RFK Jr tells US families to vaccinate children against measles amid outbreak
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2026/aug/02/rfk-jr-measles-vaccinationOpen linkView original on thelemmy.clubSyndicated from the fediverse. Read and engage on the original instance.
View original on thelemmy.clubhttps://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2026/aug/02/rfk-jr-measles-vaccinationOpen linkView original on thelemmy.club
143 replies
Sounds like the deep state got to him....lolol
Now imagine if instead of recommending vaccination during an outbreak, it was recommended before anything happened. Crazy thought, I know. Only way this could have happened is by not having a complete moron obsessed with his countless delusions as the fucking head of the health department of one of the largest country in the world, is all.
Capitalism when the plague outbreak shatters an economy and all the money you piled on isn't going to save you from sickness that doesn't give a damn.
The sad thing is that millions of people have actually been looking to him for medical advice, which is like taking wardrobe and makeup advice from Ronald McDonald.
Which would be a great move if you’re hosting a Halloween party…
Or robbing a bank…
Just saying 🤓
Should be funny but instead its just uncanny...
I mean, when you’re going for the clown world they keep talking about, he is pretty much your best bet
"I lost my virginity to an all metal toilet in Guam. It was Robert Downey Sr's 43rd birthday party, I was bill cosby's +1 and we were celebrating at the corporate training restaurant for Cici's pizza. The toilet penetrated me with the confidence of an Olympic fencing champion and I saw the face of god. They served corn dogs, but reverse what you're picturing."
-RFK Jr., 12 years old, mumblng to himself and convulsing before passing out in a ditch after snorting the entire contents of a full size fire extinguisher
what the fuck did i just read
The truth, brother... The truth.
P.S. RFK Jr. probably killed a young girl with a golf club and the family had a "lesser" cousin take the fall. And his wife later hung herself. What the fudge, right?
Keep em coming guys…
Reddit aint got %#!* on us ✌🏻
Vaccines are not supposed to be reactionary, they are preperatory.
indeed
he told them to vaccinate because school is about to start
Too late. Kids won't get significant immunity in time. Prepare for a shit show this fall but different from the explosive shit show of the summer.
Lmao! Well done!
I have received +3 Mental Damage from reading that first bit.
Lordy, I need to start using that line. Thank you.
To everyone saying broken clock and a glimmer of hope, you just need to read the article that it isn’t. He was just cornered and had no room to wiggle out of it.
Ohhhh that's gonna piss off the plague rats.
But, but, but...what about thew leukemia you get from those bad medicines???
Heads up, your link doesn't work. Might be because of the ] at the end.
He should be personally, criminally, liable for the deaths and suffering caused by his policies. So should leadership that supported him.
So should Elon for shutting down Usaid
Children are dead because of what he chose to say.
I mean... a broken clock is right twice a day, I suppose. But he should not be in the position he has been appointed to. More people are dying.
Half his audience are those religious nuts so he is effectively throwing his audience under the bus. The only people who will be his audience are the crunchy Karen types who have convinced themselves that they are different from the other girls.
A broken clock consistently says the same thing. He's not even a broken clock.
I'm gonna steal this
Can't steal it if I give it to you <3 hehe
Don't worry... It'll only take another 20 years to get back the herd immunity we already lost. And that's assuming the idiots who listened to him in the first place don't decide this is a liberal psyop and they know he REALLY means NOT to get the vaccination.
Yeah they aren’t likely to listen to anyone tell them something that doesn’t fit their cult narrative. Some will mental gymnastics their way to getting vaccinated, but kore will mental gymnastics their way to ignoring his statement, if they even hear it in the first place.
Imagine one of the dumbest persons on earth who is also a well known antivax telling you that you have to get some vaccines... and yet many people will still firmly oppose... We do live in the dumbest timeline.
OMFG!!!11! THE DEEP STATE GOT TO HIM!!!
/s just in case...
he should resign, he's way too late for redemption
MAGGA: 🎶 FUCK YOU I WON'T DO WHAT YOU TELL ME... 🎵
Their musician should just play the guitar and stay out of politics, so I can politicise their songs in support of his enemies and tell him he doesn't understand their music.
So, what company paid him to say that? He obviously didn't come up with that on his own.
Oh how the turns have tabled.
Not really; or rather, they've been doing that since day 1. Both Mr. Worm-In-My-Brain and Mr. Orange Baby. In the age of governing through social media there's no such thing as consistency anymore.
Yeah social media is all about projecting vibes and knowing no one will bother to put any effort into finding any facts. And people are so saturated with information they won't remember that you're saying the exact opposite thing from what you said last week. With social media facts finding just slows you down, you win by producing more content, so you have an edge if you ignore the facts.
You put it much better than I ever could, 'specially the last sentence.
“I DECLARE VACCINATIONS!”
In other news RFK is gonna save the mid term election by eating shit. It's not going down easily.
Lord Dookie Diaper will be most displeased.
Americans are weird.
Seriously insane anti-intellectualist culture were one's correctness is measured by how confident and loud one proclaims one's "facts" and how famous one is, rather than by being or not an expert in an applicable domain.
You see that shit even amongst people who think they're leftwing - notice the frequent parroting of some shit or other said by showbiz celebrities as long as it aligns with one's beliefs. (Sorry but an Acting Professional isn't really an authoritative source for jack shit anything outside their expert domain in showbiz, even if one agrees with what they say, hence their words on other subjects should be treated as having the same weight as those of any other random non-expert).
You misspelled stupid. Sincerely, a mostly dumbass American.
Grandfather Nurgle will not be pleased.
Same exact thing happened to Morty when he got complacent with spreading the plague. Now Typhus is the favorite
I can't tell if this is a Rick and Morty reference or something else.
You wouldn't be the first
What about the AUTISM??1?
It was since discovered this is caused by women abusing Tylenol.
Oh yeah it's TOTALLY caused by Tylenol you guys we figured it out
(it is not caused by Tylenol)
https://publichealth.jhu.edu/2025/the-evidence-on-tylenol-and-autism
WOW TYLENOL CAN EDIT THE DNA IN YOUR GAMETOCYTES TO MAKE AUTISTIC KIDS WOW
I need more! My database looks like shit!
Suddenly worth it or smth
Which is it? Vaccines are bad or get vaccines? It depends on the wind, it seems.
The first phase was the "fuck around and find out"-phase.
Well, the fucked around and are probably in full damage control now
TRAITOR
He is placing his own opinions over the health of Americans. He is making Americans sick (and dead) to validate his own beliefs. He is a TRAITOR.
Even if we could magically vaccinate every single American today, the virus has a foothold and will spread by usually transmission. People will still go to work, school, shopping, social events etc. There will be more deaths. RFK llike to moron he is, will probably use that to say that vaccines arent effective.
Vaccinating now is still helpful, so if you're not covered, get covered! Tell everyone you know.
To be honest im kind of surprised he backtracked, i was fully certain he would let people die and perpetuate an outbreak just to stick to his schtick
Before bending the knee to Trump, RFK Jr. said he believed the FDA was suppressing data on a host of issues. It’s likely he’s now been aware for quite some time that isn’t the case. Maybe the full weight of how wrong he is finally has an effect on him.
That, or he’s looking to distance himself from Trump like so many others. Blood in the water.
Gotta be the latter. I think they're all looking at Grandpa and seeing how long he has left - and everyone, every one of them is eyeing that big chair.
I'm assuming someone finally told him he could later face consequences for this. Not that he will, but perhaps he just got a little paranoid of what could happen if the world got saner at some point.
He can always just
pay a bribemake a donation and get a pardon.You mean continue to let people die and perpetuate the already record outbreak?
He still denied the rest of the thing about vaccine though.
Fucking rotten bastard. Someday he'll fucking be sitting in jail for mass murder.
No he won't. I'm not saying he doesn't deserve it, but I'm being realistic.
Someday he'll live out his life wealthy and entitled with access to the best doctors and lifestyle money can buy. He'll coast through life using his family name and resources to open doors and skirt accountability until he finally dies on his estate surrounded by dozens of people who'll talk about him like he's the second coming.
That seems more accurate.
That's he disgust truth. He's just another rich, know-nothing cunt.
The weird right-wing conspiracy nutters feel the same way about Fauci. It's wild how obsessed they are with Fauci needing to be punished for a mix of unspecified and entirely invented crimes. Second only to Obama in that department.
which is it, vaccinate or not to vacicnate. anti-vaxxers are unlikely to vacciante.
As a parent myself it's quite the dilemma :
Fuck life is hard
As a parent, the bit dilema i face is different diagnostics by different doctors, or different treatments for the same one.
The dilemma I don't have is about vaccinations. They all agree vaccination is the right thing to do following the official schedule.
I'm among the most thoroughly vaccinated people around, after living in both SE Asia and South America. I'm also relatively well versed in statistics and am well aware that if your goal is to optimise for a good and healthy life, getting vaccinated is a no-brainier.
Finally, I think that if we want to convince people that are sceptical of vaccines to get them, or give them to their children, we should start by
The dilemma that has shown up in countless philosophical debates throughout history is basically the trolley problem: "If you press this button, there's a 1/1000 chance that someone (e.g. your child) dies. If you don't, there's a 1/100 chance that they die." To me personally, the choice is easy (I press the button), but I recognise that people see this as a dilemma. There's plenty of research on how we humans tend to prefer inaction over actions that could cause damage, even when that choice is statistically unreasonable.
Based on this, I think the most productive way to engage with people that are sceptical of vaccines due to this very human mode of decision failure, is to engage with the philosophical question above, and trying to convince them that inaction (not taking the vaccine) is, in fact, also a choice that they are responsible for. I think brushing the dilemma off as trivial is a bit reductionist, considering that the trolley problem is one that has been so widely discussed through the ages (even though I personally think it's an easy choice).
Of course, if people are just blatantly ignoring or refuting established scientific results, there's not much you can do...
The numbers you're using are nowhere even close. You need to severely increase the ratio by 2 or 3 orders or magnitude.
Mortality rate for some diseases is close to 1 in 3 (measles in infants with co-morbodities) to 1 in 100. With vaccines, we have changed that to 1 in 10k or better (with co-morbodities).
For the live virus polio vaccine, 3 out of a million kids would get polio DUE to the vaccine itself. That is peanuts compared to 50k kids (per million) who get polio despite the vaccine. That's also peanuts when we see that reported polio cases fell from 350k around 1990 to 30 around 2010 despite a huge increase in population.
The "trolley problem" is a philosophical dilemma regarding the morality of allowing harm caused by inaction versus causing harm by direct action. In a common form of the dilemma, you are faced with a situation where a train trolley is headed to hit a number of people. You have the option to pull a lever that will direct the trolley to hit a smaller number of people, thus actively condemning that smaller number.
The argument can be made (though I disagree with it), that you are "more responsible" for deaths caused by pulling the lever than those caused by inaction. Whether or not you agree with this argument, plenty of research has shown that humans are typically very averse to causing known harm by direct action, even though they know that inaction will cause greater harm. That is: "Human instinct" in the trolley problem seems to be to not pull the lever, even though a majority of people agree that it is the morally correct decision.
Finally, the above discussion is more or less completely independent of the number of people on the two tracks. Whether it's 1:2, or 1:1 000 000 doesn't really change the moral argument of action vs. inaction. If you get into the kind of numbers where the number of deaths would have global secondary consequences, you have a new kind of dilemma though. However that's not the case here, hence my choice of pulling two arbitrary numbers out of a hat, rather than using actual numbers for vaccine side effects and infection lethality.
What I'm doing here is noting that the question of vaccinating or not is philosophically equivalent to the trolley problem. Therefore, we can use research of the trolley problem to understand how vaccine sceptics think, and to learn something about how people can be convinced that pulling the lever is the morally correct choice.
Trolley problem is just a pros and cons list made visceral. If the pros don't outweigh the cons there's no point. Before we even bring morality and mortality into this the amount of pros are different for different people to make a decision (even as non visceral as changing a job).
By using much smaller numbers, you are giving a false impression of vaccines. Instead of 1 vs 10k, saying 1 vs 100 is similar to me asking if someone would switch jobs if salary is 100$/year difference when it might actually be 10k$/year.
I'm not arguing against your premise of Trolley Problem but against the numbers. As humans, we can still fathom the difference between 10, 100 and 1000. These aren't big numbers which get washed out into nothingness of 'big'.
I fundamentally disagree with this, and it seems to me that many others do as well. The trolley problem is fundamentally about the morality of allowing something bad to happen through inaction, versus actively choosing a lesser evil.
While it's true that the numbers can influence what people answer here, the numbers are not the core point of the thought experiment. The core point of the thought experiment relates to whether you are personally responsible for the consequences of inaction, versus your responsibility for the consequences of direct action.
Crucially, as discussed in depth in Daniel Kahnemans' "Thinking Fast and Slow", humans appear to be instinctively averse to taking actions with known negative consequences, even when they know that the consequences of inaction are worse. This is supported by the experiment referenced in the wikipedia page linked above.
The point here is that we can try to understand vaccine sceptics line of thought by understanding why humans appear to have this aversion. As mentioned in my first comment, I'm well vaccinated, and know fully well that statistically, both for myself and others, getting relevant vaccines is the right choice. Regardless, I felt a twinge of doubt when getting my initial covid shots. Not due to any logical reasoning, but an instinctive gut feeling: It felt more risky to actively expose myself to a vaccine rather than do nothing, even though I know the opposite is true. I very quickly overcame that twinge of doubt because I try to make decisions based on facts rather than feelings. While anecdotal, this is a concrete example of how human intuition does not always match actual statistics and logically sound decision making.
I think that if we want to prevent vaccine scepticism from spreading, one place to start is trying to understand why people think along these lines: That direct action infers a heavier responsibility than inaction. The first place to start in that regard is recognising that the trolley problem is a very real dilemma for many people, and that surveys have consistently shown that not all people make the same choice in trolley problem situations, even though the correct choice seems obvious to many of us.
Sure, I could have used more realistic numbers here, I won't argue that. However, I hope I've been able to convince you that my point is not related to the numbers, but to the underlying psychology of making these choices, regardless of the numbers. Therefore, I just pulled some numbers out of the air to construct the example in the OC.
Well... there you are, unfortunately. That will happen pretty much literally every time, no matter what you do, because it was never about the science. It will never be about the science, because we already know they're completely wrong about everything and therefore they need to make science irrelevant.
Conspiracy theories sell people the idea that they're seeing through "the bullshit" (sum total of human expertise, generally) which is a powerful feeling, that the dull world of undeniable facts and logic can't quite measure up to. Too easy to deny them anyway, you see. The package tends to come with a bunch of rationalizations for why, the instant you seem like you're not buying it, they no longer have to listen to anything you say.
Unfortunately, if you don't also want to acknowledge the ones that are blatant lies, you are instantly The Enemy. Given stuff like belief perseverance and the backlash effect it's understandable to want to try, though.
Being "supportive" when arguing against known bullshit is not my forte, so I wouldn't be the one to get good results out of the supposed strat of... agreeing them out of their position(?), but I am damn curious about what it'd look like.
A false one, to belabor the point, but it's not relevant anyway. The reality is that if you get within light years of the concrete thought experiment, they'll be real suspicious. If any part of it is remotely realistic, you'll lose them instantly: "do you want a thousand times higher risk of death, and also help spread a potentially lethal and disfiguring infection?" cannot be made to sound all that reasonable.
I think there's an interesting discussion to be had here regarding cause and effect. You seem to be arguing that these people do not believe in science, therefore they end up as conspiracy theorists, anti-vaxxers, etc. I'm not entirely convinced that's the case. I think it's common that people first establish a gut feeling regarding what is true, then begin disbelieving science when science disagrees with them. Basically, I think the casual chain is inverted relative to you. Of course, once people have started disbelieving science, the rabbit hole is open.
That's not really what I'm arguing for. My point is that it never strengthens your position to disagree with things you know are correct, just to try to make a point. If someone says "water is denser than oil, therefore 1 L of water is heavier than 2 L of oil.", it doesn't help you to start by disagreeing with the initial statement. Likewise, when someone says "vaccines cause dangerous side effects, therefore ...", it doesn't help your position to disagree with the initial statement, which is well documented to be true. An immediate example that comes to mind is that the Astra Zeneca (I think) COVID vaccine caused several deaths due to triggering a very rare heart complication (if I remember the details correctly). If your initial counter argument is "vaccines don't cause deadly side effects", you can immediately be brushed off as having no idea what you're talking about, since it's well documented that they do. Any successful counter argument needs to start by acknowledging what is correct in the initial statement, before dialling in on why the conclusion is wrong.
The point of the trolley problem is not to use it to convince the vaccine sceptics, but to use research on it to understand how they think, and thereby understand how they can be convinced. Surveys have consistently shown that not all people agree on what to do in the trolley problem situation (around 10 % choose to do nothing). It's only a false dilemma if you view it from a utilitarian standpoint, but the whole point of the thought experiment is exactly to compare a utilitarian standpoint to other views. There's quite a bit of research regarding the psychology of how we experience the consequences of action vs. inaction, and it appears that humans instinctively prefer inaction over actions with negative consequences, even when inaction carries more negative consequences. The book "Thinking fast and slow" by Daniel Kahneman goes into some detail on this. I think a lot of vaccine scepticism is grounded in this instinctive response, which in turn causes people to disbelieve science due to confirmation bias.
I think this level of privileging the antivaxxer rhetoric is just irresponsible - if it would help, maybe. But they are not arguing in good faith, out of good information, or any other good impulse. Similarly to the Flat Earth bullshit and most other CTs you can point at, it's about feeling superior. Moon landing and flat earth CTs are almost lethally cringe but patchouli bullshit instead of vaccines means people literally die in droves, of a solved problem.
Huh? Typo or false syllogism? You wouldn't get much of an opportunity to disagree with anything correct, they're antivaxxers. Anyway, you wouldn't deny that. You would, even more correctly, point out that the 'rona was still the worse deal if you were actually rationally worried about any outcome. This is the sort of thing I mean when I say jumping through hoops to try and make something reasonable out of a fundamentally unreasonable position. It isn't going to help, because you cannot keep it up. Sooner or later you'll reach the end of where carefully not discussing anything in the discussion can get you.
I honestly think you're misunderstanding me a bit here. I'm not advocating for privileging anti-vaxxer rhetoric or jumping through hoops to "let them have some wins". I'm trying to underscore that the first step to developing education, informational campaigns, deprogramming regimes, etc. is to understand the thought process behind becoming an anti-vaxxer. There are plenty of comments in this thread alone along the lines of "When presented a choice between a small risk of a mild fever versus getting tuberculosis, obviously the correct choice is to get the vaccine". I think that line of argumentation is counter-productive, since it
Firstly, nobody who's afraid of getting a vaccine due to the associated risks will be convinced by "The only risk is a small risk of a light fever", since that's just provably false. Secondly, the line of argumentation anchors on the risk associated with vaccines, rather than anchoring on the risk associated with not getting them. Since I think the root cause of vaccine scepticism is irrational fear of getting them, I think it's more productive to anchor counter arguments, education, information campaigns, etc. on the very real danger associated with not having vaccines. Since fear is the underlying driving force here, we should aim to make fear of the disease outweigh fear of vaccines, not by down-playing the risk of vaccines, but rather by emphasising the risk of the diseases (which many or most vaccine sceptics downplay into absurdity).
Basically, many vaccines do have a very low but non-zero probability of causing severe side effects. We humans are known to place irrationally large weight on these kind of unlikely but severe outcomes. Trying to downplay these outcomes is not likely affect peoples perception of the risk, because we're notoriously bad at this kind of risk assessment.
By all means, please list the supposed side effects. Are the side effects in the room with you right now?
Wish granted, kiddo.
What side effects are you describing? Specific ones?
Living to old age.
As someone experiencing that right now, I can tell you there are some rough patches.
This.
Yes there is, sweetie. It's this thing called science.
This comment comes after the one you responded to was deleted.
In medicine it can be extremely difficult to definitively identify cause and effect. The human body is extremely complex, and many variables are involved with everything.
There's still legitimate debate on whether the COVID vaccine could cause long COVID symptoms in a small amount of patients.
But how do you retroactively prove that the patient didn't have asymptomatic COVID when they got vaccinated?
Or they simply developed CFS/ME around the time they were vaccinated, since the two are both poorly understood and look virtually identical. Hell, long COVID may just be a specific cause of CFS.
At the same time I wouldn't discount the idea that the vaccine could cause it in susceptible individuals or under specific circumstances either. We simply don't really have any understanding of what long COVID and other post viral syndromes actually are. (We don't really understand viruses that well, they aren't even alive in the conventional sense)
I think you forgot the /s
That was kind of you to grant them an exit from the ratio-destroyed ignorance expressed in their comment. I'll be using this line - thank you.
I'm sure you are not alone thinking this. :)
oopsies we made a tiny weeny mistake
And just like that...lawsuits throughout the land.
This was the grift all along
I was explaining to my kids how their whole mindset is survival of the fittest. Get a sick...if you die or live if on you and your genes. The weak need to be culled out of exsistence so we can be a stronger species. Regret and shame of their own family tree.
Well, they are right, you just have to define "fit" in terms of intelligence and tool use, as is narrated in schools to describe the difference between a man and a chimp. And they are clearly not fit, don't be like them, they are a bad branch.
But… what about the autism?
Are you floofing kidding me
Didn't he already do this a year ago?
Yes, and rfk jr's anti vaccine grifting rhetoric also resulted in so many increased infant and child deaths in Samoa they needed to import more child sized coffins from new Zealand
https://wikipedia.org/wiki/2019_Samoa_measles_outbreak
Tell those kids he killed in American Samoa to get vaccinated
Hahaha can’t wait to see the MAHA morons whine about this. 😂
Last outbreak we had in Virginia tracked back to an unvaxed Afghani family. We need to push on entry we vax everyone.
https://www.vdh.virginia.gov/clinicians/update-on-measles-in-virginia/
5 years ago, quickly contained? Noteworthy, sure, but unrelated to this article.
The question you should be asking is, "why are measles able to spread through US populations" regardless of origin? From the article:
Honestly, I'm surprised RFK Jr. changed his position at all. Some parents of children who die of measles double down on their decision not to vaccinate.
People have egg allergies and can't get vaccines unfortunately. Then you have the nutters that won't take vaxxes and then here we are.
For me I had a really bad reaction to the last set of vaccines I got. I now know what Tetanus feels like in a minor way. Believe me you don't want it, it hurts a lot.
Who told you that?
https://www.bsaci.org/resources/allergy-management/food-allergy/vaccines-and-food-allergy/mmr-vaccine-and-egg-allergy/
Maybe there is a very, very small percentage of the population who cannot get vaccinated because of egg allergies. But that would be covered by herd immunity.
Correct! And why are they so prevalent? Partly because the head of health and human services spent years advocating against vaccines, is himself a nutter:
But now he doesn't want the casualties attributed to him, so he pretends to be reasonable.
That is unfortunate. Thank you for getting vaccinated. Some people do not have the option, it would literally kill them, as would getting certain viruses. I hope it was some kind of fluke. Do you know what the specific reaction was that caused your pain?
The people with allergies are a tiny fraction of the population, and they're one of the reasons why everyone else should get vaccinated. The other reason is that none of the vaccines are 100 percent effective. The tiny percentage of the population who can't get vaccinated, and the people for whom the vaccine didn't fully protect, are much safer if the other folks are vaccinated because the virus can't get a foothold, so exposure the up being negligible. Say someone comes in from another country that has an active infection. If all the people who that person encounters are protected, then the virus stops with that person.
The problem is that the number of people buying into the anti vaccine garbage is now nontrivial, so that herd immunity is out the window, and these previously well controlled viruses are now able to spread.
Provide sources when you spew that shit. It can't be fox or equal since they've already said they're an entertainment company, look it up.
Well, when they succeed in slashing the funding for all the outbreak tracking programs, they can ignore the non-existent data and go back to saying whatever they like to hear themselves say...
https://www.vdh.virginia.gov/clinicians/update-on-measles-in-virginia/
does not equal
While your logic is fine, the comparisons are inaccurate. The source says "Multiple cases of measles have been confirmed among individuals who have arrived in the United States from Afghanistan." Which sounds like they had measles before they got here. Though, the source isn't explicit one way or the other.
Wow, really? They were unvaxed coming from Afghanistan how hard is that to understand and a measles carrier? We used to quarantine ships (even Astronauts) to keep people safe and now days its a bloody free for all.
The level of not understanding the source of the issue is mind blowing. If they were quarantined and vaxed after there would be no measles outbreak...
If >95% of the people are vaxed it's not problem someone comes in unvaxed. Probably there is also a number on the opposite end, where coming in unvaxed is very dangerous for that person.
Then you should get yours, republican
I do have my measles vaccine thank you. I'm up to date on all my vaccines.
Congrats, you're a racist with a sense of self preservation.
slow clap
How am I racist? I pointed out a fact
https://www.vdh.virginia.gov/clinicians/update-on-measles-in-virginia/
Well if you're a Republican... You didn't deny it...
So should I deny being Gay or not being white? What kind of intolerant nonsense are you about?
So accepting and tolerant... lol NOT!
The only ones using the word “tolerant” these days are MAGAts. 🤔
I am proud to say I never will accept the morally bankrupt hypocrisy of Republicans. Nice try trying to lie this into what Republicans are though, fascist.