0 like 0 dislike
by Hero (19.3k points)
edited by
A reminder that pharma is spending $2M to trash RFKj's reputation ahead of the autism vaccine report this month.  This is their last chance to keep the status quo, and their extinction burst started right on time.

1 Answer

0 like 0 dislike
ago by Novice (880 points)
selected ago by

In this post on Bluesky, which is a social media site with a similar interface to X, user “@modulator.bsky.social” claims that “pharma is spending $2M to trash RFKj's reputation ahead of the autism vaccine report this month.” The user does not report any source for this information, but makes the claim that this is a desperate attempt to maintain the health-care status quo. 

There are no articles from reputable news sources backing up this claim.

An article from The Gateway Pundit by Jim Hoft

https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2025/04/fired-fda-chief-is-now-trashing-rfk-jr/

This article, written by Jim Hoft, the founder and editor of the Gateway Pundit, outlines the resignation of FDA official Dr. Peter Marks. Following his resignation, Dr. Marks spent time speaking out against RFK. This article poses the rhetorical question “who is behind this?” while mentioning a decline in stock value for vaccine makers. It also claims RFK made a groundbreaking study on Autism, and appears to point to ulterior motives behind Marks’ comments about RFK. The Gateway Pundit is an American far-right newssite, which is known for publishing falsehoods and spreading hoaxes and conspiracy theories. This article was released a few months before the Bluesky post in question, and could be the source for the claim, although no figure is provided to legitimize pharma spending money to trash RFK.

An article from CBS News by Alexander Tin

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/peter-marks-fda-vaccines-criticizes-rfk-jr-for-downplaying-measles-deaths/

This article pulls quotes from an interview between Dr. Marks and Margaret Brennan on “Face the Nation with Margaret Brennan.” In this interview, Marks speaks on how outside pressure from the Trump administration creates vaccine related conflicts for public health officials. These officials no longer feel comfortable publicly supporting vaccine use due to concerns about job security. He also spoke on RFK’s remarks about vaccines causing autism, mentioning how scientists typically do not speak in absolutes. He claimed that pseudoscientists use science for their own benefit rather than the benefit of mankind. He also spoke about how the fixed notion of the causal relationship between vaccines and autism is dangerous due to its prominence throughout the administration. While this interview did not place RFK in a positive light, it was not outwardly bashing him, and it does not appear that Marks is speaking out in favor of any specific pharmaceutical companies. He is simply outlining his concerns with the claim vaccines cause autism. 

A Yahoo News and Snopes fact check by Alex Kasprak

https://www.yahoo.com/news/fact-check-rfk-jr-misrepresented-002800073.html?guccounter=1&guce_referrer=aHR0cHM6Ly93d3cuZ29vZ2xlLmNvbS8&guce_referrer_sig=AQAAAMggz5amDEyMFwvE4UdSI3pfvqbohVIIcLT61P5nw53R0cZT2JyJisY43_aiOc-xIEGatug0Pt60ogNUA5wRdDVH3WXv_1ITlk_4wbZpq3TDS4JhDy1mKALtDEhbU7zN0oHdBQWEo_sgZdUSR06Bp80R_CUFCVl5LgYKrr_Bo8Bb

This article fact checks RFKs recent claim that Bernie Sanders was "the single largest receiver of pharmaceutical money" in Congress in 2020. According to the fact check, “The figure cited by Kennedy referred to the industry in which individual donors were employed. It did not refer to funds originating from, or directed by, pharmaceutical companies.” This outlines a history RFK has to question the backers of those who speak out against his claims. There could be a correlation between this claim and the one made by the user in their Bluesky post.

The final two articles indicate that there is no evidence of pharmaceutical companies spending money to tarnish RFKj’s reputation. They actually outline how RFK has a history of making false claims without proper supporting evidence. These articles go against the claims made in the post.


 

False

Community Rules


• Be respectful
• Always list your sources and include links so readers can check them for themselves.
• Use primary sources when you can, and only go to credible secondary sources if necessary.
• Try to rely on more than one source, especially for big claims.
• Point out if sources you quote have interests that could affect how accurate their evidence is.
• Watch for bias in sources and let readers know if you find anything that might influence their perspective.
• Show all the important evidence, whether it supports or goes against the claim.
...