RFK Jr. may be exactly what America needs to work at this time, so the powers who benefit from current dysfunctionality and their sycophants are already on the attack. We need to expose their lies.
"He is not pro-Putin. Instead, he thinks Ukrainian lives should be spared. If Ukraine is being used as a pawn in a U.S. scheme to achieve regime change in Russia, and 300,000 Ukrainian soldiers have already died, perhaps it is worth considering a peace deal to avoid squandering further Ukrainian lives."
RKF Jr's oft-repeated claim that "300,000 Ukrainian soldiers have already died" is another blatant lie. He seems to have completely fabricated that number.
Twice-convicted pedophile Scott Ritter is a Russian propagandist, and he's been consistently wrong about everything in this war. And in that video, he's citing Douglas Macgregor (a literal Russian spy).
Scott Ritter is a former weapons inspector who was the only source calling out the absence of WMDs in Iraq prior to the 2003 invasion by Bush 43. He turned out to be right about that. Could have saved USA a few Trillion$ if we'd listened to him then, so I give him the benefit of the doubt now. Perhaps Hans Blix is also due some credit for 2003 reportage. As for the truth of what's happening in the Ukraine theater, I'd say that's still very much in play and subject to extreme spin on both sides. Re: his personal life, as far as I'm aware, what Ritter did wrong was to talk inappropriately with an undercover cop posing as a 15 yo online. Definitely not okay, but has no bearing on his reliability as a weapons/war analyst.
The fact that Ritter has been consistently wrong in all of his "analysis" of the Russo-Ukrainian War has plenty of bearing on his reliability, though. If his "analysis" had been accurate, this war would've already ended with Russian victory last year. He claimed Russia had already won one of the most stunning victories in military history.
BTW, his "war analysis" of the Iraq War was pretty bad, too. Being right about the lack of WMDs (he was far from "the only source" to say so) does not make him right about everything.
"It is important to note that RFK Jr’s main COVID vaccine-related theme is that safe and effective, low-cost, early treatment alternative drugs exist and should be much more widely used instead of relying on fast-tracked new and expensive jabs."
The problem is that this claim is itself a lie. The so-called "safe and effective, low-cost, early treatment alternative drugs" (presumably meaning hydroxychloroquine and ivermectin) have been conclusively proven to be completely ineffective as COVID treatments.
No, it is not. "Meta-analysis" is only valid if ALL of what it analyzes is valid.
For example, single massive "study" in Egypt that was later withdrawn after it was shown to be fraudulent. It's been shown that fake study heavily skewed "meta-analysis" in favor of ivermectin.
Thank you once again, Mr Bishop, for this excellent piece. I reposted it on my FaceBook page.
Keep 'em coming.
"He is not pro-Putin. Instead, he thinks Ukrainian lives should be spared. If Ukraine is being used as a pawn in a U.S. scheme to achieve regime change in Russia, and 300,000 Ukrainian soldiers have already died, perhaps it is worth considering a peace deal to avoid squandering further Ukrainian lives."
RKF Jr's oft-repeated claim that "300,000 Ukrainian soldiers have already died" is another blatant lie. He seems to have completely fabricated that number.
https://www.youtube.com/live/iU1Px4R4Es0?feature=share
Ritter explains at about 18:00, numbers from his estimates, simulations and Ukraine general Zeluzhny.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Valerii_Zaluzhnyi via U.S. Mark Miley.
Twice-convicted pedophile Scott Ritter is a Russian propagandist, and he's been consistently wrong about everything in this war. And in that video, he's citing Douglas Macgregor (a literal Russian spy).
Scott Ritter is a former weapons inspector who was the only source calling out the absence of WMDs in Iraq prior to the 2003 invasion by Bush 43. He turned out to be right about that. Could have saved USA a few Trillion$ if we'd listened to him then, so I give him the benefit of the doubt now. Perhaps Hans Blix is also due some credit for 2003 reportage. As for the truth of what's happening in the Ukraine theater, I'd say that's still very much in play and subject to extreme spin on both sides. Re: his personal life, as far as I'm aware, what Ritter did wrong was to talk inappropriately with an undercover cop posing as a 15 yo online. Definitely not okay, but has no bearing on his reliability as a weapons/war analyst.
The fact that Ritter has been consistently wrong in all of his "analysis" of the Russo-Ukrainian War has plenty of bearing on his reliability, though. If his "analysis" had been accurate, this war would've already ended with Russian victory last year. He claimed Russia had already won one of the most stunning victories in military history.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-fNrnWxXhP0&t=954s
He also has overtly called for the genocide of the Ukrainian people.
https://twitter.com/Biz_Ukraine_Mag/status/1622222231760773122
BTW, his "war analysis" of the Iraq War was pretty bad, too. Being right about the lack of WMDs (he was far from "the only source" to say so) does not make him right about everything.
https://www.news24.com/news24/us-defeat-in-iraq-inevitable-20030326
"It is important to note that RFK Jr’s main COVID vaccine-related theme is that safe and effective, low-cost, early treatment alternative drugs exist and should be much more widely used instead of relying on fast-tracked new and expensive jabs."
The problem is that this claim is itself a lie. The so-called "safe and effective, low-cost, early treatment alternative drugs" (presumably meaning hydroxychloroquine and ivermectin) have been conclusively proven to be completely ineffective as COVID treatments.
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34145166/
https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/fullarticle/2797483
A meta-analysis >> Single trial.
So, I'm still with Dr. Lawrie
No, it is not. "Meta-analysis" is only valid if ALL of what it analyzes is valid.
For example, single massive "study" in Egypt that was later withdrawn after it was shown to be fraudulent. It's been shown that fake study heavily skewed "meta-analysis" in favor of ivermectin.
https://www.theguardian.com/science/2021/jul/16/huge-study-supporting-ivermectin-as-covid-treatment-withdrawn-over-ethical-concerns