Which particular article are you speaking about what fact specific claim do you think is not accurate?
Also why are you using the word “responsible” here? Telling people about inconvenient truthful facts is often judged as “irresponsible”. That’s what I was referring to with “politically incorrect”.
Grok makes statements about RFK Jr’s vaccine policy like:
Key changes included reconstituting the CDC’s Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) on June 9, 2025, by replacing all members to eliminate pharmaceutical financial ties and prioritize safety data.[102] The new committee voted on July 23, 2025, to remove thimerosal—a mercury-based preservative—from U.S. influenza vaccines, invoking precautionary principles despite earlier findings of safety in low doses.[103] Kennedy called this a move to safer options, while manufacturers cautioned about potential supply disruptions.[104]
To me that seems like a quite neutral description. Grok explicit about earlier findings that thimerosal is safe.
It’s profoundly misleading framing which absolutely qualifies it as a form of misinformation. It’s superficially neutral, yes, but a layman reading the article would come out with an entirely different take on RFK’s vaccine policy than someone who read the Wikipedia article. The Grokipedia article steelmans all of RFK’s positions to an unreasonable degree and does almost everything it can to downplay that 95% of his vaccine policy is pseudoscientific bunk without losing its “neutral” cred.
>reconstituting the CDC’s Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) on June 9, 2025, by replacing all members to eliminate pharmaceutical financial ties and prioritize safety data
He purged the the board and stacked it with vaccine-skeptical ideological allies.
>The new committee voted on July 23, 2025, to remove thimerosal—a mercury-based preservative—from U.S. influenza vaccines, invoking precautionary principles despite earlier findings of safety in low doses
This is the least problematic sentence since it contains the (somewhat limp) note about thimerosal’s safety, but again presents the vote as neutral scientific judgment when it was the foreseeable result of (the again unmentioned) ideological stacking.
>Kennedy called this a move to safer options, while manufacturers cautioned about potential supply disruptions
The “safety” concern here being the nonexistent risk of autism, and it frames the opposing view as a corporations less worried about safety and more concerned about more traditional business-oriented interests .
If anything, it sounds like the inconvenient truth here that Grok would rather avoid is that vaccines are actually very safe and the political correctness at play is sanewashing an insane HHS chief.
Basically, you do agree that nothing here is factual inaccurate as I was saying in the beginning.
It’s superficially neutral, yes, but a layman reading the article would come out with an entirely different take on RFK’s vaccine policy than someone who read the Wikipedia article.
It’s a key aspect of writing that you can write essays that are factually correct that make readers come to different conclusions.
The “safety” concern here being the nonexistent risk of autism, and it frames the opposing view as a corporations less worried about safety and more concerned about more traditional business-oriented interests .
Most of those corporations regularly pay billions in dollars in fines because there are more concerned about traditional business-oriented interests than other aspects like safety.
The claim that risk of autism is the only potential safety concern of giving people a low amount of a neurotoxin is wrong, which is why it was removed from most childhood vaccines in 2001. It’s not easy to rule out all subclinical side effects with standard safety testing.
Even the Wikipedia article for thiomersal does suggest that it sometimes leads to thiomersal allergy, which is not something you want in a yearly vaccine.
Do you think the Grokipedia’s coverage of RFK Jr’s vaccine policy is accurate and responsible?
Which particular article are you speaking about what fact specific claim do you think is not accurate?
Also why are you using the word “responsible” here? Telling people about inconvenient truthful facts is often judged as “irresponsible”. That’s what I was referring to with “politically incorrect”.
Grok makes statements about RFK Jr’s vaccine policy like:
To me that seems like a quite neutral description. Grok explicit about earlier findings that thimerosal is safe.
It’s profoundly misleading framing which absolutely qualifies it as a form of misinformation. It’s superficially neutral, yes, but a layman reading the article would come out with an entirely different take on RFK’s vaccine policy than someone who read the Wikipedia article. The Grokipedia article steelmans all of RFK’s positions to an unreasonable degree and does almost everything it can to downplay that 95% of his vaccine policy is pseudoscientific bunk without losing its “neutral” cred.
>reconstituting the CDC’s Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) on June 9, 2025, by replacing all members to eliminate pharmaceutical financial ties and prioritize safety data
He purged the the board and stacked it with vaccine-skeptical ideological allies.
>The new committee voted on July 23, 2025, to remove thimerosal—a mercury-based preservative—from U.S. influenza vaccines, invoking precautionary principles despite earlier findings of safety in low doses
This is the least problematic sentence since it contains the (somewhat limp) note about thimerosal’s safety, but again presents the vote as neutral scientific judgment when it was the foreseeable result of (the again unmentioned) ideological stacking.
>Kennedy called this a move to safer options, while manufacturers cautioned about potential supply disruptions
The “safety” concern here being the nonexistent risk of autism, and it frames the opposing view as a corporations less worried about safety and more concerned about more traditional business-oriented interests .
If anything, it sounds like the inconvenient truth here that Grok would rather avoid is that vaccines are actually very safe and the political correctness at play is sanewashing an insane HHS chief.
Basically, you do agree that nothing here is factual inaccurate as I was saying in the beginning.
It’s a key aspect of writing that you can write essays that are factually correct that make readers come to different conclusions.
Most of those corporations regularly pay billions in dollars in fines because there are more concerned about traditional business-oriented interests than other aspects like safety.
The claim that risk of autism is the only potential safety concern of giving people a low amount of a neurotoxin is wrong, which is why it was removed from most childhood vaccines in 2001. It’s not easy to rule out all subclinical side effects with standard safety testing.
Even the Wikipedia article for thiomersal does suggest that it sometimes leads to thiomersal allergy, which is not something you want in a yearly vaccine.