Tucker (2017): “Why is questioning vaccine safety a no‑go on the left?”
RFK Jr.: “CDC is a ‘cesspool of corruption’… sells $4.1B in vaccines, spends $4.6B promoting, only $20M testing. Normal drugs get double‑blind placebo trials; for vaccines, those requirements are waived.”

That’s the core argument: show the data, don’t hide behind “trust the science.”

Mainstream fact‑checkers call this “misleading,” but their own explanations admit the uncomfortable part: many current vaccines weren’t tested vs. saline placebo; they were tested vs. earlier versions or with active comparators. Some experts now say that’s ethically preferable; others say it leaves real uncertainty about absolute risk.

On the CDC money claim, critics say the agency doesn’t “sell” vaccines. RFK’s point is structural: the CDC’s Vaccines for Children program moves ~$4B a year, the agency spends billions promoting shots, and safety testing budgets are tiny by comparison. Whether you call that “selling” or “distributing,” the incentive alignment he’s highlighting is the same.

Slapping “anti‑vaxxer” on someone doesn’t answer those design and budget questions. It just punishes the people asking for clearer, more transparent data.

If you want trust, publish the actual numbers: which vaccines had true placebo arms, for how long, what were the absolute benefits and harms by age/risk, and what post‑licensure monitoring has found.

Science is settled” is a slogan, not data. The “anti‑vaxxer” label isn’t going to cut it anymore.

Join 👉 https://t.me/RogerHodkinson