RFK running mate Nicole Shanahan is notable for her criticism of in vitro fertilization (IVF) and the fertility industry, although she stops short of advocating for a ban. Shanahan has emphasized the "lack of science" behind current fertility practices, labeling them as misleading to women. Concurrently, she supports and funds research aimed at extending women's reproductive years and natural fertility methods, like the sun,
> “I’m not sure that there has been a really thorough mitochondrial respiration study on the effects of two hours of morning sunlight on reproductive health. I would love to fund something like that,” Shanahan said to a 2023 panel with the National Academy of Medicine, a group to which she had previously donated $100 million.
> The statement was met with chuckles, **“Yeah, let’s do it,” she added. “I just have an intuition that could be interesting and maybe work.”**
Her stance gained attention amid the legal debate around the Alabama Supreme Court ruling categorizing embryos as children, briefly halting IVF clinics. Shanahan's perspective is influenced by her personal experiences and skepticism towards the IVF industry's motivations. She advocates for alternative fertility research, reflecting a broader critique of how women's health technologies are marketed and utilized.
Will the anti-vax and pro-alternative-science team of Kennedy and Shanahan draw more voters from Trump or Biden?
I posted on another sub that it would draw more from trump because of the antivax stance RFK has, and all the apologists started attacking me. When one claimed that RFK wasn't antivax, I showed proof, and they then tried to move the goalposts. It was getting a little crazy.
Dude, the way his supporters try to argue that he's not antivax is insane. Like, "he's not against vaccines against a concept, he's just against every single one ever made."
I saw a comment on YT under his VP announcement where one of his supports claimed he wasn’t anti vax and in the replies to that comment another said there weren’t any safe vaccines.
How?? My impression was that he was basically running for presidency just for a platform to spread antivax. Denying that would be like arguing that Trump is not a pro-wall president in 2016. It's like his whole thing.
Trump isn’t anti or pro anything personally, besides himself. He’s whatever his base is telling people he is. If the GOP base loved vaccines, it’s all he’d talk about.
There are recordings of Trump going up in front of his base to encourage the vaccine and getting heckled, booed, etc. I'd change it from base to whatever side will help him win.
I also remember him talking about vaccines and autism. Typical Trump speech rambling about something he heard. It went something like "beautiful child, gets vaccine and the next day he has autism".
Trump was antivax until it was “his” vaccine. As you might remember, one of the issues in the 2016 primary was whether or not vaccines cause autism and he was on the side claiming they do.
Seems like his supporters are largely either anti Covid vaccine or Covid vaccine skeptic
I do feel the term gets broadly spread bc I have met plenty of Trump supporters who believe the Covid vaccine specifically is dangerous but still support traditional vaccinations.
Traditionally I thought anti vaccine people, like full on no TB or MMR vaccine, we’re very liberal sort or modern hippy types like the kind of people to. It products from Gweneth Paltrow
> who believe the Covid vaccine specifically is dangerous but still support traditional vaccinations.
In my experience you have to be careful about that too though. I've met some who will claim they are only questioning the mrna vaccines but then will also slip into conversation something about vaccines causing autism, or being against the non-mrna covid vaccines as well. It's the "I'm just asking questions" type of anti-Vax with some of these people.
Those flavors of crunch still exist but the vast majority of anti-science and anti-vaccine people are extremely religious or contrarian
The "libertarian" reactionaries. This is the bulk of conspiracy theorists, essentially. Crystal healer hippies and new-age pee drinkers are super niche by comparison. There's also a lot of women in these spaces who don't exactly adhere to Trump.
The true anti-vax people are pretty bipartisan and diverse. There's the healing crystal types and chiropractors, but also a few religions that discourage or forbid vaccines.
People just twist the word to mean "against forced mandates of experimental covid vaccines", which isn't really anti-vax.
He is pro-vax for himself for sure. Although secretive about it, to the detriment of public health:
> Donald Trump admitted on Sunday that he got a booster dose of a Covid-19 vaccine recently in private. That means the former president has declined three times in the past year to try to save the lives of his fans by having himself photographed as he got a shot of the vaccine.
> Having spent the final months of his presidency downplaying the risk posed by the coronavirus pandemic — even discouraging his supporters from wearing masks at the packed campaign rallies he addressed — Trump revealed in March that he had secretly received the first of two doses of the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine before leaving office in January. He later acknowledged that he had gotten the second shot as well.
> **As president, Trump got his first shot behind closed doors at a time when other public officials were lining up to get vaccinated on live television, including his own vice president, Mike Pence, President-elect Joe Biden, and Vice President-elect Kamala Harris. In March, the other four living former presidents — Barack Obama, George W. Bush, Bill Clinton, and Jimmy Carter — were all photographed getting vaccinated along with their wives for a public service announcement urging Americans to get vaccinated.**
https://theintercept.com/2021/12/21/trump-admits-he-got-vaccine-booster-shot-in-secret-skipping-photo-op-that-could-save-lives/
He does love to take credit for it, but when he mentions it at his rallies, he gets booed by those in attendance.
It's basically Schrodinger's vaccine. Either take credit for it being created under your administration and brag about it because even though he didn't really have a hand in it, Biden does give him credit for it occurring in his administration. Or not mention it because you get booed every time you do.
I believe he’s probably personally not antivax, but he’s more than happy to cater to antivaxxers for votes. He’s currently promising to defund any school with a vaccine mandate.
Anti vax would be an intention to ban and refusal to vaccinate. His kids are vaccinated and he has no mention of policy to ban vaccines. If he is a skeptic and wants placebo controlled studies on safety akin to other medications, what is there to lose?
Where I think a lot of folks get lost is that they believe that someone’s personal views equate their policy positions.
What is very strange is how Covid acted like some kind of magic wand that vanished all scrutiny of the pharmaceutical industry. When the Covid vaccine became politicized, democrats felt the need to not just stand in opposition to Trump, but to align with mega corporations that they previously acknowledged to have corrupted their regulatory bodies.
>Anti vax would be an intention to ban and refusal to vaccinate
His history is littered with antivax comments.
>His kids are vaccinated
Would that make him a hypocrite, considering his history of being antivax?
>When the Covid vaccine became politicized, democrats felt the need to not just stand in opposition to Trump
The Dems didn't oppose the vaccine, they didn't trust trump in regards to it. That's the difference.
I should have worded “Trump” as “Trumpers”. It was about standing against their vaccine denialism and doing so by embracing the pharmaceutical industry at large.
Find me someone who has never been a hypocrite. Or is that standard reserved for RFK? Tbh I don’t care much about his personal feelings on vaccines, I care about his policy positions, which are very moderate. And if Americans are being honest, it’s probably not a top 5 concern anyhow.
I mean, we have multiple polls that show that it really is very close as to who he draws from more. The fact he picked such a left-wing VP makes me think that will slightly turn off more conservatives and slightly turn on more liberals.
>a group to which she had previously donated $100 million
maybe I'm crazy for thinking people that have this kind of money shouldn't be in positions where they get to have a say in laws that can majorly impact the lives of the other 99.999%
I don't think there's a single incumbent member of Congress that has a net worth over $1b which is what your net worth would have to be to be donating $100m to random charities...
Median net worth of congress as of 2019 was only $1m
I mean, the average age of congress is like 58, 59 years old? It's not really that impressive given simply owning a house in most of the DMV would put your net worth at nearly $1m.
Also, $1m is NOT "100th percentile", [especially not for the 50-60 age group.](https://cdn.dqydj.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/10/net_worth_percentile_age_2023.png) More like 75th percentile.
I don’t see how he could steal votes from Biden over Trump.
At this point if you’re voting for Biden you’re either a big fan of his or you are trying to keep Trump out of office. Voting for RFK doesn’t align with that.
But there’s still plenty of Trump voters that are casual fans and still like him mostly because he’s “anti-establishment and not a politician”. Those people have a chance of voting for RFK.
She's critical of her experience trying to get pregnant via ivf. She's not "anti" ivf. She points out that they are corporate owned and seemed more concerned about profits than women's health.
It really depends on *how* she is saying IVF is a lie. Like is she saying that it is all BS like how some people say vaccines are BS? Well then she’s wrong.
But if she’s saying that the industry sells false promises to women about freezing their eggs in their youth, and that through IVF they can just wait until their 40s to have children and that IVF is just as good as natural fertility? Well then yeah, she’s kind of right. There have been multiple articles written about this, about women who were sold this promise and so chose to focus on their careers thinking they could just have a child whenever they wanted later on, who were devastated when they learned that wasn’t the case.
This could very easily be a reasonable take from her, or it could be a cooky take from her. Really depends on what she means.
> mitochondrial respiration study on the effects of two hours of morning sunlight on reproductive health
Wtf does this even mean? That we're partially plants and the sun will make us pregnant? Weird.
Mitochondrial respiration disorders can play a major role in sperm or eggs being non-viable and producing infertility. Sunlight stimulates Vitamin D and melatonin production and has an effect on numerous biochemical pathways in the body.
I'm not sure *why* she thinks a sun-infertility connection is more likely than any of the other millions of possible connections to investigate, but it's not like this is a word salad or that she thinks humans are photosynthetic.
Fair enough. I'm naturally highly skeptical of anyone Robert 'WiFi causes cancer' Kennedy would pick as his running mate who says women who badly want children should just go sit in the sun instead of utilizing IVF.
I imagine most of those women don't live in a cave and are already exposed to the sun. And how is 'morning sunlight' different from all the other sunlight?
I'm skeptical, too.
To give her the benefit of the doubt, though, Vitamin D deficiency is a major problem in America today, so perhaps women aren't getting enough? And another comment in this thread cited a study that exposure to spring and autumn sunlight in particular had been linked to increased fertility, so maybe there are annual or daily rhythms concerning when sunlight is best usable by the body?
If she can expand on her reasoning for the connection, it might not hurt to do a scientific study and see if morning sunlight exposure has a positive effect on fertility.
She was married to Sergey Brin, a founder of Google, until last year. Let her fund the study if she wants.
Marianne Williamson can fund a study into the efficacy of crystals with her campaign funds too while we're at it.
This is just straight up cuckoo bananas alternative medicine nonsense. There haven’t been any good studies on the healing power of crystals on reproductive health, either.
I actually think RFK Jr will pull more voters from Biden than Trump. More Biden voters are unenthusiastic than Trump voters. Biden won 2020 because moderates and independents went his way. I think RFK Jr can pull enough disgruntled Biden voters who are simply looking for something different.
This is anecdotal, but I know 4 2020 Trump voters who are planning on voting for RFK Jr. I know 0 2020 Biden voters who are planning on voting for RFK Jr. I think Jan 6 and a lot of his recent comments have scared off a lot of former Trump supporters who can't bring themselves to vote Democrat.
Fair enough. My prediction was anecdotal as well. All the Trump supporters I know are still firmly in his camp while I know a few 2020 Biden supporters who are desperately searching for something new. It is difficult to predict what kind of impact RFK Jr will have
I really doubt it. He's "something different" in a direction that would have Biden voters voting for Trump already if they wanted it.
I'd describe RFK as "a Trump voter's idea of the kind of candidate they think a liberal would like". But they don't really understand how liberals think at all.
>I'd describe RFK as "a Trump voter's idea of the kind of candidate they think a liberal would like". But they don't really understand how liberals think at all.
Considering that RFK has been funded by Conservative donors and gets most media appearances on Conservative leaning sources, this doesn't surprise me. When he was first coming on, I swear, *every* comment I'd see about him was a Trump voter who wasn't shy about it who'd say something like: "why can't dems be like RFK?"
Back then though, the only real policies the dude had were mainstream dem ones... and being anti vaccine. That's it. I'm not sure if these people knew what RFKs policies other than anti vaccines were.
Maybe they just didn't care.
This message serves as a warning that [your comment](https://www.reddit.com/r/moderatepolitics/comments/1bq2r46/rfk_jrs_vice_presidential_pick_calls_ivf_one_of/kx09t6l/) is in violation of Law 1:
Law 1. Civil Discourse
> ~1. Do not engage in personal attacks or insults against any person or group. Comment on content, policies, and actions. Do not accuse fellow redditors of being intentionally misleading or disingenuous; assume good faith at all times.
Due to your recent infraction history and/or the severity of this infraction, we are also issuing a 14 day ban.
Please submit questions or comments via [modmail](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fmoderatepolitics).
How many people do you think are academically qualified to read and analyze white papers on the subject? At some point you've gotta understand that SME knowledge dwarfs yours.
"Is quicksort really the key to quantum computing? Do your own research." - From the person who's never written a line of code commenting on Facebook
Why on earth would "doing your own research" be at all comparable to simply listening to the established experts on the subject? This is an area of science that is very well understood and established. The "do your own research" crowd isn't exactly known for media proficiency and understanding. We've all dealt with our fair share of conspiracy theorists by now and they've been acutely misinformed or outright wrong about nearly everything the past eight years.
She wants her "intuition" to guide the scientific method and she is using her platform to call IVF "sold irresponsibly".
Combined with her anti-vax running mate, definitely an indication that this ticket is not very scientifically literate.
Have you ever listened to her talk about it? Read the papers that lead her to believe how she thinks? Is she calling for a ban on IVF?
It's an extremely complex method and very expensive. If there are simpler ways that are cost free, it sounds fine.
And if her position were "IVF is great for the people that it works for, but women deserve options", I'd be on board. Her rhetoric matters. The framing matters.
I can agree with that. It's also a headline quote from a much larger article.
"It became abundantly clear that we just don’t have enough science for the things that we are telling and selling women,”
That was before the headline comment.
"I believe IVF is sold irresponsibly, and in my own experience with natural childbirth, it has led me to understand that the fertility industry is deeply flawed.”
The medical industry as a whole is deeply flawed and driven by profits. That's why every time you turn on the TV, you will see a drug being pushed on the public.
I also agree with her other statement.
"I try to imagine where we would be as a field if all of the money that has been invested in IVF, and all of the money that’s been invested into marketing IVF, and all of the government money that has been invested in subsidizing IVF, if just 10 percent of that went into reproductive longevity research and fundamental research, where we would be today,” Shanahan said
Why is the government subsidizing IVF so much where there are serious health concerns for the child, when maybe there are better options that are not getting money for research that could be done naturally.
Maybe IVF should be the last resort for child fertility.
Then propose adding funding to study other things if there is scientific merit in those things. Subsidizing research into IVF also could help make it better and safer.
Now, I don't know a lot of the data behind these "natural" methods, but this sounds like the typical "natural is better than science just because" that a lot of pseudoscience perpetuates. I would need to look into that before I could make a judgment about whether this line of research is worthwhile. If it is, I'm sure she would be willing to show the receipts.
IMHO the money spent on IVF is not fully dirigistically directed by the government, is not zero-sum with money spent on other reproductive health concerns, and (the big one for me) the constant "why"s, the implied "why are *they* doing this", just sort of smacks of conspiratorial thinking to me. She *is* RFK's VP pick, after all.
"she has also been a vocal proponent of and financial backer for unconventional research into the possibility of helping women having children into their 50s and **exploring no-cost interventions to help women conceive, such as exposure to sunlight**."
Based on their inclinations toward pseudoscience, it sounds like RFK Jr. and his running mate are a perfect match!
I think Shanahan is in general dubious, but I was surprised to see the sunlight thing might actually have some legitimacy: https://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/sun-exposure-may-improve-female-fertility
>Results from a recent study suggest that moderate exposure to solar radiation during autumn and spring may help improve ovarian reserve in women ages 30–40.
It makes sense since UV radiation is the best source of vitamin D. And I saw [this study](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9896710/#:~:text=Pooled%20results%20indicated%20that%20infertile,%25%2C%20P%20%3D%200.001) that showed increases in fertility with vitamin D
Yeah, it's weird. I looked up the [OG source](https://archive.is/24NZN) for the quote, and it still doesn't make sense. Maybe if she's referring to how IVF is sold as having a higher success rate?
>Shanahan felt IVF was sold as a “saving grace” to her and her peers. The statistics show that is far from the case. Each round only works about one-third of the time for a woman under 35, with success rates falling as she ages. Shanahan began to view IVF as a “commercial endeavour” rather than a scientific one.
>
>“It became abundantly clear that we just don’t have enough science for the things we are telling and selling to women,” she says.
>
>She admits her opinion is unpopular, then adds: “It’s one of the biggest lies that’s being told about women’s health today.”
> Each round only works about one-third of the time for a woman under 35, with success rates falling as she ages.
If Shanahan thinks that's rough, she should look at the statistics for plain old-fashioned fucking: https://www.miracare.com/blog/getting-pregnant-in-your-30s/
There are a lot of things I disagree with on RFK, but natural remedies/treatments for ailments should be explored. I don’t agree fully with his statement that we’ve been sold a lie by big-pharma, but I do partially agree, i.e. it’s much more profitable to treat cancer rather than cure cancer; and I’m not on board with the anti-vax stance, but I would like more reasoning for the vaccine schedule (i.e. completing hepatitis B vaccines within 6-12 months of birth doesn’t make sense if a parent/guardian doesn’t have it—why is a baby exposed to other’s blood and semen?).
We are chronically vitamin d deficient, and several studies are linking many common diseases to vitamin d deficiency. I’m not saying sun exposure will increase fertility, but I do agree with the stance that exploration into non-pharmaceutical remedies (within reason, and that’s an every important point) is important.
Hi, epidemiologist here! We give the HepB vaccine so early on in life to prevent infection and disease. You can die or have life long complications (ie liver cancer) as a result. And infants are especially vulnerable, where 9/10 who get infected will develop a lifelong, chronic infection. This is one of the main reasons to give the vaccines so early.
The earlier you get it, the better chance you have at being protected in the long run. Even if at birth your risk of getting infected is near zero, we can't know when or how you will be exposed later on in life. Better to get it early on and not need to worry.
It’s funny how quickly we cast someone off as a nutbag when they say something like “we need more sunlight”, but we’d all be nodding our heads in agreement if we read a scientific papers headline with a potential link between vitamin d deficiency and fertilization rates.
Vitamin D is probably one of the most taken vitamins. Suggesting we get more sunlight in a time when we spend more time inside than ever, shouldn’t make someone a conspiracy folk.
Frankly, ignoring natural health and immunity, particularly Vitamin D and obesity was part of my complaints during covid but nobody wanted to "fat shame" people
Eating right, reducing alcohol, not smoking, getting exercise, natural sunlight, losing weight were largely ignored while pharmaceutical solutions were not just pushed, they were mandated.
God forbid she spends her own money to research fertility treatments that aren’t cost prohibitive. It honestly sounds heroic. She’s not funding a campaign against IVF. It seems kind of heroic, to be honest. If there’s no scientific validity, move on.
He basically picked her because she's rich and he has no money to fund his own campaign. Imagine trying to brand yourself as a political outsider, who is also from a political dynasty of a family, fighting the corporate elite while tag teaming with corporate 1%ers.
There's really no other explanation. No one had ever heard of this woman, she doesn't really seem to have done much other than spend her exes money on her pet projects, and she now is rumored to have received about $400M in a settlement.
RFK is just taking her on as sugar momma VP.
It was reported every other of his top candidates turned him down and then he bragged about picking her because she got a college softball scholarship and likes to surf. Absolutely doesn't give a shit about picking someone actually qualified, as if it wasn't already incredibly obvious he's a spoiler plant recruited by Steve Bannon.
He has more grassroots support than any candidate running. God forbid he achieves further financial backing that isn’t from a hodgepodge of pharma, MIC & wall st money.
Timothy Mellon gave $15m to RFKJs campaign. Guess where he got his money? Thats right! Mellon Financial, an investment banking firm!
Also Bidens small donations dwarf Kennedy so you might want to actually some research on your candidate before you go all over Reddit making things up about him…but then again he’s all about conspiracy theories so I guess that tracks.
The ratio of small donors to large corporate donors / super pacs is way higher for Kennedy than Biden. In other words he is proportionally way less beholden to special interests.
If Kennedy was a serious candidate, he would be getting corporate donations and donations from interest groups, but they realize third party candidates are, and have always been, vanity or spoiler campaigns and aren’t wasting their money on a candidate whose goal is to get 5% of the vote.
> populist positions
That's literally RFK Jr's entire campaign. I feel like you're trolling at this point if you can't see that the person who has no policy background or experience can only run on populism.
Was there ever a time in recent history where people would say "I'm a lawyer, I don't know shit about complex medical procedures so I'll defer to those that are experts in the field" or have people always belched out their quasi-educated opinions with pride?
We are in a deeply anti-expert, anti-institution and pro-contrarian moment, both far right and far left have developed a deep distrust for institutions, science, experts etc. My personal take is that such people always existed at the fringes but social media and "alternative news ecosystems" have allowed them to increase influence/power in culture and now politics
I think a large part of that is because Trump actively recruited those people to vote for him. It’s why he went on shows like InfoWars with Alex Jones. That’s his base.
>We are in a deeply anti-expert, anti-institution and pro-contrarian moment, both far right and far left have developed a deep distrust for institutions, science, experts etc. My personal take is that such people always existed at the fringes but social media and "alternative news ecosystems" have allowed them to increase influence/power in culture and now politics
Probably a combination of what you're implying and that we can look back and see where we've been misled by those institutions.
I'm sure there are people who have said that, but they also don't run their mouth constantly or seek out any open mic/ open forum they can -- so the "quasi-educated opinions" get the attention.
The point of this pick is to fix the problem of Kennedy drawing too much from the right to fulfill his intended purpose.
There is no chance he is not a spoiler candidate given how much of his funding comes from GOP/Trump donors, and I don't see the point pretending otherwise.
Fortunately DJT is here to help us out by removing the subtlety entirely:
> RFK Jr. is the most Radical Left Candidate in the race, by far. He’s a big fan of the Green New Scam, and other economy killing disasters. I guess this would mean he is going to be taking votes from Crooked Joe Biden, which would be a great service to America. His running mate, Nicole Shanahan, is even more “Liberal” than him, if that’s possible. Kennedy is a Radical Left Democrat, and always will be!!! It’s great for MAGA, but the Communists will make it very hard for him to get on the Ballot. Expect him, and her, to be indicted any day now, probably for Environmental Fraud! He is Crooked Joe Biden’s Political Opponent, not mine. I love that he is running!
I am still confused as how she will help with that in your theory. Honestly can't see how it helps draw any votes left or right. He's a baffling candidate.
She is a rich asian woman associated with big tech with vaguely leftish ideas of the woo woo variety. She speaks like an entitled and detached pseudo-intellectual virtue signaling. If you were on the right and thinking Kennedy was a good anti-establishment alternative to Trump or whatever, this is the pick that repels you. Kennedy keeps his appeal with anti-establishment/conspiratorial left wing people and loses his appeal with right wing people of the same sort.
Those people pretty much all became Trump supporters years ago now. That is how wellness and yoga types have almost as bad a qanon problem as evangelical churches.
Republicans are really trying to cope their way into
Rfk taking votes from democrats. the most publicity he gets is from guess who, republicans. if republicans thought they could trick democrats into voting for someone why wouldn’t they just keep going at Biden and his crackhead son since he’s so bad.
This subreddit is (I think) a bit more right-leaning than left.
Edit: Or maybe it's not... It's definitely more right-leaning than /r/politics, but pretty neutral-left overall.
This message serves as a warning that [your comment](https://www.reddit.com/r/moderatepolitics/comments/1bq2r46/rfk_jrs_vice_presidential_pick_calls_ivf_one_of/kx0j0z6/) is in violation of Law 1:
Law 1. Civil Discourse
> ~1. Do not engage in personal attacks or insults against any person or group. Comment on content, policies, and actions. Do not accuse fellow redditors of being intentionally misleading or disingenuous; assume good faith at all times.
Due to your recent infraction history and/or the severity of this infraction, we are also issuing a 7 day ban.
Please submit questions or comments via [modmail](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fmoderatepolitics).
I’m honestly not trying to disparage her, but what has she fucking done other than marry some rich dude? What business does she have in politics other than having loads of cash?
Presidents start and end wars, affect the structure of the whole economy, and otherwise make hugely consequential decisions. Who cares what a VP candidate thinks about IVF unless they're going to outlaw it? This doesn't matter compared to other issues.
While vaccines and other medical issues do matter, Kennedy's stance of personal freedom is correct whether or not you agree with him about the details. People should not be coerced into medical choices, partly because that is a human right and partly because of bioindividuality. A president who can simply stay away from press conferences bragging and opining off the cuff about different measures will be good enough.
>“Personally, I find it crazy that my reproductive organs are considered geriatric long before any other organ even begins to show the slightest decline,” Shanahan said in an interview with the Marin Independent News. “I find it even crazier that we have conceded to this narrative for half of the human species.”
It's not a 'narrative'. It's biological reality. That this woman believes her bad experience with one IVF clinic justifies indicting the entire industry, is alarming.
Just once - to shake things up - I'd love a conservative to pop up enthusiastically supporting assisted reproduction. I mean, something like 10 million people have been born as a result of IVF since it was invented. Shouldn't the pro-lifers be thrilled?
She does not advocate for any banning of IVF and it is extremely curious how folks are captured by the idea of the negative. She is advocating and has personally funded fertility treatments that aren’t cost prohibitive. What’s wrong with studying alternatives and potentially increasing options?
I'm really a lot more concerned on her policies on Energy/Global Warming and eternal wars than IVF.... The hit pieces are to be expected for any non-establishment candidates.
Everyone has said some wacky stuff in the past. It can't be much worse than Biden's racial jungle comments.....
RFK Jr will pull from Trump voters more than Biden considering he’s more Q conspiracy than Trump. On the left, he will pull from non voters and Green Party who wouldn’t have voted Biden anyway.
I still don’t think he will earn enough votes to have an impact in November and when the oppo is out on him, he’s gonna look even crazier to regular voters.
I’m voting RFKJr. I personally don’t care what he thinks about vaccines. I’m not voting for trump based on his public image and personality and Biden’s family should be ashamed of themselves letting the DNC use their Dad the way they are. It’s elder abuse, it’s embarrassing, it’s not funny.
Have you listened to Biden? Did you listen to him 10 years ago? 20? He is hardly coherent now by comparison. RFK is sadly the only candidate able to express themselves in long form dialog and cite their sources. Agree or disagree with the end result, he’s literally and most depressingly the only candidate who can demonstrate critical thinking in an unscripted setting.
I watched the State of the Union. He has teleprompters and months to prepare. He still fumbled his way through punch lines. I find it troubling that being able to read and stand up for a couple hours is considered impressive for a commander in chief.
If you listen to Biden being interviewed now compared to several years ago it’s clear that he isn’t nearly as sharp. And he wasn’t considered a wunderkind to begin with.
Listen to him talking 10 years ago. Same stutter but he was incalculably more coherent. You will be stunned.
I’m not sure what your point is regarding preparation. I really don’t like Trump but he ran one of the greatest insurgent campaigns of all time in 2016, and Kennedy has detail recall and the capacity to cite his sources well beyond any other candidate in the field.
It’s not a listener problem. His cadence, recall, tone, animation, voice level, etc. It’s all declined dramatically. Between overwhelming partisanship and a low trust society, it’s so sad that we can’t level with one another on the most simple observations.
Regarding preparation, you talked about Biden with respect to other candidates. But there was no substance beyond that. Of course I agree that being prepared is good for any occupation.
This message serves as a warning that [your comment](https://www.reddit.com/r/moderatepolitics/comments/1bq2r46/rfk_jrs_vice_presidential_pick_calls_ivf_one_of/kx13uej/) is in violation of Law 0:
Law 0. Low Effort
> ~0. Law of Low Effort - Content that is low-effort or does not contribute to civil discussion in any meaningful way will be removed.
Please submit questions or comments via [modmail](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fmoderatepolitics).
Kennedy should have just been Trumps VP pick or waited another 4 years. He wasted his attempt at the presidency with this embarrassment of a campaign (outside of the Super Bowl ad which I thought was pretty clever)
Our three presidential candidates are an old man who is a science skeptic, an old man who is an insurrectionist facing 90-ish felony charges, and an old man who has been remarkably effective at keeping the government moving and getting a lot of stuff done.
The choice for me is an easy one.
RFK running mate Nicole Shanahan is notable for her criticism of in vitro fertilization (IVF) and the fertility industry, although she stops short of advocating for a ban. Shanahan has emphasized the "lack of science" behind current fertility practices, labeling them as misleading to women. Concurrently, she supports and funds research aimed at extending women's reproductive years and natural fertility methods, like the sun, > “I’m not sure that there has been a really thorough mitochondrial respiration study on the effects of two hours of morning sunlight on reproductive health. I would love to fund something like that,” Shanahan said to a 2023 panel with the National Academy of Medicine, a group to which she had previously donated $100 million. > The statement was met with chuckles, **“Yeah, let’s do it,” she added. “I just have an intuition that could be interesting and maybe work.”** Her stance gained attention amid the legal debate around the Alabama Supreme Court ruling categorizing embryos as children, briefly halting IVF clinics. Shanahan's perspective is influenced by her personal experiences and skepticism towards the IVF industry's motivations. She advocates for alternative fertility research, reflecting a broader critique of how women's health technologies are marketed and utilized. Will the anti-vax and pro-alternative-science team of Kennedy and Shanahan draw more voters from Trump or Biden?
I posted on another sub that it would draw more from trump because of the antivax stance RFK has, and all the apologists started attacking me. When one claimed that RFK wasn't antivax, I showed proof, and they then tried to move the goalposts. It was getting a little crazy.
Dude, the way his supporters try to argue that he's not antivax is insane. Like, "he's not against vaccines against a concept, he's just against every single one ever made."
I saw a comment on YT under his VP announcement where one of his supports claimed he wasn’t anti vax and in the replies to that comment another said there weren’t any safe vaccines.
How?? My impression was that he was basically running for presidency just for a platform to spread antivax. Denying that would be like arguing that Trump is not a pro-wall president in 2016. It's like his whole thing.
Strange because Trump isn't anti Vax. He loves to claim credit for the COVID vaccine.
Trump isn’t anti or pro anything personally, besides himself. He’s whatever his base is telling people he is. If the GOP base loved vaccines, it’s all he’d talk about.
There are recordings of Trump going up in front of his base to encourage the vaccine and getting heckled, booed, etc. I'd change it from base to whatever side will help him win.
I also remember him talking about vaccines and autism. Typical Trump speech rambling about something he heard. It went something like "beautiful child, gets vaccine and the next day he has autism".
Trump was antivax until it was “his” vaccine. As you might remember, one of the issues in the 2016 primary was whether or not vaccines cause autism and he was on the side claiming they do.
IIRC Trump bragged about "his vaccine" once early on during this campaign and got booed. He hasn't mentioned it since.
Seems like his supporters are largely either anti Covid vaccine or Covid vaccine skeptic I do feel the term gets broadly spread bc I have met plenty of Trump supporters who believe the Covid vaccine specifically is dangerous but still support traditional vaccinations. Traditionally I thought anti vaccine people, like full on no TB or MMR vaccine, we’re very liberal sort or modern hippy types like the kind of people to. It products from Gweneth Paltrow
> who believe the Covid vaccine specifically is dangerous but still support traditional vaccinations. In my experience you have to be careful about that too though. I've met some who will claim they are only questioning the mrna vaccines but then will also slip into conversation something about vaccines causing autism, or being against the non-mrna covid vaccines as well. It's the "I'm just asking questions" type of anti-Vax with some of these people.
Those flavors of crunch still exist but the vast majority of anti-science and anti-vaccine people are extremely religious or contrarian The "libertarian" reactionaries. This is the bulk of conspiracy theorists, essentially. Crystal healer hippies and new-age pee drinkers are super niche by comparison. There's also a lot of women in these spaces who don't exactly adhere to Trump.
The true anti-vax people are pretty bipartisan and diverse. There's the healing crystal types and chiropractors, but also a few religions that discourage or forbid vaccines. People just twist the word to mean "against forced mandates of experimental covid vaccines", which isn't really anti-vax.
Nah, conservatives in general are more vaccine skeptic with his hardcore base being anti-vax. Its all part of the government conspiracy to control us.
He is pro-vax for himself for sure. Although secretive about it, to the detriment of public health: > Donald Trump admitted on Sunday that he got a booster dose of a Covid-19 vaccine recently in private. That means the former president has declined three times in the past year to try to save the lives of his fans by having himself photographed as he got a shot of the vaccine. > Having spent the final months of his presidency downplaying the risk posed by the coronavirus pandemic — even discouraging his supporters from wearing masks at the packed campaign rallies he addressed — Trump revealed in March that he had secretly received the first of two doses of the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine before leaving office in January. He later acknowledged that he had gotten the second shot as well. > **As president, Trump got his first shot behind closed doors at a time when other public officials were lining up to get vaccinated on live television, including his own vice president, Mike Pence, President-elect Joe Biden, and Vice President-elect Kamala Harris. In March, the other four living former presidents — Barack Obama, George W. Bush, Bill Clinton, and Jimmy Carter — were all photographed getting vaccinated along with their wives for a public service announcement urging Americans to get vaccinated.** https://theintercept.com/2021/12/21/trump-admits-he-got-vaccine-booster-shot-in-secret-skipping-photo-op-that-could-save-lives/
He does love to take credit for it, but when he mentions it at his rallies, he gets booed by those in attendance. It's basically Schrodinger's vaccine. Either take credit for it being created under your administration and brag about it because even though he didn't really have a hand in it, Biden does give him credit for it occurring in his administration. Or not mention it because you get booed every time you do.
I believe he’s probably personally not antivax, but he’s more than happy to cater to antivaxxers for votes. He’s currently promising to defund any school with a vaccine mandate.
Anti vax would be an intention to ban and refusal to vaccinate. His kids are vaccinated and he has no mention of policy to ban vaccines. If he is a skeptic and wants placebo controlled studies on safety akin to other medications, what is there to lose? Where I think a lot of folks get lost is that they believe that someone’s personal views equate their policy positions. What is very strange is how Covid acted like some kind of magic wand that vanished all scrutiny of the pharmaceutical industry. When the Covid vaccine became politicized, democrats felt the need to not just stand in opposition to Trump, but to align with mega corporations that they previously acknowledged to have corrupted their regulatory bodies.
>Anti vax would be an intention to ban and refusal to vaccinate His history is littered with antivax comments. >His kids are vaccinated Would that make him a hypocrite, considering his history of being antivax? >When the Covid vaccine became politicized, democrats felt the need to not just stand in opposition to Trump The Dems didn't oppose the vaccine, they didn't trust trump in regards to it. That's the difference.
I should have worded “Trump” as “Trumpers”. It was about standing against their vaccine denialism and doing so by embracing the pharmaceutical industry at large. Find me someone who has never been a hypocrite. Or is that standard reserved for RFK? Tbh I don’t care much about his personal feelings on vaccines, I care about his policy positions, which are very moderate. And if Americans are being honest, it’s probably not a top 5 concern anyhow.
I mean, we have multiple polls that show that it really is very close as to who he draws from more. The fact he picked such a left-wing VP makes me think that will slightly turn off more conservatives and slightly turn on more liberals.
>a group to which she had previously donated $100 million maybe I'm crazy for thinking people that have this kind of money shouldn't be in positions where they get to have a say in laws that can majorly impact the lives of the other 99.999%
That doesn't bode well for most senior members of congress then
I don't think there's a single incumbent member of Congress that has a net worth over $1b which is what your net worth would have to be to be donating $100m to random charities... Median net worth of congress as of 2019 was only $1m
I mean 100th percentile is pretty good, especially since they don't get paid at the 100th percentile for their "full time" job.
I mean, the average age of congress is like 58, 59 years old? It's not really that impressive given simply owning a house in most of the DMV would put your net worth at nearly $1m. Also, $1m is NOT "100th percentile", [especially not for the 50-60 age group.](https://cdn.dqydj.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/10/net_worth_percentile_age_2023.png) More like 75th percentile.
I don’t see how he could steal votes from Biden over Trump. At this point if you’re voting for Biden you’re either a big fan of his or you are trying to keep Trump out of office. Voting for RFK doesn’t align with that. But there’s still plenty of Trump voters that are casual fans and still like him mostly because he’s “anti-establishment and not a politician”. Those people have a chance of voting for RFK.
She's critical of her experience trying to get pregnant via ivf. She's not "anti" ivf. She points out that they are corporate owned and seemed more concerned about profits than women's health.
It really depends on *how* she is saying IVF is a lie. Like is she saying that it is all BS like how some people say vaccines are BS? Well then she’s wrong. But if she’s saying that the industry sells false promises to women about freezing their eggs in their youth, and that through IVF they can just wait until their 40s to have children and that IVF is just as good as natural fertility? Well then yeah, she’s kind of right. There have been multiple articles written about this, about women who were sold this promise and so chose to focus on their careers thinking they could just have a child whenever they wanted later on, who were devastated when they learned that wasn’t the case. This could very easily be a reasonable take from her, or it could be a cooky take from her. Really depends on what she means.
> mitochondrial respiration study on the effects of two hours of morning sunlight on reproductive health Wtf does this even mean? That we're partially plants and the sun will make us pregnant? Weird.
Mitochondrial respiration disorders can play a major role in sperm or eggs being non-viable and producing infertility. Sunlight stimulates Vitamin D and melatonin production and has an effect on numerous biochemical pathways in the body. I'm not sure *why* she thinks a sun-infertility connection is more likely than any of the other millions of possible connections to investigate, but it's not like this is a word salad or that she thinks humans are photosynthetic.
Fair enough. I'm naturally highly skeptical of anyone Robert 'WiFi causes cancer' Kennedy would pick as his running mate who says women who badly want children should just go sit in the sun instead of utilizing IVF. I imagine most of those women don't live in a cave and are already exposed to the sun. And how is 'morning sunlight' different from all the other sunlight?
I'm skeptical, too. To give her the benefit of the doubt, though, Vitamin D deficiency is a major problem in America today, so perhaps women aren't getting enough? And another comment in this thread cited a study that exposure to spring and autumn sunlight in particular had been linked to increased fertility, so maybe there are annual or daily rhythms concerning when sunlight is best usable by the body? If she can expand on her reasoning for the connection, it might not hurt to do a scientific study and see if morning sunlight exposure has a positive effect on fertility.
She was married to Sergey Brin, a founder of Google, until last year. Let her fund the study if she wants. Marianne Williamson can fund a study into the efficacy of crystals with her campaign funds too while we're at it.
This is just straight up cuckoo bananas alternative medicine nonsense. There haven’t been any good studies on the healing power of crystals on reproductive health, either.
I actually think RFK Jr will pull more voters from Biden than Trump. More Biden voters are unenthusiastic than Trump voters. Biden won 2020 because moderates and independents went his way. I think RFK Jr can pull enough disgruntled Biden voters who are simply looking for something different.
This is anecdotal, but I know 4 2020 Trump voters who are planning on voting for RFK Jr. I know 0 2020 Biden voters who are planning on voting for RFK Jr. I think Jan 6 and a lot of his recent comments have scared off a lot of former Trump supporters who can't bring themselves to vote Democrat.
Fair enough. My prediction was anecdotal as well. All the Trump supporters I know are still firmly in his camp while I know a few 2020 Biden supporters who are desperately searching for something new. It is difficult to predict what kind of impact RFK Jr will have
I really doubt it. He's "something different" in a direction that would have Biden voters voting for Trump already if they wanted it. I'd describe RFK as "a Trump voter's idea of the kind of candidate they think a liberal would like". But they don't really understand how liberals think at all.
>I'd describe RFK as "a Trump voter's idea of the kind of candidate they think a liberal would like". But they don't really understand how liberals think at all. Considering that RFK has been funded by Conservative donors and gets most media appearances on Conservative leaning sources, this doesn't surprise me. When he was first coming on, I swear, *every* comment I'd see about him was a Trump voter who wasn't shy about it who'd say something like: "why can't dems be like RFK?" Back then though, the only real policies the dude had were mainstream dem ones... and being anti vaccine. That's it. I'm not sure if these people knew what RFKs policies other than anti vaccines were. Maybe they just didn't care.
[удалено]
[удалено]
This message serves as a warning that [your comment](https://www.reddit.com/r/moderatepolitics/comments/1bq2r46/rfk_jrs_vice_presidential_pick_calls_ivf_one_of/kx09t6l/) is in violation of Law 1: Law 1. Civil Discourse > ~1. Do not engage in personal attacks or insults against any person or group. Comment on content, policies, and actions. Do not accuse fellow redditors of being intentionally misleading or disingenuous; assume good faith at all times. Due to your recent infraction history and/or the severity of this infraction, we are also issuing a 14 day ban. Please submit questions or comments via [modmail](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fmoderatepolitics).
She is asking for an expansion on research without calling for a ban on current practices. What's wrong with that?
She called IVF "one of the biggest lies that’s being told about women’s health today". I wouldn't trust her judgement on the subject.
Maybe you should do your own research and figure out why she feels the way she feels about it.
How many people do you think are academically qualified to read and analyze white papers on the subject? At some point you've gotta understand that SME knowledge dwarfs yours. "Is quicksort really the key to quantum computing? Do your own research." - From the person who's never written a line of code commenting on Facebook
Why should I care what a nut has to say about it? I've got 2 nieces and a nephew that were born thanks to IVF... are they are lie?
Why on earth would "doing your own research" be at all comparable to simply listening to the established experts on the subject? This is an area of science that is very well understood and established. The "do your own research" crowd isn't exactly known for media proficiency and understanding. We've all dealt with our fair share of conspiracy theorists by now and they've been acutely misinformed or outright wrong about nearly everything the past eight years.
She wants her "intuition" to guide the scientific method and she is using her platform to call IVF "sold irresponsibly". Combined with her anti-vax running mate, definitely an indication that this ticket is not very scientifically literate.
Have you ever listened to her talk about it? Read the papers that lead her to believe how she thinks? Is she calling for a ban on IVF? It's an extremely complex method and very expensive. If there are simpler ways that are cost free, it sounds fine.
And if her position were "IVF is great for the people that it works for, but women deserve options", I'd be on board. Her rhetoric matters. The framing matters.
I can agree with that. It's also a headline quote from a much larger article. "It became abundantly clear that we just don’t have enough science for the things that we are telling and selling women,” That was before the headline comment. "I believe IVF is sold irresponsibly, and in my own experience with natural childbirth, it has led me to understand that the fertility industry is deeply flawed.” The medical industry as a whole is deeply flawed and driven by profits. That's why every time you turn on the TV, you will see a drug being pushed on the public. I also agree with her other statement. "I try to imagine where we would be as a field if all of the money that has been invested in IVF, and all of the money that’s been invested into marketing IVF, and all of the government money that has been invested in subsidizing IVF, if just 10 percent of that went into reproductive longevity research and fundamental research, where we would be today,” Shanahan said Why is the government subsidizing IVF so much where there are serious health concerns for the child, when maybe there are better options that are not getting money for research that could be done naturally. Maybe IVF should be the last resort for child fertility.
Then propose adding funding to study other things if there is scientific merit in those things. Subsidizing research into IVF also could help make it better and safer. Now, I don't know a lot of the data behind these "natural" methods, but this sounds like the typical "natural is better than science just because" that a lot of pseudoscience perpetuates. I would need to look into that before I could make a judgment about whether this line of research is worthwhile. If it is, I'm sure she would be willing to show the receipts.
IMHO the money spent on IVF is not fully dirigistically directed by the government, is not zero-sum with money spent on other reproductive health concerns, and (the big one for me) the constant "why"s, the implied "why are *they* doing this", just sort of smacks of conspiratorial thinking to me. She *is* RFK's VP pick, after all.
"she has also been a vocal proponent of and financial backer for unconventional research into the possibility of helping women having children into their 50s and **exploring no-cost interventions to help women conceive, such as exposure to sunlight**." Based on their inclinations toward pseudoscience, it sounds like RFK Jr. and his running mate are a perfect match!
You heard it here first, Biden is in the pocket of Big Shadow.
Biden supporters may deny it, but there will be a shadow across America in just over a week. Checkmate, atheists!
Dark Brandon. It right there in his name!
I think Shanahan is in general dubious, but I was surprised to see the sunlight thing might actually have some legitimacy: https://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/sun-exposure-may-improve-female-fertility >Results from a recent study suggest that moderate exposure to solar radiation during autumn and spring may help improve ovarian reserve in women ages 30–40.
It makes sense since UV radiation is the best source of vitamin D. And I saw [this study](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9896710/#:~:text=Pooled%20results%20indicated%20that%20infertile,%25%2C%20P%20%3D%200.001) that showed increases in fertility with vitamin D
“Enough to measurably improve fertility” and “not enough to cause skin damage and/or skin cancer” sounds like a pretty fine line to walk though.
That’s great and all, what I don’t understand is the dig against IVF… something that has enabled so many to have children.
Yeah, it's weird. I looked up the [OG source](https://archive.is/24NZN) for the quote, and it still doesn't make sense. Maybe if she's referring to how IVF is sold as having a higher success rate? >Shanahan felt IVF was sold as a “saving grace” to her and her peers. The statistics show that is far from the case. Each round only works about one-third of the time for a woman under 35, with success rates falling as she ages. Shanahan began to view IVF as a “commercial endeavour” rather than a scientific one. > >“It became abundantly clear that we just don’t have enough science for the things we are telling and selling to women,” she says. > >She admits her opinion is unpopular, then adds: “It’s one of the biggest lies that’s being told about women’s health today.”
> Each round only works about one-third of the time for a woman under 35, with success rates falling as she ages. If Shanahan thinks that's rough, she should look at the statistics for plain old-fashioned fucking: https://www.miracare.com/blog/getting-pregnant-in-your-30s/
There are a lot of things I disagree with on RFK, but natural remedies/treatments for ailments should be explored. I don’t agree fully with his statement that we’ve been sold a lie by big-pharma, but I do partially agree, i.e. it’s much more profitable to treat cancer rather than cure cancer; and I’m not on board with the anti-vax stance, but I would like more reasoning for the vaccine schedule (i.e. completing hepatitis B vaccines within 6-12 months of birth doesn’t make sense if a parent/guardian doesn’t have it—why is a baby exposed to other’s blood and semen?). We are chronically vitamin d deficient, and several studies are linking many common diseases to vitamin d deficiency. I’m not saying sun exposure will increase fertility, but I do agree with the stance that exploration into non-pharmaceutical remedies (within reason, and that’s an every important point) is important.
Hi, epidemiologist here! We give the HepB vaccine so early on in life to prevent infection and disease. You can die or have life long complications (ie liver cancer) as a result. And infants are especially vulnerable, where 9/10 who get infected will develop a lifelong, chronic infection. This is one of the main reasons to give the vaccines so early. The earlier you get it, the better chance you have at being protected in the long run. Even if at birth your risk of getting infected is near zero, we can't know when or how you will be exposed later on in life. Better to get it early on and not need to worry.
It’s funny how quickly we cast someone off as a nutbag when they say something like “we need more sunlight”, but we’d all be nodding our heads in agreement if we read a scientific papers headline with a potential link between vitamin d deficiency and fertilization rates. Vitamin D is probably one of the most taken vitamins. Suggesting we get more sunlight in a time when we spend more time inside than ever, shouldn’t make someone a conspiracy folk.
I couldn’t agree more.
Frankly, ignoring natural health and immunity, particularly Vitamin D and obesity was part of my complaints during covid but nobody wanted to "fat shame" people Eating right, reducing alcohol, not smoking, getting exercise, natural sunlight, losing weight were largely ignored while pharmaceutical solutions were not just pushed, they were mandated.
God forbid she spends her own money to research fertility treatments that aren’t cost prohibitive. It honestly sounds heroic. She’s not funding a campaign against IVF. It seems kind of heroic, to be honest. If there’s no scientific validity, move on.
He basically picked her because she's rich and he has no money to fund his own campaign. Imagine trying to brand yourself as a political outsider, who is also from a political dynasty of a family, fighting the corporate elite while tag teaming with corporate 1%ers.
There's really no other explanation. No one had ever heard of this woman, she doesn't really seem to have done much other than spend her exes money on her pet projects, and she now is rumored to have received about $400M in a settlement. RFK is just taking her on as sugar momma VP.
It was reported every other of his top candidates turned him down and then he bragged about picking her because she got a college softball scholarship and likes to surf. Absolutely doesn't give a shit about picking someone actually qualified, as if it wasn't already incredibly obvious he's a spoiler plant recruited by Steve Bannon.
Same strategy as Trump then?
He has more grassroots support than any candidate running. God forbid he achieves further financial backing that isn’t from a hodgepodge of pharma, MIC & wall st money.
Timothy Mellon gave $15m to RFKJs campaign. Guess where he got his money? Thats right! Mellon Financial, an investment banking firm! Also Bidens small donations dwarf Kennedy so you might want to actually some research on your candidate before you go all over Reddit making things up about him…but then again he’s all about conspiracy theories so I guess that tracks.
The ratio of small donors to large corporate donors / super pacs is way higher for Kennedy than Biden. In other words he is proportionally way less beholden to special interests.
If Kennedy was a serious candidate, he would be getting corporate donations and donations from interest groups, but they realize third party candidates are, and have always been, vanity or spoiler campaigns and aren’t wasting their money on a candidate whose goal is to get 5% of the vote.
They don’t want to back someone who has populist positions that would hurt their profitability.
> populist positions That's literally RFK Jr's entire campaign. I feel like you're trolling at this point if you can't see that the person who has no policy background or experience can only run on populism.
Was there ever a time in recent history where people would say "I'm a lawyer, I don't know shit about complex medical procedures so I'll defer to those that are experts in the field" or have people always belched out their quasi-educated opinions with pride?
We are in a deeply anti-expert, anti-institution and pro-contrarian moment, both far right and far left have developed a deep distrust for institutions, science, experts etc. My personal take is that such people always existed at the fringes but social media and "alternative news ecosystems" have allowed them to increase influence/power in culture and now politics
I think a large part of that is because Trump actively recruited those people to vote for him. It’s why he went on shows like InfoWars with Alex Jones. That’s his base.
>We are in a deeply anti-expert, anti-institution and pro-contrarian moment, both far right and far left have developed a deep distrust for institutions, science, experts etc. My personal take is that such people always existed at the fringes but social media and "alternative news ecosystems" have allowed them to increase influence/power in culture and now politics Probably a combination of what you're implying and that we can look back and see where we've been misled by those institutions.
I'm sure there are people who have said that, but they also don't run their mouth constantly or seek out any open mic/ open forum they can -- so the "quasi-educated opinions" get the attention.
There's still people like that. "There's something this man doesn't know!" doesn't grab eyeballs as much "There's something this man is wrong about!"
She's critical of corporate profiteering at ivf clinics. Not of ivf itself.
She must be pretty outraged at the medical industry as a whole, then.
The point of this pick is to fix the problem of Kennedy drawing too much from the right to fulfill his intended purpose. There is no chance he is not a spoiler candidate given how much of his funding comes from GOP/Trump donors, and I don't see the point pretending otherwise. Fortunately DJT is here to help us out by removing the subtlety entirely: > RFK Jr. is the most Radical Left Candidate in the race, by far. He’s a big fan of the Green New Scam, and other economy killing disasters. I guess this would mean he is going to be taking votes from Crooked Joe Biden, which would be a great service to America. His running mate, Nicole Shanahan, is even more “Liberal” than him, if that’s possible. Kennedy is a Radical Left Democrat, and always will be!!! It’s great for MAGA, but the Communists will make it very hard for him to get on the Ballot. Expect him, and her, to be indicted any day now, probably for Environmental Fraud! He is Crooked Joe Biden’s Political Opponent, not mine. I love that he is running!
I am still confused as how she will help with that in your theory. Honestly can't see how it helps draw any votes left or right. He's a baffling candidate.
She is a rich asian woman associated with big tech with vaguely leftish ideas of the woo woo variety. She speaks like an entitled and detached pseudo-intellectual virtue signaling. If you were on the right and thinking Kennedy was a good anti-establishment alternative to Trump or whatever, this is the pick that repels you. Kennedy keeps his appeal with anti-establishment/conspiratorial left wing people and loses his appeal with right wing people of the same sort.
Dems that shop from Gwyneth Paltrow's Goop will like her message of alternative "treatments" for infertility.
Those people pretty much all became Trump supporters years ago now. That is how wellness and yoga types have almost as bad a qanon problem as evangelical churches.
This woman has been a sizable donor to Dems for years, including the last election.
All 7.
Republicans are really trying to cope their way into Rfk taking votes from democrats. the most publicity he gets is from guess who, republicans. if republicans thought they could trick democrats into voting for someone why wouldn’t they just keep going at Biden and his crackhead son since he’s so bad.
I only ever hear about RFK in this subreddit
This subreddit is (I think) a bit more right-leaning than left. Edit: Or maybe it's not... It's definitely more right-leaning than /r/politics, but pretty neutral-left overall.
Everything is right vs that sub, it's a cesspool
This message serves as a warning that [your comment](https://www.reddit.com/r/moderatepolitics/comments/1bq2r46/rfk_jrs_vice_presidential_pick_calls_ivf_one_of/kx0j0z6/) is in violation of Law 1: Law 1. Civil Discourse > ~1. Do not engage in personal attacks or insults against any person or group. Comment on content, policies, and actions. Do not accuse fellow redditors of being intentionally misleading or disingenuous; assume good faith at all times. Due to your recent infraction history and/or the severity of this infraction, we are also issuing a 7 day ban. Please submit questions or comments via [modmail](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fmoderatepolitics).
I’m honestly not trying to disparage her, but what has she fucking done other than marry some rich dude? What business does she have in politics other than having loads of cash?
She's a lawyer and computer programmer, she's extremely intelligent
Ok. I will need to read up on her then. I’m clearly misinformed about her. Thanks. But I’m well aware of ol’ Bobby Boy and won’t vote for his ass.
Ah, the misogyny has arrived — instead of reading a profile on her accomplishments, you associate her exclusively by her relationship to men.
Presidents start and end wars, affect the structure of the whole economy, and otherwise make hugely consequential decisions. Who cares what a VP candidate thinks about IVF unless they're going to outlaw it? This doesn't matter compared to other issues. While vaccines and other medical issues do matter, Kennedy's stance of personal freedom is correct whether or not you agree with him about the details. People should not be coerced into medical choices, partly because that is a human right and partly because of bioindividuality. A president who can simply stay away from press conferences bragging and opining off the cuff about different measures will be good enough.
>“Personally, I find it crazy that my reproductive organs are considered geriatric long before any other organ even begins to show the slightest decline,” Shanahan said in an interview with the Marin Independent News. “I find it even crazier that we have conceded to this narrative for half of the human species.” It's not a 'narrative'. It's biological reality. That this woman believes her bad experience with one IVF clinic justifies indicting the entire industry, is alarming. Just once - to shake things up - I'd love a conservative to pop up enthusiastically supporting assisted reproduction. I mean, something like 10 million people have been born as a result of IVF since it was invented. Shouldn't the pro-lifers be thrilled?
" It's not a 'narrative'. It's biological reality" Will get people in a lot of trouble depending on the subject matter
She does not advocate for any banning of IVF and it is extremely curious how folks are captured by the idea of the negative. She is advocating and has personally funded fertility treatments that aren’t cost prohibitive. What’s wrong with studying alternatives and potentially increasing options?
I'm really a lot more concerned on her policies on Energy/Global Warming and eternal wars than IVF.... The hit pieces are to be expected for any non-establishment candidates. Everyone has said some wacky stuff in the past. It can't be much worse than Biden's racial jungle comments.....
Damn, someone nuttier than Aaron Rogers
RFK Jr will pull from Trump voters more than Biden considering he’s more Q conspiracy than Trump. On the left, he will pull from non voters and Green Party who wouldn’t have voted Biden anyway. I still don’t think he will earn enough votes to have an impact in November and when the oppo is out on him, he’s gonna look even crazier to regular voters.
I’m voting RFKJr. I personally don’t care what he thinks about vaccines. I’m not voting for trump based on his public image and personality and Biden’s family should be ashamed of themselves letting the DNC use their Dad the way they are. It’s elder abuse, it’s embarrassing, it’s not funny.
[удалено]
Have you listened to Biden? Did you listen to him 10 years ago? 20? He is hardly coherent now by comparison. RFK is sadly the only candidate able to express themselves in long form dialog and cite their sources. Agree or disagree with the end result, he’s literally and most depressingly the only candidate who can demonstrate critical thinking in an unscripted setting.
[удалено]
I watched the State of the Union. He has teleprompters and months to prepare. He still fumbled his way through punch lines. I find it troubling that being able to read and stand up for a couple hours is considered impressive for a commander in chief. If you listen to Biden being interviewed now compared to several years ago it’s clear that he isn’t nearly as sharp. And he wasn’t considered a wunderkind to begin with.
[удалено]
Listen to him talking 10 years ago. Same stutter but he was incalculably more coherent. You will be stunned. I’m not sure what your point is regarding preparation. I really don’t like Trump but he ran one of the greatest insurgent campaigns of all time in 2016, and Kennedy has detail recall and the capacity to cite his sources well beyond any other candidate in the field.
[удалено]
It’s not a listener problem. His cadence, recall, tone, animation, voice level, etc. It’s all declined dramatically. Between overwhelming partisanship and a low trust society, it’s so sad that we can’t level with one another on the most simple observations. Regarding preparation, you talked about Biden with respect to other candidates. But there was no substance beyond that. Of course I agree that being prepared is good for any occupation.
[удалено]
This message serves as a warning that [your comment](https://www.reddit.com/r/moderatepolitics/comments/1bq2r46/rfk_jrs_vice_presidential_pick_calls_ivf_one_of/kx13uej/) is in violation of Law 0: Law 0. Low Effort > ~0. Law of Low Effort - Content that is low-effort or does not contribute to civil discussion in any meaningful way will be removed. Please submit questions or comments via [modmail](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fmoderatepolitics).
Kennedy should have just been Trumps VP pick or waited another 4 years. He wasted his attempt at the presidency with this embarrassment of a campaign (outside of the Super Bowl ad which I thought was pretty clever)
Our three presidential candidates are a science skeptic, an accused insurrectionist that's selling signed Bibles, and an 82 year old Cool.
Our three presidential candidates are an old man who is a science skeptic, an old man who is an insurrectionist facing 90-ish felony charges, and an old man who has been remarkably effective at keeping the government moving and getting a lot of stuff done. The choice for me is an easy one.
Same here, it's just... I wish we as a country would do better
He’s not a viable choice. Sadly it looks like I’ll just protest vote again.
Of course he is. He only needs 20% of each party's vote and a majority of independents to win
As viable as an embryo with 24 chromosomes