Today, Dan and Jordan review the sixth episode of Tucker Carlson's very dumb Twitter show. This installment is about how great Robert Kennedy Jr. is, but secretly may be about how one of his writers is taking a creative writing class.
And then his whole reason for being there, which was very unclear for minutes while he was out there, was to rile up the crowd by saying, it's time to bring WrestleMania to London!
Man, it would be funny if someone came out and their whole entire thing was they didn't want WrestleMania to be in London and then John Cena beats them up.
I mean, it puts together all the themes of the story.
It's successful in everything it sets out to do.
And I think, honestly, what's amazing about it is that they got away with telling one of the most, I mean, dangerous to capitalism stories that there's ever been.
Tries to free the slaves, realizes that it's actually God who has enslaved all of us, and instead of being like, okay, I'm the son of God, they kill God.
This is so much like a story of a people over-reliant upon one resource and a guy who is saying to everybody, listen.
It is a bad idea to keep doing this, and regardless of the harm it will cause, we must remove the resource entirely.
So the point is, he sets up the entirety of the people for a hundred years of extreme misery in order to free them from an evil god who tries to make them over-reliant again on a specific resource.
Yeah, no, I mean, you know, I think Martin had a sort of magic should be the shark and Jaws view of Game of Thrones where it's like, it's really there, but it's never quite, it's not like people walking around shooting thunderbolts at other people, that kind of thing, you know?
And it's not like she was talking about anything that was all that interesting.
I found it to be a dud, and so, waste of time.
Alex, while he's been in Florida, did a Q&A at the church of Pastor Howard Brown, Robert Howard Brown, whatever his name is, and that was hard to watch.
It's just I sit there in movies, and I can never have suspended disbelief because, you know, mainly the third world populations are here, and then they just think you bring babies to movies.
I might as well just, you know, move to China or move to, you know, Venezuela or something.
He's complaining about the inability to suspend disbelief to get into a movie because there are babies there, which I would argue that Alex lives in a constant state of suspended disbelief.
He sees demons everywhere he goes.
But I thought, like, oh, this is fine.
This is kind of like a trite point that he's making, and he's saying that society is deteriorating.
Because babies are movies and I'm annoyed by it.
But then bringing in third world immigrant populations as like they're the ones who bring babies to movies.
If you thought that title belonged to Donald Trump, of course it must, but go check the coverage.
Trump got a gentle scalp massage by comparison when he announced.
When Trump rolled out his presidential campaign in 2015, the New York Times waited until the 17th paragraph of the story to attack him.
But as well known as he is, the paper said at the time, Trump is also widely disliked.
Then they cited a poll to back it up.
That was the attack on Trump.
Eight years later, the Times attacked Bobby Kennedy in the very first sentence of the story.
Quote, Robert F. Kennedy Jr., the paper declared, announced a presidential campaign on Wednesday built on relitigating COVID-19 shutdowns and shaking Americans' faith in science.
And somewhat also the last time around with Tulsi, you had all of the people who were the sort of right-wing folks saying that like, oh, get Tulsi in there.
That's going to be...
She was the...
Favorite Democratic primary candidate of the right.
At the offices of National Public Radio in Washington, a full-blown Category 5 hysteria typhoon broke out.
NPR devoted an entire segment to savaging Kennedy, not just as a candidate, but as a human being.
NPR described him as someone who, for his own perverse reasons, has made, quote, debunked and false and misleading claims that undermine trust in vaccines, and who, in his spare time, Yeah.
I think I appreciate that because they've lived in an alternate reality so much that it's controlled by their own perceptions and projections, right?
If you're a Tucker listener listening to this, Then you think, yeah, Tucker is saying that NPR savaged him because we think that media networks savage people because we watch Tucker, right?
Yeah, I mean, isn't that the inverse of Tucker saying an innocuous thing with a very derisive tone of Garrison Keillor being like, and he went to the goddamn store on Wednesdays!
Obviously, Tucker is saying that RFK's ideas are evil enough to hurt people as a way of mocking the very notion that such a thing is possible, but that's really dumb.
When someone's pushing a false ideology that leads people to make misinformed and dangerous choices as it relates to their healthcare and the healthcare of, say, their children, those ideas are capable of hurting people.
This is one of the things that somebody says that I really think has to be, like, you and I both know what's going on, and my response to that is, all right, and then we stop.
Like, I can't...
If you're not going to acknowledge what you just did, there's no point in us continuing to talk, you know?
Well, yeah, I guess it wasn't all day, but it was like, you know, there were things on the weekends when people were home that, like, they listened to regularly.
So there was, like, Saturday mornings, maybe it was Sunday mornings, I can't remember the day exactly, but in the mornings there was What Do You Know with Michael Feldman.
There was a fun quiz-type game show thing.
And then there was Prairie Home Companion.
And then in the evening, there was Celtic Connections and Hearts of Space.
And then every day when they'd be cooking dinner, they'd have All Things Considered on.
That's been the tone of the media coverage around Bobby Kennedy Jr. for the past 18 years, since July of 2005.
That's the moment that Kennedy published a magazine article suggesting there might be a link between the rise in diagnosed autism cases and the ever-expanding schedule of mandatory childhood vaccines.
The day that story was published, Kennedy's reporting was considered so solid...
Sorry, what?
Reporting?
Unfortunately, neither one of them understood what they were up against.
The pharma lobby rolled out the most ferocious public relations campaign in memory, and both publications swiftly caved.
Both pulled the story and then disavowed it, groveling as they did.
No one in the national media bothered to explain why autism diagnoses had skyrocketed.
If it wasn't the vaccines, and maybe it wasn't, then what was it?
To this day, there has not been a convincing explanation.
The piece that Kennedy wrote in 2005 was titled Deadly Immunity, and it was making the argument that thimerosal and vaccines were responsible for the rise in cases of autism.
Salon didn't cave to big pharma pressure.
They were bombarded with corrections and had to add five different major corrections to the story in the immediate days after publishing that an editor said, quote, went far in undermining Kennedy's expose.
The media didn't hate Kennedy for this article.
If he's even hated at all, it's because of all the shit he says that's long debunked.
He just continues spreading the same bullshit, pretending that no one has provided any reason that he's wrong.
And when that doesn't work, he just moves goalposts.
If he'd published that article, then seen the corrections and said, oops, my bad, then no one would be mad at him.
It might lead to a reconsidering of his credibility and his ability to investigate things, but he would show a measure of goodwill.
And people would be like, eh, whatever it happens.
Instead, he's just doubled down and led tons of people down a really dangerous road.
And guess what, ding-dong?
People not having an easy answer for the question of autism diagnoses doesn't mean that Kennedy just might be right.
Because that's the game that Tucker's trying to play, insinuating that because no one's fully solved this issue, that leaves some room that Kennedy could be right.
He has given an explanation.
And guess what else, ding-dong?
One is greater awareness in the wider population of the autism spectrum with a greater likelihood that parents, you know, will seek out appropriate care, and that'll likely come with a diagnosis.
There's also, you know, some screening that people do in well-child visits now that wasn't routine before but has become more now.
There's also a number of other ideas like genetic predispositions, but the vaccine link has been investigated and found to be bullshit.
And yet Kennedy pushes the same shit that he pushed years ago.
Bobby Kennedy is not wondering why his kids have allergies.
He asked that as a rhetorical question, then gave his answer.
Tucker is acting like this guy is just out here noticing things and playing the role of an observational comic, pointing out things that seem weird.
Kennedy is not doing that.
he's using his children's allergies to push his anti-vex worldview.
There are a lot of theories about the rising number of people with allergies, but there isn't a full consensus on the matter.
One of the most popular theories has to do with children being exposed to less microorganisms early in life than they were in the past, but there's another co-founding factor that's difficult to deal with, and that is that way more people think they're allergic to things than actually are allergic.
According to a paper published in 2018 in the International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, Quote, currently the majority of available data is based on self-reporting, which generally overestimates food allergy prevalence by a factor of three to four.
People aren't reliable reporters of whether or not they're allergic to something or really just don't like it, or maybe they got sick from it once and decided it was an allergy.
Based on everything else I know about Robert Kennedy Jr., I'm going to have some healthy skepticism about whether or not five of his children actually do have allergies.
Maybe they do.
Maybe they don't.
But the thing to note about this that is really important about the way Tucker's playing this game is he's acting like he's just asking questions when, in fact, Robert Kennedy is making very emphatic statements.
Well, but that's the trick there, is because he's asking rhetorical questions, if you leave off that he gives answers at the end of it, then you give the viewer the idea of this person being an open-minded truth seeker, and then when you go listen to it, you come back and you say, oh, this open-minded truth seeker has found an answer.
Not just is asking questions anymore.
And because I know he's an open-minded truth seeker, I can trust him.
Not so long ago, these qualities were considered essential to the practice of science.
All scientific discovery comes from observation, empiricism, patient watching.
Without the willingness to put aside your pre-assumptions and assess with honesty the things you see and touch and smell, the changes taking place right in front of your face, you can't do science.
You can't create art either, or journalism, or theology.
You have to be willing to notice the obvious.
And when they tell you you're not allowed to notice the obvious, you should be concerned.
Imagine you're on a commercial airline flight.
The plane is just leveled out at 37,000 feet.
You're closing your eyes for a nap.
And suddenly you smell smoke.
And it's not your imagination.
You can see it.
It's starting to fill the cabin.
All around you, people are hacking and choking.
The guy in the next seat has a napkin pressed against his mouth.
And he's mumbling what sounds like Psalm 23. What?
In the context of talking about Robert Kennedy, the points of comparison are pretty obvious.
The people coughing and the smoke in the cabin are things like more people having allergies, or there are more autism diagnoses than there used to be.
Kennedy is seeing those things and pointing them out, and people are yelling him down as a...
Mm-hmm.
Mm-hmm.
He says that vaccines are doing all the things like causing allergies and autism, so in the plain metaphor, what he'd actually be doing is yelling at the flight attendant about what he's decided is causing the smoke in the cabin, but he'd also be wrong.
Maybe Kennedy would be telling the flight attendant that the way landing gear are installed create fires, but in reality it was just someone vaping in the bathroom.
Then Kennedy would start a lifelong, highly funded campaign to get rid of landing gear on planes, and then he'd marry Cheryl Hines.
My point is that this metaphor is dumb.
Tucker is trying to play fast and loose about what Kennedy does.
He doesn't observe the world and ask questions.
He has a dogmatic answer to those questions already in place.
And whatever observations he does have are merely meant to prop up the already determined conclusion that he's based his life on.
It's dumb, because I get the point that he's trying to make, but there is such a refusal to accept that this is not just a person who's pointing things out and observing things.
That's the entire shell game he's playing, and it's ridiculous to anybody who has any familiarity with the people involved, the history of this.
No, I think what I find so fascinating about that is that from the writing of that, I do feel like all I would need to do to make a solid bit about that is be like, oh, Tucker is saying things like, and then say that word for word, and people will laugh at it at the beats.
If you just change the inflection points and you calm the beats and the timing down, that's a bit.
So, all the things that Tucker brought up there as pieces of evidence that there's something really bad going on are things that serious people study, and questions are asked about them all the time.
The people are not being like, don't look at this!
And I think this is kind of funny in light of Tucker's comments.
It's like, if we had a full-on tech recording of every single American's day on the day he recorded this, I guarantee before 8 p.m., every human being would have been like, this is not fine about something.
As Kennedy spoke on The Rogan Show, a reporter for Vice.com called Anna Merlin was watching.
Hi, Anna!
Merlin was so enraged by what she saw that she dashed off an article attacking Joe Rogan's employer for allowing the conversation to take place.
Spotify has stopped even sort of trying to stem Joe Rogan's vaccine misinformation, read the headline.
The piece never even described much of what Bobby Kennedy had actually said.
Merlin dismissed the entire interview as "a detailed survey of Kennedy's most dangerously incorrect views, a far too extensive list to outline in full." In other words, we here at Vice don't have time to describe all of Bobby Kennedy's lies, but trust us.
Anna's article is pretty specific about the claims that Kennedy made on Rogan and which ones are bullshit.
Tucker took that line that said it was too long of a list to outline in full and then he just lied to the audience that that was the extent of the discussion.
In fact, the next paragraph starts, quote, they included innumerable talking points that have already been debunked.
At one point, for instance, Kennedy falsely suggested that vaccines cause autism, which has been repeatedly and roundly disproven, with Rogan interjecting supportively.
Kennedy also trotted out one of his favorite talking points, that vaccines contain a dangerous form of mercury, something he says a lot.
As ever, he conflated ethyl mercury, which is not considered hazardous to human health, and methyl mercury, which is considered dangerous in even small doses.
Both of these points are backed up with links to supporting research in Anna's article.
Anna goes on to point out that Kennedy also said that Wi-Fi, quote, straight up lying about this article because he knows the audience isn't going to check and he doesn't care.
The image that Vice is just posting essentially empty attack articles is what the audience wants to hear.
So that's the image that Tucker paints for them to make sure that they don't...
Consider any criticism of Robert Kennedy for some reason.
But then he also, in the next clip, he's going to say more about the article from later in the article.
So he would have had to read the beginning and then skip to the end in order to not get the part where Anna went over the specifics.
it's not ironic because he's appropriately lying about it yes it's a fucking malicious liar yeah yeah and then god damn it I'm sorry about this but we're about to get back into Peter Hotez no Then Merlin called Spotify to see if she could get the episode censored.
So you can probably bicker about the exact number, but you'd have a really difficult time refuting that there was a large number of excess deaths caused by vaccine refusal.
Just to start, in November 2022, Yale School of Public Health released a study that looked at excess death numbers across partisan lines.
The authors found that the excess death rate was 1.6%.
10.4 for Republicans specifically after the vaccine was released.
They said, quote, the gap in excess death rates between Republicans and Democrats is concentrated in counties with low vaccination rates and only materializes after vaccines became widely available.
Other research has done that's tried to disambiguate these variables and look at vaccine refusal and health outcomes, and it doesn't look great for people who are telling people not to get vaccinated.
In all likelihood, 200,000 is a pretty fair estimate of the deaths caused by anti-vax profiteering during the pandemic, and Tucker is most likely just really upset about that because those people's blood is on his hands, too, and he knows it.
But also, like, he can always hide behind the impossibility of drawing straight lines between, like, why exactly did someone not get vaccinated?
Yeah, I mean, but that's kind of the problem, is that if we're so obsessed with only dealing with straight lines, then, boy, there are so many ways to get to a different point that aren't a straight line.
So if the problem is the point we get to, then you have to deal with where we start and not the line.
And if we're adhering to this rigid a standard for proving things, there's a whole lot that's already been said by Tucker in this episode that's going to fall the fuck apart.
Big Pharma cabal that's trying to attack Robert Kennedy because he's a threat to it.
And meanwhile, Tucker's spending all his time demonizing Peter Hotez, who tried to make a patent-free vaccine for coronavirus, which is a giant attack against Big Pharma.
Because if you don't have masks, remember, this virus aerosolizes.
So even six feet is not enough.
It can go 17, 18 feet, several meters.
What you really have to do is have vaccine mandates in the schools.
We should have a rule that anyone who walks into a school over the age of 12 has to be vaccinated.
This is the nature of the anti-vaccine movement in this country.
It's somehow married now to far right wing extremism and white nationalist group.
Anyone who's unvaccinated and has been lucky enough to escape COVID, your luck is about to run out.
I call it anti-science aggression coming from Senator Rand Paul, Senator Johnson, members of the House of Representatives, in addition to those two senators, are a killer.
We're starting to see now those same anti-vaccine messages that's coming out of the U.S., and now we're finding it in Africa and Latin America.
And remember, the other reason we're seeing this is the Putin government has, and this has been reported by U.S. and British intelligence, has been piling on with this whole systematic program of what's being called weaponized health communications, trying to destabilize democracies with anti-vaccine, anti-science messages and targeting.
You know, it's always going to be easy when you have an evolving public health situation and a novel virus that you are able to create a vaccine for in, you know, such a brief window.
Hotez has written a self-congratulatory new book called The Deadly Rise of Anti-Science.
A scientist warning, as if he were a scientist.
Here's how Hotez describes himself in the book's promotional literature.
During the height of the COVID-19 pandemic, one renowned scientist in his famous bowtie, appearing daily on major news networks such as MSNBC, NPR and BBC and others, Dr. Peter J. Hotez often went without sleep, working around the clock to develop a non-profit COVID-19 vaccine and to keep the public informed.
During that time, he was one of the most trusted voices on the pandemic.
And was even nominated for a Nobel Peace Prize for his selfless work.
He also became one of the main targets of anti-science rhetoric that gained traction through conservative news media.
End quote.
Though we could go on.
So here you have a renowned scientist, selfless, trusted, going without sleep, self-denying, persecuted by extremists for daring to tell the truth, the Albert Schweitzer of cable news.
That's Dr. Peter J. Hotez.
The fact that a partisan buffoon like Peter Hotez can describe himself this way with a straight face and the backing of a publisher makes you despair for the country's future.
Yeah, also, Tucker really slipped over something there that him and his ding-dong friends all ignore, and that is that Hotez is...
I would say his primary claim to fame at this point is the work towards creating the non-profit COVID-19 vaccination, which kind of makes him legit an opponent of Big Pharma in a way that Tucker could never even pretend to be.
That's what Hotez and his team were nominated for a Nobel Prize for, making a patent-free COVID vaccine, which could help people in the developing world.
Millions of doses have been administered in poor areas of India and Yeah, I just don't.
And, like, we can play the same game if Tucker wants, where I go find one of his bios from his books and I read it in a snarky voice, but where does that get us?
I mean, it's so fucking annoying because he's correctly grasping a serious issue and distracting from it, and then giving power to the people who are causing it.
And then you come to it with like, oh, this person who gave people millions of doses of a vaccine that they don't have to pay for is evil and a murderer.
And that's why we need Robert F. Kennedy Jr., the guy who is almost directly responsible for hundreds of thousands of deaths, to become our leader.
Like, he's advising people not to get vaccinated, which will create more health conditions that they have to deal with with medicine later and throughout their lives, perhaps.
And so, like, it's actually the reverse.
Like, Hotez is doing something that helps people at the expense of Big Pharma.
Kennedy is doing something at the expense of people that helps Big Pharma.
So that's a really weird formulation on Tucker's part.
Basically, he's saying that the audience shouldn't despair because Kennedy may be totally wrong in misleading hundreds of thousands of people towards risking their lives for no reason.
But a recent poll said he was popular.
And Peter Oates beclowned himself.
Biden, Trump, and Kennedy have pretty similar favorability numbers in that poll that he's talking about, although Kennedy does come out ahead a bit in net favorability because he has a higher number of people who answer don't know about him.
They don't have an opinion.
Biden and Trump are well-known quantities at this point.
They have much heavier unfavorabilities built in because of that.
That poll didn't have voting metrics for a hypothetical Democratic primary, but the most recent poll that's available has Biden at 64% and Kennedy at 17%.
But what we can say with certainty is that America's medical establishment has beclowned itself for all time.
Its official positions on vaccines, psychiatric drugs, puberty blockers, reassignment surgeries, a long list of other politically fashionable priorities have no connection whatsoever to legitimate science.
It's all effectively witchcraft.
At the annual meeting of the American Medical Association in Chicago last week, for example, They're insane.
So the importance or significance of BMI, or body mass index, has always been kind of shaky.
The idea of putting one number on body mass is a bit simplistic, and the medical community has known about that for a long time.
It's a foundation for a measurement that could be important, but it needs a lot of work to account for various things like fat distribution, age, and ethnicity.
The reason that it was called a tool of racist exclusion is explained this way in an article from the Washington Post from over two years ago.
Right, right, right.
Right.
ideal right right right it's not a universally applicable number but most experts recognize the BMI idea is a jumping-off point for a measurement that could be more meaningful but it just hasn't been developed yet whatever that more meaningful metric is this isn't an instance of the medical community being insane unless you're a white identity zealot like Tucker who thinks that everything about the world should use white people as the default and and the ideal.
Then the idea of reconsidering that legacy might seem insane, like it does to Tucker.
Next year they will denounce thermometers and stethoscopes.
They're insane.
Compared to them, Bobby Kennedy is a mainstream figure.
And people understand that.
That's why he's winning.
And you know he's winning by how his critics are doing.
So just four years ago, Anna Merlin was regarded as an important expert on conspiracy theories and misinformation.
She'd written a book on the topic.
Here she is talking about it.
unidentified
I've always thought that in the case of conspiracy peddlers, it's not necessarily a super profitable enterprise to ask whether they really believe it or not, because I don't know what's in their hearts.
I don't know.
What's in their minds, all I know is what they spend their time doing, which is promoting conspiracy theories.
In the case of ordinary people, conspiracy consumers, and most Americans are to some degree consumers of conspiracy theories.
All the studies that we have show that like one in three Americans believe.
In some conspiracy theory to some extent.
For the people in the very sort of deep end of the conspiracy pool, people who are consuming a lot of conspiracy content, I think it's really important to look at the way it helps them make sense of the world and make sense of our political moment and make sense of a lot of times like what's happening in their own lives.
Is Tucker trying to say that compared to a medical establishment that he defines as insane and beclowned, Robert Kennedy is not quite so insane or beclowned?
Like, I'm not sure that's a great point.
Are you saying, like, look at where his critics are?
What happens, and I think a lot of people know this now, right, is that the writers control the finances of most media companies.
They really want the input of the people who make their content, right?
That's definitely not like...
I don't know, groups of rich hedge fund investors who saddle the company with all the debt that they use to buy the company, and then they declare bankruptcy and sell it for parts because they've actually, and they make money coming and going.
No, I mean, it is a little bit like listening to...
Well, no, it's not a little bit like listening to a high school kid.
This is listening to an annoying freshman high school kid who comes to school in a suit, and you're in the same English class, and he won't shut the fuck up about Lord of the Flies for some reason.
And you're like, when we get to catch her in the rye, I'm gonna kill myself.