2 Comments
⭠ Return to thread

I am a big fan of this column, but find one aspect of this column needing clarification. It states, “Disinformation campaigns, like COVID-19 vaccines, turns out to be incredibly lucrative”, then lists 2 examples, the first provides the income gained ($100M), but the Kennedy example just states how his website traffic increased, not how that is lucrative? If the traffic didn’t generate revenue, then this should not be included as an example of a lucrative motivation. Can this be explained further or corrected? Otherwise it seems it may be an example of misinformation (yikes!).

I read this column for its evidence-based perspective and have found it exceptionally helpful in my de ion-making to get all COVID vaccinations and have used it to convince others, but I am concerned about this one Kennedy example, especially b/c I know he does have a huge following.

Katelyn, please address this. Maybe I’m misreading it, but, regardless, it needs clarification.

Expand full comment

If you're selling something, increasing traffic to the website selling it will inevitably result in increased sales. That's the entire point of sales campaigns. It's also in synch with this extremist crackpot political agenda, so there's that.

Also: https://nypost.com/2022/02/02/robert-f-kennedy-jr-anti-vax-crusade-is-making-him-millions/ and https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2021/05/how-robert-f-kennedy-jr-became-anti-vaxxer-icon-nightmare

Expand full comment