RFK, MMR, WTF?

It's sent shockwaves around the anti-vax world today that famed "anti-vaxxer", and new US Health Secretary, Robert F. Kennedy Jr., has written an op-ed for Fox News encouraging families to receive the MMR vaccine.

Subtitled MMR vaccine is crucial to avoiding potentially deadly disease, Kennedy's article unequivocally states:

"Parents play a pivotal role in safeguarding their children’s health. All parents should consult with their healthcare providers to understand their options to get the MMR vaccine. The decision to vaccinate is a personal one. Vaccines not only protect individual children from measles, but also contribute to community immunity, protecting those who are unable to be vaccinated due to medical reasons."

As blindsiding a betrayal as this will certainly feel to many, regrettably, this bulletin came as no surprise to me - and nor should it have come as one to anyone who took RFK at his own word, as he has always insisted he is "not anti-vaccine".

RFK also cautioned us in 2024, just weeks before teaming up with Donald Trump, that Trump had "scammed" Americans, and that a second Trump administration would be no different to the first. To believe otherwise, RFK declared, was "engaging in wishful thinking".

I have written two pieces on RFK and his probable world stage role in the last two years, the first in April 2023, predicting that he would enter the White House (although I didn't quite foresee the route he'd get there!), and a second in August 2024, in response to his joining Team Trump.

The first piece, 'An Unprecedented President?'. you can read here, and the second - 'Curb Your Enthusiasm' - I reproduce below, as it seems very pertinent to what has now unfolded.

Whilst things have not played out exactly as I predicted, they're not far off, with the general key themes identified being accurate: that RFK is just another actor and deceiver, tasked with winning the trust of the "dissidents" so he can lure them into a trap.

Exactly the same trap all high-profile politicians aim to lure us into, regardless of what colour hat they're wearing (and, if you haven't already done so, please do look up what 'maga' means in Latin...).

All high-profile celebrity politicians - i.e., all politicians the media pays a lot of attention to, regardless of whether that attention is positive or negative - are the same:

"If you know their name, they're in the game".

(Incidentally - or not - my first Kennedy piece was the first of my audio essays to get banned from YouTube, before my channel was ultimately terminated altogether.)

Curb Your Enthusiasm

First published August 27th, 2024

"President Trump scammed American workers. He promised to bring back manufacturing, raise wages, fix trade deals, close the carried interest loophole, and help small farmers. But everything President Trump achieved were things the Republican machine wanted.

We got a tax cut for Jeff Bezos, deregulation for special interests, and giveaways to agriculture conglomerates.

President Trump let the Bush wing of the GOP run all his agencies. His Interior Secretary was an oil & gas lobbyist. His Defense Secretary was a Raytheon lobbyist. His EPA Administrator was a coal lobbyist. His HHS Secretary was a pharmaceutical lobbyist. And his Labor Secretary was a lawyer for mega corporations.

President Trump’s supposed support for farmers ($28 billion) all went to Big Ag conglomerates. We had the worst rioting and looting this country had seen since the 60s under President Trump.

He inflamed racial tensions and didn’t keep us safe. Instead of using federal law enforcement to stop the rioting, Trump thought it was good optics to let Democrat-run cities burn.

President Trump bragged about arming Ukraine more than Obama did. He also walked away unilaterally from the intermediate range nuclear missile treaty with Russia, destabilizing our relationship. He also exacerbated tensions between Ukraine and Russia that ultimately caused a war.

Trump appointed the worst neocons to the highest positions of power in his administration: John Bolton, HR McMaster, and Robert O’Brien. Now, Lindsey Graham is one of his top advisors and likely to be his Secretary of State.

President Trump bombed Syria, killed an Iranian general, and failed to fulfill his promise of ending the war in Afghanistan.

President Trump invented lockdowns. He shut down millions of small businesses and facilitated the greatest wealth transfer to billionaires in this country’s history.

President Trump did nothing to solve the opioid crisis. It got far worse under his tenure while his appointees running HHS were in the pocket of big pharma.

If you think a second Trump term would be any different, you are engaging in wishful thinking."

Who do you suppose these are the words of? Kamala Harris, perhaps? Maybe a Biden? Or just generally some staunch Never-Trumper determined to drive votes away from The Donald come November?

Surely they couldn't be the words of Robert F. Kennedy Jr., who has sensationally suspended his own campaign in order to formally endorse Trump?

Well, indeed they are his words, and he said them just three months ago.

So what's going on here? You cannot have a genuine "change of heart" about someone you have that much (valid) antipathy for in May, to the extent you are now - not just voting for them - but actually suspending your own campaign, and asking your own supporters to vote for them, by August. That just doesn't happen.

So how should we interpret this - should we conclude Kennedy is a liar, a hypocrite, insincere?

This, in my opinion, is the wrong question, and I will explain why.

In the sitcom 'Friends', the character Rachel states in an early episode that her birthday is May 5th, making her a Taurus. Yet in a later episode, she declares she's an Aquarius, meaning a January or February birthday.

So is this proof that Rachel is a liar, a hypocrite, insincere?

Obviously not, because "Rachel" doesn't exist - she's a scripted character and the reason for this discrepancy is that the writers developing her lines made a continuity error.

As I've emphasised many times, we can draw extensive parallels between acting and politics - between Hollywood and The White House - because these are essentially the same people doing the same jobs (hence why so many politicians have a theatrical background).

They are skilled professional deceivers, embodying scripted characters on the world stage in order to captivate public attention and powerfully shape behaviour (just think how many millions of women rushed out to get 'The Rachel' haircut because of what they saw a fictional character do on a screen: top actors are paid so much money precisely because of the extraordinary power they wield to shape public behaviour, and haircuts are just the start of it).

We have already explored the extensive acting credentials of Donald Trump, an accomplished thespian with many film credits to his name, and a star on the Hollywood Walk of Fame, and his running mate, JD Vance - author of a best-selling memoir made into a Hollywood blockbuster.

So it's not a great leap of logic to deduce that Mr. Kennedy is another professional chameleon, and he certainly has the extensive connections and credentials to support this.

His current wife, Cheryl Hines, is an extremely successful and high-profile actress, having starred for many years in the hugely popular HBO sitcom, 'Curb Your Enthusiasm', for which she has received two Emmy award nominations.

Curb Your Enthusiasm is known for featuring stars "playing fictionalised versions of themselves", including Ted Danson, Richard Lewis, Wanda Sykes, Rosie O'Donnell, and Jon Hamm.

And how did Hines and Kennedy meet?

They were introduced by Hines' Curb Your Enthusiasm co-star.

So, to recap, Kennedy is married to a famous actress, who made her name on a show where celebrities play fictionalised versions of themselves, and her co-star introduced them.

So Kennedy is clearly well in with the Hollywood set (indeed, his daughter has recently been spotted in what appear to be the early stages of romance with Hollywood megastar, Ben Affleck) - and if other top stars such as Ted Danson, Richard Lewis, Wanda Sykes, Rosie O'Donnell and Jon Hamm can play "fictionalised versions of themselves" on a TV show, then Robert F. Kennedy Jr. certainly can play one of himself on the world stage.

And that is what he is doing: he is playing the part of a politician in what is essentially a reality TV show, just as Donald Trump and JD Vance are.

This is what accounts for the apparent "continuity error" regarding his statement about Trump in May, and his endorsement now. He just got handed a new script.

Just, indeed, as Hollywood darling JD Vance did, which was why he so quickly went from a "Never-Trumper" who actually and literally compared Trump to Hitler... to being his running mate.

Real people simply don't make these kind of gargantuan political turnarounds in such a short space of time, just as real people don't forget when their own birthdays are. But scripted, fabricated screen creations do.

And real politicians would never in a million years accept into their closest inner circle people who had purported to be so vehemently hostile to them so recently. It would be inconceivably reckless and a massive security risk. Yet Trump, Kennedy and Vance have been able to glide so seamlessly between appearing to viciously hate each other, to actively embracing each other, and in such a short space of time, because none of this is real: it's all theatre.

So what is the purpose of this abrupt, scripted volte-face and "plot twist"?

It appears to be as follows: the ruling classes want Trump in the White House this November, but are well aware that many lifelong Democrats, plus many of Trump's own former supporters so badly let down last time (see RFK opening statement) would simply never vote for him. So, they sent in famed lifelong Democrat RFK - not only a hero to many because of his advocacy work on the environment and, more recently, vaccines (more of which later) - but the closest thing the American establishment has to royalty - a Kennedy, no less!

The purpose of RFK, therefore, has been to use his name and cache to hoover up the support of the dissidents disillusioned by Trump, by seeming to offer a real alternative, replete with liberal servings of Trump-bashing... but now that he's generated enough trust and support by so-doing, he does an about-face and tells his followers to vote for Trump after all.

The "official" reason Kennedy has given for this is that - as he states he himself cannot win the election - this is the best way of ensuring he does have some sort of power as, in return for his endorsement, Trump will install him in a key position.

While it's possible this is just the usual political posturing and Trump has no intentions of honouring his promise, in this case, I do in fact believe Trump will follow through, and that this is all part of a deftly designed agenda to shatter faith in our existing institutions and to usher in something new.

Kennedy has been very clear that his fundamental focus - and ultimately why he has endorsed Trump - is the shocking deterioration in the health of America's children, over half of whom now have a chronic illness of some sort.

Through his Children's Health Defense organisation, Kennedy has made it repeatedly apparent that he believes that one primary culprit for children's collapsing health is childhood vaccines, and in particular, the mercury and aluminium adjuvants these injections often contain. He has written a book calling for the immediate removal of mercury derivative thimerosal from all childhood vaccines.

So... having him in the White House would be great, right?

He might have gotten there somewhat dishonestly... but perhaps we can overlook that, if he can finally address all this catastrophic vaccine injury ravaging the nation's health, compensate families, and reform the captured and corrupt pharmaceutical industry.

Well... not so fast.

Here is a statement from Mr. Kennedy regarding his stance on vaccines, and whether he is - as the press often labels him - "anti-vaccine":

"I have always made it clear that I am not “anti-vaccine”. I want safe vaccines, robust science and uncorrupted regulators. By calling me “anti-vax”, vaccine companies seek to discredit, marginalize, silence me so as to prevent me from raising legitimate, urgent questions about the thoroughness of vaccine safety and efficacy assessments.

I have never made a statement that could be legitimately construed as “anti-vaccine”. To the contrary, I have spent my 37-year career as an environmental and public health advocate fighting for evidence-based science, and science-based policy. I have prevailed in many hundreds of lawsuits against the world’s largest polluters and I have helped build, and currently run, the globe’s largest water protection group; Waterkeeper Alliance, the umbrella organization of 350 Waterkeepers in 48 nations—including the U.K. I spent much of the past three decades fighting to get mercury out of fish, pesticides out of food, and to decarbonize our energy system.

No one calls me “anti-fish” , “anti-food”, or “anti-energy”. Nor should Pharma be given credence when it attempts to dismiss me as “anti-vaccine” simply because I have challenged the use of toxic metals such as mercury and aluminum in vaccines."

This brings us to the crux of what Kennedy is here to do: challenge the use of "toxic metals" in vaccines.... at a time where vaccine science has finally advanced enough that said metals - used as "adjuvants" to stimulate a stronger immune response - are no longer required.

By focusing only on the use of "toxic metals" in vaccines, whilst emphasising and re-emphasising he is "not anti-vaccine", Kennedy keeps the vaccine debate firmly in the Overton window and ensures ultimately the integrity of the vaccine programme remains in tact.

If Kennedy finally exposes on the world stage the enormous harm these toxic adjuvants have undoubtedly done, and continue to do, he will be rightfully hailed as a hero...

But look at the timing: the damage has already been done.

The establishment now has little to lose by allowing the whistle to be formally blown, now the aims of the vaccination programme (to subdue fertility, to lower IQ, to create lifelong customers for Big Phama) have been completed for so many millions - and now that they have an alternative that doesn't require these adjuvants.

The establishment actually has everything to gain via this strategy: enticing an increasingly cynical, distrustful public back into the mainstream fold and ensuring they once again "trust the science" by having a "hero" publicly expose the harms of the current generation of vaccines... and then assuring you that this new breed of injection is much safer and you can definitely now safely inoculate your loved ones.

RFK is really very explicit that this is his goal: "I am not “anti-vaccine”. I want safe vaccines."

And what's wrong with that position?

Well, first of all, there is no such thing: a powerful chemical injection can never be made "safe", only "safer". Some will still get side effects, some of them severe, and some will still die from these effects.

Yet even that is sidestepping a much more critical and fundamental issue: are childhood vaccines either necessary or desirable?

First of all, do they work, and if they do, is what they're achieving actually something we want to promote?

The answer to these questions - and as any honest researcher eventually finds when they go deep enough into the vaccine vortex - is no, and no.

Vaccines do not "work", because the fundamental assumption they are based on is demonstrably false, e.g., that the creation of antibody titres equates to immunity to disease.

When a vaccine is said to be "effective", this is not measured by whether it consistently prevents recipients from developing the condition in question, but rather, by whether it provokes the production of antibody titres in the blood.

As the authorities finally admitted during "Covid", antibody titres don't actually equate to immunity from disease (that's why we were relentlessly told that, even if we'd had "Covid" and thus "had antibodies", we still needed to get endlessly injected - because antibodies to a condition don't mean you're immune to it).

So vaccines don't work, because all they do is create antibodies, and antibodies don't equate to immunity.

But further than that, would it be desirable for them to work?To be clear: is preventing routine childhood illnesses something we actually want to do?

The overwhelming body of evidence says, NO.

These conditions are called "routine", and nature meant all children to pass through them, for a reason.

When children go through the process of measles or mumps or chicken pox, their bodies are undergoing powerful detoxes, throwing off toxic loads that may have been inherited from parents or accrued from other environmental sources. The evidence is very clear that going through these illnesses renders children overall less toxic, as they become less susceptible to toxicity-related conditions, like cancer and heart disease, later on.

What vaccines appear to do - why they create the illusion of "working" insofar as most children who have received e.g., a measles vaccine don't go on to contract measles - is suppress detox pathways, so toxicity that was meant to leave the body, stays trapped inside it instead, manifesting in much more serious ways later on.

In short, it isn't just the additional "crap" in vaccines undermining national health - it is the very mechanism of vaccinating itself, and stopping children from developing measles and other short-lived childhood ailments is actively harming their health.

Whilst routine childhood illnesses have been depicted through the propaganda press as terrifying bogeymen that - if it weren't for vaccines - would wipe out whole generations of children, the reality is - and as all the real evidence shows - these conditions are no threat to well-nourished children in first-world countries.

When these conditions are associated with complications, it is typically due to chronic malnutrition or severe hygiene issues such as one would find in the third world - and used to find here. Once nutrition, hygiene, and sanitation reached modern standards in the West, serious complications associated with childhood illnesses evaporated and it was only *after* these declines had already taken place that vaccines for these conditions were then widely introduced.

The solution then, to avoid complications from conditions such as measles, is to ensure all children worldwide are well-fed and have access to sufficient clean water and proper plumbing, not to inject them with a boatload of crap, whether or not that crap happens to contain an adjuvant (and indeed, several of the current generation of vaccines do not, but they are still widely capable of causing injury).

It is my contention, and all the real evidence thoroughly supports me in this claim, that no vaccine ever has or ever will improve the health of any living being it is injected into: quite the contrary, in fact.

Even without the adjuvants, and even if we were able to make all injections "safer" - as safe as it is possible for a pharmaceutical product to be - they remain not just unnecessary, but actively deleterious. Even a "safe vaccine" harms children by preventing them from passing through the natural, powerful, protective detoxes nature intends for them.

But this position exists way outside the Overton window, and thusly, where no mainstream, establishment politician - which is obviously what Kennedy is, that's why he gets so much mainstream, establishment coverage - will ever dare to tread.

As I said, Kennedy's purpose appears to be to oversee a dismantling of all existing health institutions, as they are increasingly exposed as irretrievably corrupted, and to win trust by demonstrating that - as he exposed the previous generation of vaccines as unsafe - you can trust him when he says the future generation of injections, and the new health bodies supporting them, are safe.

You wouldn't trust "father of the vaccine", Donald "Operation Warp Speed" Trump on this.

But you would trust ardent vaccine safety champion and revered political royalty, Bobby Kennedy, wouldn't you?

We're seeing a changing of the guard meant to lure dissidents - in particular the newly "awake" who lost faith in the establishment during Covid - back into the fold. The establishment wants to make you feel heard, represented, validated... because then your vigilance drops and you're much easier to manipulate and control.

They've done this to the political left for years, as I covered in my previous article - sucking up to them, courting them, pretending to care about leftist issues... so these people trust them and do their bidding (hence why left-leaning liberal types where overwhelmingly more likely to take the Covid vaccine).

Now it's the turn of the political right, including "conspiracy theorists". Now the ruling classes need you back under establishment control, so they're manufacturing heroes and saviours for you, just as they always do (Kennedy literally walked out onto stage at the recent Trump rally to the tune of Foo Fighters' "My Hero").

This is part of an age-old military strategy, which I'll refer to as "entice the enemy with bait..." In essence, the idea that you're far more successful with vanquishing an enemy when you don't make your hostile intentions overt, but rather, pretend to be their friends.

So, as usual, we must not put any faith in high-profile Hollywoodised politics, which is just a high-octane scripted reality TV show, just like Kennedy's wife's hit show.

The real power we have to elicit change remains just where it always has been - within us and in our own local, real communities. Donald Trump and Robert F. Kennedy are just characters on a screen, reading scripts and playing parts, ultimately no more 'real' than Rachel from Friends.

The people around us, however, and the day-to-day lives we share, are real.

Talking to people about vaccine harms, encouraging local action and activism, using independent businesses, paying in cash - these are all the ways we "win" (including getting involved in non-glam, non high-profile local council politics, where we really can make a difference), not by putting any faith in the serial liars and professional deceivers who uniformly constitute high-level politics.

We have to continually remember that the establishment never makes any individual a household name unless that person is a thoroughly owned and controlled asset, because household names have the capacity for such immense power and influence (again, that is why top actors are paid so much money).

Of course, the coverage the establishment media gives to Kennedy and Trump is often negative, because they're building their credentials as "anti-establishment heroes". If the legacy press was nice about them, obviously they'd have no credibility in this regard.

Yet the reality is, if they were actually anti-establishment, or in any way threatening to the agenda, they would be completely ignored - starved of the vital lifeblood of publicity they need to reach people - not given daily coverage all across the world's top mainstream press vehicles. (Comically, Kennedy's brother Max has written a piece entitled 'Ignore My Brother Bobby'... and then published it in one of the highest-circulation publications in the world.)

If ignoring somehow didn't work (although it almost always does), they would be killed, as per one of the few mainstream politicians who publicly called out Covid as a hoax was (whilst our Overton window boys are only allowed to say "the threat was exaggerated" or "the response was disproportionate" - not the truth: that it didn't exist at all).

This is why we had an obviously faked "assassination attempt" on Trump (which even his supporters now admit was fake, "but that doesn't matter because it will help him get elected") - to try and fabricate the credibility "assassination" confers on a politician. But as I said at the time, if the establishment actually wanted Trump extinguished, they wouldn't just "attempt" this, just as they didn't merely "attempt" it with "Covid-denying" John Magufuli.

Equally, if Kennedy was a real threat, he wouldn't be all over our screens and newspapers daily, and with a social media audience of millions. He'd be ruthlessly deplatformed, demonetised, and stripped of all the resources he needs to stay relevant and popular (just as happens to much smaller, genuine dissidents all the time).

As it is, the whole international legacy media is going lockstep is doing everything possible to get you to pay attention to him.

It's all a show.

And as Kennedy's famous (and famously pro-vaccine) actress wife might put it, perhaps it's time we "curbed our enthusiasm" for watching it...

Thanks for reading! This article was originally published at miriaf.co.uk, which is entirely reader-supported, with no paywalls, adverts, or wealthy corporate backers, meaning your support is what powers this site to keep going. If you enjoyed this article, and would like to read more in the future, please consider…

1. Subscribing monthly at Substack or Patreon (where paid subscribers can comment on posts)

2. Making a one-off contribution via BuyMeACoffee

3. Contributing in either way via bank transfer to Nat West, account number 30835984, sort code 54-10-27, account name FINCH MA (please use your email address as a reference if you’d like me to acknowledge receipt).

Your support is what allows these articles to keep being created and is enormously appreciated. Thank you.