Comments by "L.W. Paradis" (@l.w.paradis2108) on "WATCH: Mehdi Hasan's TONE-DEAF Attack On RFK Jr Flies In The Face Of Free Speech Principles" video.

  1. She did an outstanding job here.
    7
  2. @Jeff Haddix  Exactly. Plus he defamed RFK Jr., and he pushed strongly for a public policy of neverending boosters. So he interjected himself into the policy debate. Whether or not to urge everyone to keep getting boosters is not a purely scientific question. Science provides the guidelines for making the decisions but cannot make the decisions for us.
    6
  3. Briahna gave an outstanding report, and explained why RFK Jr. does have relevant expertise based on his extensive experience in toxic torts.
    5
  4. ​ oddjobbob  Troll. Reported.
    4
  5. ​ oddjobbob  Why are you posting this everywhere? She's Harvard Law, NY Bar.
    4
  6. ​​ @colinfffff  Briahna just told you in what ways RFK Jr is right. Try listening.
    4
  7.  @cassiescornerreviews6884  Because the real issue is one of PUBLIC POLICY, and Hotez has voluntarily interjected himself into that debate since the start of this pandemic, AND has presented very preliminary scientific research as absolutely definitive. That's why. If he sticks to real science and science journalism without advocacy and without defaming those who disagree with him, no problem.
    4
  8. canon fodder  Joined a few months ago, for this?
    4
  9.  @canonfodder6966  Who do you think has the burden of proof for mandating a drug or preventative medical procedure? The people who don't believe they need it?
    4
  10. ​ oddjobbob  LOL, Briahna is a Harvard Law grad who worked in New York City. She has passed at least one bar, New York.
    3
  11. Super good.
    2
  12.  @Independent365  How do you know he's not a debtor? LOL
    2
  13.  @colinfffff  Public health policy is not purely a matter of science, and scientists who seek to influence that policy have to be scrupulously honest about what they know and what they are still not sure of. Public health policy has to be informed by law (especially constitutional law) and ethics. It is ALWAYS the proponent of any drug who has the burden of proving safety and effectiveness. The person who declines any drug for any reason is always presumed to be within their rights to say no. If you want to overcome that presumption, then you are the one who must prove mandating the drug is the least coercive way to further a TRULY compelling public interest, and that there isn't some other way to do that, without encroaching on the patient's fundamental rights. The burden is never on the person who says no. Well, people like Hotez tried to make you think otherwise. They did that for a reason, to muddy the issue. Why do you think we lived through this mind f___? They had no basis for forcing everyone to take it. They didn't even have evidence it arrested the transmission. So they pulled out all the stops. Even EEOC lawyers admitted that religious objections had to be taken into account, and people with religious objections are now suing and winning. This was unconscionable.
    1
  14. @YouTubeCensor  Okay, but you asked what I meant. Not like you're obligated to read it.
    1
  15. Let me see if I understand. RFK Jr. will debate people who smear him, but Scientists are too Big and Important to debate an eminent toxic torts lawyer. They won't perform the public service of showing new parents that RFK Jr is wrong, after this pandemic fiasco and the understandable concern they now have. (And Kennedy's father and uncle were both assassinated, so smearing him is no big deal.) Okay, got it.
    1