feel that the end of the prep act must happen sooner then later. Granted if he is immediately sacked by Trump. We will know who was behind that, and that might get him elected.
I never thought this would be easy or quick. It will be incremental. There will be tons of roadblocks.
We need to toughen up and have more patience. There may be more things said along the way that appear counterintuitive. Be prepared. I think there is a plan. You can’t execute the plan unless you’re in the game.
But we will get there. Bobby knows the harms. I trust him. He’s not playing a political game for future political reasons. He’s up against monumental obstacles
Thanks, that's a reasonable perspective. There's no comfort though. The longer these harmful products are sold, the more kids will be hurt and killed. CPS kidnaps children for not vaccinating. Courts use the CDC schedule to coerce and order parents to harm their children. Abusers see this and use it in court. This is urgent. We need to change government policies so the default is not harming children.
Great recap of the situation! I think the biggest disappointment for me with this is that more facts were not stated by him. My thoughts:
1.) I guess the medical details of the 2 children cannot be shared publicly? It would be useful to have the full story. Not only to help parents make educated decisions, but also to tame the fear response.
2.) Including general healthy habits to support the immune system would have been nice.
3.) Stats on how many of the cases were vaccinated vs not would have been useful, plus effectiveness of the vaccine. Also, how many kids vs adults diagnosed. He can make a general statement too, like for side effects, see the vaccine insert. The fact that he did none of these things, makes me think he’s on a short leash.
1. One of the families has already released the medical records and there are several videos on children's health defense website D interviews with them. I have not heard anything about the second family releasing their records.
2. Great point he could have used that as a lesson as wel.
3. Absolutely. And I'm still hoping that will be forthcoming.
Yes, at the very minimum he should have told parents to be informed by reading the package insert. That's not too much to expect from him, even this early in the game.
Stop calling him or any other politician by a first name. Thomas Sheridan has been railing about that practice and I think he’s right. No shade if you’re using voice to text and RFK Jr doesn’t scribe correctly, but please “find and change” at the end…. And if I’m offering to help proof to help you make that happen, so be it. You have my number.
Again reminding my rears that I am recovering from a stroke. I am not typing in Robert F. Kennedy junior. I am not going to go back and do a global replace. I use voice to text and it's a big deal for me to go back and even correct tha. So love me where I am. We managed to be patient with our children who have communication disorders I hope that you can be patient with my new communication disorder. Bobby will not take offense by me calling him by his first name. Everyone who has worked with him calls him by his first name.
The most important thing to worry about is getting him to act in the public interest, and calling him by his first name works contrary to that goal, as I expounded upon in my follow-up comment. Suppose any one from big pharma is calling him “Bobby”? So far, has he been serving big pharma? Why, he most certainly has. Do you think that’s a coincidence? I doubt it is.
" Suppose any one from big pharma is calling him “Bobby”?" yes.
Again he tells everyone to call him Bobby. Senator Bernie Sanders called him Bobby during the hearings from the dais. please refer to my ex thread to see h....he has taken actions that harm pharma. https://x.com/CombatingAutism/status/1907470438856311059
I don’t mean any harm and maybe had I not been up all night last night and penned that immediately with whatever communication deficiencies I have, too, it would have been better received.
But, here’s the fact. We are in the midst of a spiritual war. And whether anyone likes it or not, we are all practicing “magic” all the time. And words cast spells. My pointing this out has absolutely nothing to do with whether he might be offended. I’m almost certain he can’t be offended, and if I never hear back from him from reaching out to him when I did years ago, it will be hard for me to believe he is actually on our side as mothers who see and have experienced the profound dangers and genocidal nature of vaccinations, which have always existed. I do hold out some small hope he is on our side and I will, in fact, hear from him eventually. Unless his website and team didn’t capture my communication in the first place.
I’ve asked Thomas to explain succinctly why he says to avoid calling politicians by their first names, he hasn’t responded yet and may not. In the meantime I’ve asked chat GPT, posted as follows
No shade intended at all Ginger, I love and respect you and I am, for sure, on the side of you and all the children of the world that we want to protect from harm. Truly.
why does thomas sheridan say not to call.politicians by their first names
DuckAssist:
Thomas Sheridan argues that calling politicians by their first names can undermine the seriousness of their roles and responsibilities, suggesting it may lead to a lack of respect for the office they hold. He believes that using formal titles helps maintain a necessary distance and accountability in political discourse.
Thomas Sheridan, a political commentator and author, has expressed views on the importance of maintaining a certain level of formality and respect in political discourse. One of his points is that addressing politicians by their first names can diminish the gravity of their positions and the responsibilities that come with them. Here are some key reasons he might advocate for this stance:
1. **Respect for the Office**: Using formal titles like "Mr." or "Ms." followed by the last name acknowledges the position and the authority that comes with it. This formality helps to maintain a sense of respect for the office itself, rather than just the individual holding it.
2. **Maintaining Distance**: Formal address can create a necessary distance between the politician and the public. This distance can help ensure that interactions remain professional and that decisions are made with the public interest in mind, rather than being influenced by personal relationships.
3. **Accountability**: When politicians are addressed formally, it can serve as a reminder of their accountability to the public. It helps to keep the focus on their actions and decisions, rather than on their personal characteristics.
4. **Seriousness of Role**: Using first names can sometimes trivialise the seriousness of the role. Politicians hold significant power and influence, and addressing them formally can help underscore the importance of their positions and the weight of their decisions.
5. **Historical and Cultural Norms**: In many cultures and historical contexts, formal address has been a standard practice in political and professional settings. Sheridan might argue that maintaining these norms helps to preserve a sense of tradition and continuity in governance.
6. **Avoiding Familiarity**: Familiarity can breed complacency. By maintaining a formal address, the public can avoid becoming too casual or complacent in their interactions with politicians, which can help ensure that politicians remain focused on their duties and responsibilities.
Sheridan's views reflect a broader concern about the erosion of respect and formality in public discourse, which he believes can have negative consequences for the functioning of democratic institutions. By advocating for formal address, he aims to promote a more respectful and accountable political culture.
well stated, its a game of chess, they are trying hard to take down RFKjr,
and he knows how they play the game, hence the wait continues.....................
While he did visit the family whose child died with measles, he has visited FAR more families whose children have been gravely injured or who have died from vaccines. He has not forgotten them, and he knows too much. It is the same reasoning as a life-long believer in Christ who has done the research -- all the evidence -- and knows beyond a reasonable doubt that the Christian religion is true and God is real. I know too much to ever turn my back. Yes, I may disagree with our Lord and His timing or decision on things: I may even be bitterly mad at Him and want to leave, but in the end, where else can I go? It is the same question the disciples asked when they were confronted with hard truths. So I am comforted by the fact that Kennedy knows too much about the dangers of vaccine to ever go back or compromise doing what he knows to be right. Some have attributed his seeming lack of action about this issue to the possibility that his life has been threatened or that of his family has -- perhaps. (I mean I also am questioning why at least the Covid shot is not off the market or at least paused at this point.) But he has come too far to not trust God on this. I think it is the same with Trump. Kennedy says he has gotten down on his knees every day asking for an opportunity to right things. Trump nearly was taken out. I believe that both have been changed, and there is no going back. Both have been emboldened. So I am content, at this point, to wait it out and continue to pray that in the right timing, real change will come.
The long wait continues…..
I don't care if he said the mmr is the most effective way to prevent measles. He still has my support. We should not be so thin skinned that we can't handle the conversation. It's still a person's choice, and that's where the conversation needs to go. Give people the choice. That's it.
No it's not a choice. It's mandated to varying degrees across the country. If there were no mandates, his chess-words wouldn't matter so much.
Well said, Ginger!!
I will say that, FOR ME, Bobby's statement did not feel like a recommendation to go out and get the shot. So maybe, instead of a -1 score, it should just be a neutral 0 score for that point.
Or maybe even a +1? To me, it feels more like he is making the vaccine easily available to anyone who wants it -- and for SOME PEOPLE, there may indeed be compelling reasons to get it.
But that's between them and their doctors. I sure as heck don't want to take away their choices.
Kids in California don't have a choice. Clinical nursing students don't have a choice.
I know. I'm saying that he is not pulling the vaccine off the market because many people want it, and some people may have a compelling reason to get it. If he pulls it off the market, and someone in Texas (where there are outbreaks) about to start chemotherapy (so, majorly immunocompromised) wants to get the vaccine, but can't if it's pulled off the market, then HE will be responsible if that person gets measles and suffers greatly or even dies.
Also, my understanding is that homeschoolers in California do have a choice.
I wish more in the freedom community were as balanced as you, in regards to this situation. I have a feeling any promises made during the confirmation hearings may be a big reason as to why we are seeing those kinds of statements.
THANK YOU SO MUCH FOR THESE ASSESSMENTS. It’s so valuable. I’ve been telling anyone who will listen that he’s our best shot, but that we have to keep all eyes ON.
Like you say, it’s business as usual for the rest of us …
Wonder how may of the 642 measles cases were MMR VACCINATED!? & it's Politcal again.... RFK Knows that MMR is uselsss doesnt he?
Thank you, Ginger.
He’s in the belly of the beast…
"He included this statement, "The most effective way to prevent the spread of measles is the MMR vaccine." Now this is a 100% factually true statement. Both wild measles and vaccine strain measles, are the measles. Both can cause the exact same damage, but this is not a statement about safety, he made a statement about efficacy. And is is a true statement. The wild measles spreads much more quickly and far reaching then any case of vaccine strain measles that I have ever heard of."
What evidence do you have for anything in this paragraph - including contagion, the existence of a pathogenic particle which causes disease (whether "wild" or otherwise), even a clinically consistent definition of measles (compared to other skin "diseases")?
Virology is a massive fraud and vaccines are useless poisons. THAT is a 100% true statement.
When we have found cases of vaccine strain measles there are no one around them catching measles. This is true of the 2003 case and the 2015 infant case. I have never heard of a vaccine strain measles case causing an outbreak. But of course we have never gotten all of the information that we wanted on these outbreaks. They don't report strain. However vaccine strain measles are attenuated meaning that they have been run through animal cells repeatedly until they are far less adaptive to humans than they are to the animal cells they will run through. Which is why they are much less likely to cause symptomatic cases of measles whereas wild stream measles usually does cause symptom Of a fever and a rash etc. If you have evidence of vaccine straights measles outbreak I am all ears. Please send me the information.
Interesting, because in every publicized outbreak I have read that it WAS vax-strain measles that was circulating, and that wild measles was not the culprit. I don't have cites at my fingertips; I'm only saying it was in all the alt sources consistently (Highwire, for one; Disneyland's cases a while back, from memory).
But as to this writing, I can say the following. The best way to prevent the spread of measles is a vaccine that wreaks massive havoc on those who get it? (Vax-Unvax shows that vaccines damage health, period.) And WHY are we trying to prevent measles in the first place? Like a lifetime of immunity for most (99%+) is a bad thing? Or protection against at least certain cancers isn't something good?
Also: mom's immunity passed on is only necessary for the first year, maybe two (correct the number if way off, please). So 6- and 8-year olds are capable of handling the infection, so long as there isn't medical error, or a vitamin A deficiency. So the mom-immunity-conferred thing is irrelevant to the two cases discussed. No?
If you believe in viruses you are suffering from a thought disorder and/or denying and IGNORing that there is zero evidence of the existence of any virus.
For the sake of TRUTH and sanity, please watch this.
https://rumble.com/v6rcies-viruses-arent-real.-why-dr.-tom-cowan-says-everything-we-know-is-fake.html?e9s=src_v1_ucp
Everything she said here is categorically false.
You have set yourself a very high burden of proof here. But if you would like to prove false every single thing I've written go for it.
The burden of proof is on anyone claiming that viruses exist and are contagious. A negative cannot be proven.
There's also the unrefuted 'farewell to virology ' dissertation by Dr Mark Bailey.
https://tinyurl.com/bp69mere
Have you ever publicly discussed the 100 failed attempts at human experimentation of attempting to prove contagion, which failed every time?
https://www.amazon.co.uk/Can-You-Catch-Cold-Experiments/dp/1763504409
Have you ever discussed John Enders 1954 measles cell culture which proved virology to be a psudeoscience from the start.
How many children continue to be injured and killed because not enough parents have the courage to admit that they have a thought disorder and have poisoned their children based upon the psudeoscientific, religious dogma of 'contagion'.
Vaccines are pure eugenics. Eugenics is the highest level of satanism.
https://www.markpassio.com/news/840-watch-mark-passios-presentation-de-facto-satanism
If he has dreams of the run for potus in 2028 he needs to make sure his base will back him up. So I feel that the end of the prep act must happen sooner then later. Granted if he is immediately sacked by Trump. We will know who was behind that, and that might get him elected.
I never thought this would be easy or quick. It will be incremental. There will be tons of roadblocks.
We need to toughen up and have more patience. There may be more things said along the way that appear counterintuitive. Be prepared. I think there is a plan. You can’t execute the plan unless you’re in the game.
But we will get there. Bobby knows the harms. I trust him. He’s not playing a political game for future political reasons. He’s up against monumental obstacles
Thanks, that's a reasonable perspective. There's no comfort though. The longer these harmful products are sold, the more kids will be hurt and killed. CPS kidnaps children for not vaccinating. Courts use the CDC schedule to coerce and order parents to harm their children. Abusers see this and use it in court. This is urgent. We need to change government policies so the default is not harming children.
Thank you. Well-said.
Great recap of the situation! I think the biggest disappointment for me with this is that more facts were not stated by him. My thoughts:
1.) I guess the medical details of the 2 children cannot be shared publicly? It would be useful to have the full story. Not only to help parents make educated decisions, but also to tame the fear response.
2.) Including general healthy habits to support the immune system would have been nice.
3.) Stats on how many of the cases were vaccinated vs not would have been useful, plus effectiveness of the vaccine. Also, how many kids vs adults diagnosed. He can make a general statement too, like for side effects, see the vaccine insert. The fact that he did none of these things, makes me think he’s on a short leash.
1. One of the families has already released the medical records and there are several videos on children's health defense website D interviews with them. I have not heard anything about the second family releasing their records.
2. Great point he could have used that as a lesson as wel.
3. Absolutely. And I'm still hoping that will be forthcoming.
Yes, at the very minimum he should have told parents to be informed by reading the package insert. That's not too much to expect from him, even this early in the game.
Stop calling him or any other politician by a first name. Thomas Sheridan has been railing about that practice and I think he’s right. No shade if you’re using voice to text and RFK Jr doesn’t scribe correctly, but please “find and change” at the end…. And if I’m offering to help proof to help you make that happen, so be it. You have my number.
Again reminding my rears that I am recovering from a stroke. I am not typing in Robert F. Kennedy junior. I am not going to go back and do a global replace. I use voice to text and it's a big deal for me to go back and even correct tha. So love me where I am. We managed to be patient with our children who have communication disorders I hope that you can be patient with my new communication disorder. Bobby will not take offense by me calling him by his first name. Everyone who has worked with him calls him by his first name.
THAT'S What you took from this article to worry about? There's a lot more important things in here to think about 🙄🙄
The most important thing to worry about is getting him to act in the public interest, and calling him by his first name works contrary to that goal, as I expounded upon in my follow-up comment. Suppose any one from big pharma is calling him “Bobby”? So far, has he been serving big pharma? Why, he most certainly has. Do you think that’s a coincidence? I doubt it is.
" Suppose any one from big pharma is calling him “Bobby”?" yes.
Again he tells everyone to call him Bobby. Senator Bernie Sanders called him Bobby during the hearings from the dais. please refer to my ex thread to see h....he has taken actions that harm pharma. https://x.com/CombatingAutism/status/1907470438856311059
Can you explain why you think we shouldn't call politicians by their first names?
I don’t mean any harm and maybe had I not been up all night last night and penned that immediately with whatever communication deficiencies I have, too, it would have been better received.
But, here’s the fact. We are in the midst of a spiritual war. And whether anyone likes it or not, we are all practicing “magic” all the time. And words cast spells. My pointing this out has absolutely nothing to do with whether he might be offended. I’m almost certain he can’t be offended, and if I never hear back from him from reaching out to him when I did years ago, it will be hard for me to believe he is actually on our side as mothers who see and have experienced the profound dangers and genocidal nature of vaccinations, which have always existed. I do hold out some small hope he is on our side and I will, in fact, hear from him eventually. Unless his website and team didn’t capture my communication in the first place.
I’ve asked Thomas to explain succinctly why he says to avoid calling politicians by their first names, he hasn’t responded yet and may not. In the meantime I’ve asked chat GPT, posted as follows
No shade intended at all Ginger, I love and respect you and I am, for sure, on the side of you and all the children of the world that we want to protect from harm. Truly.
This conversation was generated with Duck.ai (https://duck.ai) using Mistral AI's Mistral Small 3 Model. AI chats may display inaccurate or offensive information (see https://duckduckgo.com/duckai/privacy-terms for more info).
====================
User prompt 1 of 2:
why does thomas sheridan say not to call.politicians by their first names
DuckAssist:
Thomas Sheridan argues that calling politicians by their first names can undermine the seriousness of their roles and responsibilities, suggesting it may lead to a lack of respect for the office they hold. He believes that using formal titles helps maintain a necessary distance and accountability in political discourse.
Relevant sources:
- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Brinsley_Sheridan
- https://www.hotpress.com/opinion/fluoride-interview-with-thomas-sheridan-10992673
--------------------
User prompt 2 of 2 - 4/7/2025, 6:17:35 PM:
Can you elaborate
Mistral Small 3:
Thomas Sheridan, a political commentator and author, has expressed views on the importance of maintaining a certain level of formality and respect in political discourse. One of his points is that addressing politicians by their first names can diminish the gravity of their positions and the responsibilities that come with them. Here are some key reasons he might advocate for this stance:
1. **Respect for the Office**: Using formal titles like "Mr." or "Ms." followed by the last name acknowledges the position and the authority that comes with it. This formality helps to maintain a sense of respect for the office itself, rather than just the individual holding it.
2. **Maintaining Distance**: Formal address can create a necessary distance between the politician and the public. This distance can help ensure that interactions remain professional and that decisions are made with the public interest in mind, rather than being influenced by personal relationships.
3. **Accountability**: When politicians are addressed formally, it can serve as a reminder of their accountability to the public. It helps to keep the focus on their actions and decisions, rather than on their personal characteristics.
4. **Seriousness of Role**: Using first names can sometimes trivialise the seriousness of the role. Politicians hold significant power and influence, and addressing them formally can help underscore the importance of their positions and the weight of their decisions.
5. **Historical and Cultural Norms**: In many cultures and historical contexts, formal address has been a standard practice in political and professional settings. Sheridan might argue that maintaining these norms helps to preserve a sense of tradition and continuity in governance.
6. **Avoiding Familiarity**: Familiarity can breed complacency. By maintaining a formal address, the public can avoid becoming too casual or complacent in their interactions with politicians, which can help ensure that politicians remain focused on their duties and responsibilities.
Sheridan's views reflect a broader concern about the erosion of respect and formality in public discourse, which he believes can have negative consequences for the functioning of democratic institutions. By advocating for formal address, he aims to promote a more respectful and accountable political culture.