The Charlie Kirk assassination and the impulse to declare things as forgeries

[HansHill]

No need to go anywhere with it.
Just recognise the apparent insincerity + deception and then be content to stay with that uncertainty.

Why speculate further? I don’t think speculation is very useful if we aren’t being given all the details yet. Plus I suspect crazy speculation is desired (as I explained at the very beginning of this topic-thread).

If we want certainty then:
Step 1. be open to and aware of any incongruity, inconsistency, insincerity, suspicious behaviour, possible deceitful behaviour.
Step 2. stay with that, as the narrative develops, without any favoured conclusion.
Step 3. be open to all possibilities and collect and categorise the evidence.

SUMMARY: There are so many inconsistencies here. We don’t have to supply reasons or conclusions for them. I think it’s just reasonable and helpful to notice them PLUS to bring them to the attention of others.

Understood, thanks WS.

AND… I have some questions for you, if you’ll allow them:

Q1. Aren’t you aware of the many inconsistencies/illogicalities in the official narrative and behaviour of key players.
Q2. I still don’t know if you watched Erika’s ‘performance’ at that weird ‘memorial’ service/political rally. Did you?
Q3. Did you watch clips of her giving interviews, etc.? Did she look in grief to you?
Q4. Don’t you think her ‘performance’ at the casket with supposedly Kirk’s hand looked ‘staged’ and was not something a normal person would get filmed and put on their social media?
Q5. Have you no problem with the crime scene being ‘renovated’ = tampered with/destroyed?
Q6. Are you ok with Kash Patel terminating Joe Kent’s investigation of possible foreign involvement?
Q7. Don’t you think it is unlikely that there was no visible blood on the ground, on Kirk’s clothing, on the hands and clothing of those who lifted him and carried him?

Q.1. Yes, but admittedly not as much as you. I am not in the same country as you, and so Charlie Kirk wasn't necessarily an important figure to me on politics, economics, history - except maybe in the context of the "culture war" between the modern Right and Left. As such, I am mostly "interested" (if you can even call it interest) in this topic from the culture war perspective, as well as what it may mean for the Jewish Question and more broadly, holocaust revisionism. Also not being in your country, I am not knowledgeable about for example, the mechanics of firearms, or the various technicalities of the rounds, etc so i don't have much context for arguments about firearm assembly, magazines etc.

Q.2. Yes i did, and i found it artificial and shlocky. However, that's how I feel about every public figure in American life (sorry) and American politics more specifically. Especially modern conservatism, those people (including Erika Kirk) are slime as far as I'm concerned.

Q.3. Yes, see above.

Q.4. Agreed, except instead of "staged", to me I would say it looked slimey and managed, as if by a PR firm and designed to look like an advertisement for Conservative Inc.

Q.5. I'm not up to speed on these details and what this means. Is it not normal for investigating authorities to retain control over a crime scene?

Q.6. This is indeed a "smoking gun" of sorts. My understanding is that this is a relatively recent development, so when I asked you upthread for tangible evidence of Israeli interference, this hadn't happened yet. I consider this to be a substantive point in the "foreign involvement" theory and I thank you for informing me on this.

Q.7. Yes fair enough, but I don't know what this means. Are we saying that's a dummy? Are we saying he wasn't really shot and that he's still alive? These alternatives seem preposterous to me unless I'm given something substantive.

[Wetzelrad]

We should ask ourselves this:

Q. Why wouldn’t someone want an investigation of whether FBI investigators — who are currently controlling the narrative AND the ‘evidence’ — have been infiltrated by, and are working for, a foreign nation?

Q. Why would there be any fear of transparency?

Perhaps you are on to something with these questions, but they also have a very easy answer. If Robinson did actually kill Kirk, and there is no foreign involvement, then the prejudice of having an investigation into foreign involvement could actually spoil Robinson's trial. Personally I don't want his trial to be spoiled. I think it would be bad if maniacs were given a free pass to murder us in broad daylight.

Joe Kent, by the way, is pro-Israel. I'm skeptical that he would do anything to support the Israel Theory.

[Wahrheitssucher]

We should ask ourselves this:

Q. Why wouldn’t someone want an investigation of whether FBI investigators — who are currently controlling the narrative AND the ‘evidence’ — have been infiltrated by, and are working for, a foreign nation?

Q. Why would there be any fear of transparency?

Perhaps you are on to something with these questions, but they also have a very easy answer. If Robinson did actually kill Kirk, and there is no foreign involvement, then the prejudice of having an investigation into foreign involvement could actually spoil Robinson's trial.

I don’t see how. Can you explain how you think that might work?

Personally I don't want his trial to be spoiled. I think it would be bad if maniacs were given a free pass to murder us in broad daylight.

Then we are in agreement and complete concord on these two aspects.

Joe Kent, by the way, is pro-Israel.

Thanks for that. I did not know this. But is it possible that — like Charlie Kirk — he might have changed his position on that?

I'm skeptical that he would do anything to support the Israel Theory.

Well… I’m hopeful that just as people can change — and now are waking up to the evil, deceitful and racist aspect of the holyH promotion — just so can people wake up and realise the undemocratic, insidious and evil aspect of zionism with all its various, nefarious manifestations.

Maybe Joe Kent has had an awakening and wants to check these widely-held suspicions that Israel killed Kirk for seeing their manifold, unChristian wickedness and for publicly going against them.

[Wetzelrad]

The story about Joe Kent stems from anonymous sources speaking with the New York Times. Nothing provided in the article evidences foreign involvement. There's very little going on in this story.
https://www.nytimes.com/2025/10/28/us/p ... -case.html

If Robinson did actually kill Kirk, and there is no foreign involvement, then the prejudice of having an investigation into foreign involvement could actually spoil Robinson's trial.

I don’t see how. Can you explain how you think that might work?

A criminal trial is supposed to be an environment closed to outside influences. Juries are typically instructed to avoid all media related to their trial and to not discuss the trial with anyone. Sometimes they are even sequestered. If future jury members catch a whiff of this viral news story, they may begin to believe there is some substantial reason to believe Robinson is innocent that is being kept from them, and this could lead to a verdict of not guilty. The fact that this story leaked out is evidence enough to say Kash Patel was right to put a damper on Kent's parallel investigation.

The NYT story also points out that evidence created by Kent's team may be given to Robinson in discovery, so if Kent did find anything, even something innocuous or a false lead, that could be raised in Robinson's defense at trial.

I understand the rebuttal to this is obvious. It hardly needs to be stated. If Patel actually is covering up foreign involvement, then he is continuing the cover up by ending Kent's investigation. But Kent has not alleged anything like that. No one involved has shown or even hinted that any evidence of foreign involvement was found.

Joe Kent, by the way, is pro-Israel.

Thanks for that. I did not know this. But is it possible that — like Charlie Kirk — he might have changed his position on that?

Definitely possible. He portrays himself as anti-neocon. He doesn't do the slavish, embarassing pro-Israel stuff that other politicians do. But if he is against what's going on in Palestine then he's hiding it. If he is against Zionist influence on our politics then he's hiding it.

[Wahrheitssucher]

If Robinson did actually kill Kirk, and there is no foreign involvement, then the prejudice of having an investigation into foreign involvement could actually spoil Robinson's trial.

I don’t see how. Can you explain how you think that might work?

A criminal trial is supposed to be an environment closed to outside influences.

No that is not correct. No trial is “closed” to ongoing investigation and evidence finding.

Juries are typically instructed to avoid all media related to their trial and to not discuss the trial with anyone. Sometimes they are even sequestered.

No trial has begun. No jury has been chosen. So… you appear to me to be inventing reasons. And the ones you are inventing have nothing to do with any official, ongoing investigations. Nor to revelations that Kash Patel is obstructing official investigations into possible foreign involvement.

If future jury members catch a whiff of this viral news story, they may begin to believe there is some substantial reason to believe Robinson is innocent that is being kept from them, and this could lead to a verdict of not guilty.

Er… yeah!
And quite rightly they would! (Jeez!)
Jury’s AND DEFENCE lawyers are not supposed to be denied access to the actual evidence. Do you agree or not?

The fact that this story leaked out is evidence enough to say Kash Patel was right to put a damper on Kent's parallel investigation.

Seriously?
Wow!

The NYT story also points out that evidence created by Kent's team may be given to Robinson in discovery, so if Kent did find anything, even something innocuous or a false lead, that could be raised in Robinson's defense at trial.

What are you now arguing, here? “Evidence created”???
Ermmm… I think you mean “evidence discovered”.
And yes, any “evidence” that is discovered showing foreign involvement would and SHOULD be given to Robinson’s defence team.

You have just exposed your position Wetzelrad. You have shown that ALREADY you have decided the case in your mind! And that is BEFORE presentation of evidence and counter-evidence.
So… You are someone who has hook, line and sinker swallowed the official narrative and are condemning Tyler without a fair trial.
PLUS you are showing that like Kash Patel you also do not want any evidence emerging that proves he is an innocent patsy.
And more importantly you are demonstrating that YOU DO NOT WANT ANY ISRAELI AND JEWISH-ZIONIST INVOLVEMENT TO BE DISCOVERED!

I understand the rebuttal to this is obvious. It hardly needs to be stated.

Hmmm! Why don’t you want it emphasised? Is it because you deep-down know what you are arguing goes against all standards of justice?

If Patel actually is covering up foreign involvement, then he is continuing the cover up by ending Kent's investigation.

Yes!

But Kent has not alleged anything like that.

Wow! He hasn’t alleged A N Y T H I N G YET!! It was an ongoing investigation that was terminated!

No one involved has shown or even hinted that any evidence of foreign involvement was found.

You do not know that. You are merely demonstrating your confirmation bias and rather desperately preferred reality!

And what is being claimed is that the official investigation to prove that either way was T E R M I N A T E D. So to argue that no one has hinted that any evidence has been found after closing down investigation is disingenuous.

Ben Williamson, the Assistant Director for Public Affairs at the FBI responded to the Daily Mail news story by denying it on X:
“This is false. A comprehensive FBI investigation is still ongoing and Director Patel / Deputy Bongino have instructed investigators to pursue EVERY lead”.



But not everyone is willing to accept Williamson's claim.
“Are you planning to offer some proof?” a person asked on X.

Another wrote:
“They specifically shut down DNI Gabbard’s access to materials. For those of us who trust her far more than @FBIDirectorKash and the corrupt FBI, this is tantamount to shutting down the investigation”.

Yet another wrote:
“LoL. Just like the investigation into Butler which Kash refuses to look into or the Epstein Files that magically don’t exist anymore”.

BOTTOM LINE:
Kent is one of the closest advisors to Tulsi Gabbard, the director of national intelligence. The reality here is that people claiming knowledge of the matter leaked to journalists that Patel was alarmed when he learnt that Joe Kent had been going through the FBI files on the case, specifically to detect any evidence of foreign involvement. Patel told Kent to stop looking into that. Patel expressed that he didn’t want Kent or anyone investigating that possibility. This came up during a meeting where Patel, Kent, and Gabbard were present along with other top Justice Department officials and Vice President JD Vance.
Deal with it.

[Scott]

It was asked how rumors and innuendo about possible foreign involvement with the Charlie Kirk assassination could jeopardize the Tyler Robinson murder trial.

Well, easy. For one thing Utah County will have to seat twelve jurors plus some alternates. In non-capital cases, Utah only seats eight jurors (which probably makes convictions easier). These jurors will be asked to consider the evidence introduced in the trial, and not idle tabloid conjectures.

I have actually been part of those kinds of proceedings at the Salt Lake County courthouse and we were trying to seat jaded Liberal professional women from the local University of Utah over Conservative simping men because it was an attempted rape case and actually involved police entrapment. I paid close attention to the things that the potential jurors were saying in the cramped lunchroom. Anyway, we got the acquittal, and it turned out that older Conservative LDS women were also suprisingly insightful when it came to such he-said/she-said matters.

Anyway, Utah County is in the Salt Lake City metropolitan area between Interstate-15 on the West and the Wasatch Front, the tall mountain range running North-South immediately to the East.

The Wasatch Front comprises about 80 percent of the state's population, and it is an urban or suburban metropolitan area running for about 100 miles from Brigham City in the North near the Idaho border to Provo in the South, that encompasses about 2 million people. The Utah Valley University campus where Charlie Kirk was shot on Semptember 10th, 2025 in Orem is about four miles from the Brigham Young University campus in Provo.

Just to the North, Salt Lake County (where Salt Lake City is located) has a population of about 1.23 million (2024) and Utah County (Where Orem and Provo are located) has a population of about 747 thousand (2024).

It is going to be challenging finding twelve jurors in Utah who know nothing about this case.

The best that the Tyler Robinson defense could do is argue for a change of venue to downtown Salt Lake City where it might be possible to seat a more Liberal jury ─ but they are not likely to be any less familiar with the case than residents of Utah County.

When the Lori Vallow Daybell trial was being held recently (early 2025) in Phoenix, Arizona over the 2019 Charles Vallow murder in Chandler, Arizona ─ they had a very hard time finding jurors who did not know anything about the case.

At the time of the trial for her husband's Chandler, Arizona murder, and the attempted murder of her former nephew-in-law in Gilbert, Arizona ─ Lori Vallow Daybell was already doing multiple life sentences in Idaho for the slaying of two of her children. At the time of her recent trial in Arizona, Lori's new husband, the doomsday author Chad Daybell, was already on Death Row in Idaho for the murder of his first wife and Lori's two children for Social Security and insurance money.

What ended up happening in the Lori Vallow Daybell case was jury selection scenarios where they found Lesbians who had been living on somebody else's couch and therefore had not been following much TV ─ or had recently moved to Arizona, and were therefore not up of the local news.

There are 4.7 million people in Maricopa County (2024) and there are 5.2 million people in the Phoenix metropolitan area. The Vallow-Daybell murder case spanned from Arizona to Utah to Idaho. It's hard to imagine that anybody had not heard something about it but they managed to find twelve.

I think the odds are that not very many people have NOT heard about the Charlie Kirk assassination compared to Lori Vallow Daybell and the 2019 Charles Vallow murder.

There was something like 90 thousand people who queued in the heat for hours in Glendale, Arizona to see the heavily stage-managed Charlie Kirk memorial service at the State Farm Stadium on September 21, 2025 ─ which was attended by both the President and the Vice President (LINK) In fact, Vice President J.D. Vance personally delivered Charlie Kirk's body back to Arizona with wife Erika Kirk aboard Air Force Two.

I can hardly remember anything close to such a thing happening since Jackie Kennedy and the newly-sworn-in President Johnson spirited Jack Kennedy's lifeless body from Dallas, Texas to Washington, DC aboard Air Force Two after the President's 1963 assassination. With great reluctance, the former First Lady agreed to let the U.S. Navy perform the autopsy on her husband's body.

[Wahrheitssucher]

Nobody needs to be ignorant of a crime and the reported details of it to be qualified to sit on a jury trying it.

Otherwise, if that were so, high profile cases would result in idiots, tramps, alcoholics and ascetics being the only eligible candidates.

To be legally qualified for jury service in the USA, an individual must:
~ be a United States citizen;
~ be at least 18 years of age;
~ have resided primarily in the judicial district for at least one year at the time of completion of the qualification questionnaire;
~ be able to adequately read, write, understand, and speak the English language;
~ have no disqualifying mental or physical condition that cannot be addressed with an accommodation;
~ not currently be subject to felony charges punishable by imprisonment for more than one year; and
~ never have been convicted of a felony (unless civil rights have been legally restored or never were lost in the jurisdiction of conviction).

https://www.uscourts.gov/court-programs ... nd-excuses

[HansHill]

idiots, tramps, alcoholics and ascetics being the only eligible candidates.

Fine, I'll do it!

[Wetzelrad]

Nobody needs to be ignorant of a crime and the reported details of it to be qualified to sit on a jury trying it.

Otherwise, if that were so, high profile cases would result in idiots, tramps, alcoholics and ascetics being the only eligible candidates.

The point is, prosecutors are following standard procedure by trying to seat a jury with minimal fore-knowledge. There is nothing inherently suspicious about that in this case because they do it in most trials.

If future jury members catch a whiff of this viral news story, they may begin to believe there is some substantial reason to believe Robinson is innocent that is being kept from them, and this could lead to a verdict of not guilty.

Er… yeah!
And quite rightly they would! (Jeez!)
Jury’s AND DEFENCE lawyers are not supposed to be denied access to the actual evidence. Do you agree or not?

Sure, but actual evidence has to be separated from speculation. If Robinson's defense introduces into evidence some email from Joe Kent's team indicating a person's belief that little green men shot Charlie Kirk, that would obviously be false and it would get in the way of justice. Joe Kent should therefore avoid creating evidence that would have that effect.

But Kent has not alleged anything like that.

Wow! He hasn’t alleged A N Y T H I N G YET!! It was an ongoing investigation that was terminated!

Well, Kent declared his intention to investigate on Sep-11. The NYT story broke on Oct-28. So despite working for a month and a half and despite leaking to the NYT, Kent and his team didn't even hint at finding anything.

It's possible that there is something there, but if no one involved in this dispute will say that there is, not even anonymously, then I have to conclude that this story is as empty as it appears.

[AreYouSirius]

Okay, so the Candace Owens grifter's club thinks that "Lone Gunmen" can't happen without a big CIA, FBI, MI5, Mossad conspiracy, but that is just not true.

Why disparage the work Candace Owens (and a large portion of people on X) have been doing over the past few weeks to sus out who may have orchestrated, participated in, or performed the Charlie Kirk assassination?

Have you watched any of her streams over the past few weeks?

I for one am heartened that unlike previous “terrorist killings broadcast in front of a live audience,” the public isn’t reacting in an expected manner. Instead of cowering in fear and trusting centralized authority figures/organizations/interests, people are taking it upon themselves to forensically analyze everything leading up to the event and everything immediately after the event.

The whole thing reeks of conspiracy. A coordinated lie between a small group of people. It’s silly to dismiss the possibility of nefarious planning out-of-hand without thoughtful inquiry.

If Kash Patel and his FBI’s janky narrative can hold up (held together with duct tape and feeble failing attempts of mass psychological programming), then more power to it! I welcome the truth and will be shocked if the FBI were interested in bringing truth and justice forward. It would be welcome, albeit antithetical to the whole purpose of collecting and weaponizing blackmail from since its inception with Hoover, an evil, secretive dude who liked to dance around in a dress.

Much like the research surrounding the (likely wildly exaggerated) Holocaust, my only desire with the outcome of the Charlie Kirk murder investigation is that the full, naked, unvarnished truth come to the fore. Is that yours as well?

[Scott]

I am going to have to double down on Candace Owens and the tendency towards shamelss grifting and Epistemological Nihilism.

(I wrote a longer post but the system deleted it before it could be saved.)

Anyway, there are no amateur investigations going on here other than what I have already pointed out, because very little information has actually been released by the Utah County Prosecutor and the Utah County Sheriff's office.

There is no point for all the gun-guys on YouTube doing videos about whether you can break down a sporterized bolt-action 98 Mauser in five seconds because nobody actually says that Tyler Robinson did that. These people are idiots.

We have been told that the weapon was a .30-06 but there has been no autopsy report or basic ballistics report released, and we don't even know if we have a picture (from the New York Times) of the actual Mauser 98 bolt-action rifle that was found just off campus in the trees with Robinson's DNA all over it. (Apparently he successfully wiped the prints down and took a moment to change his shirt, but he knew that his failure to retrieve the murder weapon later was the proverbial smoking-gun that would cook his goose.)

This will all hopefully come out DURING THE TRIAL ─ unless the authorities chicken out like in the 2022 quadruple stabbing murders of the University students in Moscow, Idaho, and they offer a plea deal in exchange for dropping the Death Penalty and not taking it to trial ─ which is exactly what the Libtards and slimy Jewish activists want in Utah.

There is zero evidence so far that any spook agency or the Joos was ever involved in the assassination itself, other than (possibly) Tyler Robinson's tranny boyfriend, Lance Twiggs (who is now in witness protection).

Also, the AntiFa protests for this TP USA event at UVU seem to have been very minor compared to things that I have seen in Arizona, so I am not expecting too much culpability from there either. I think it really is a butthurt lone nut who Kirk managed to rub the wrong way.

We live in a world of dumb-asses, and that is how I characterize the Tyler Robinsons, the Rodney Kings, the Thomas Crooks, the O.J. Simpsons, the Lee Harvey Oswalds, the Saint George Floyds, etc.

Plus, the corporate mass media will lie shamelessly ─ saying that, for example, Officer Derek Chauvin somehow choked Saint George Floyd to death in 2020 ─ contrary to the autopsy evidence from the trial that the mentally-challenged "Diverse" jury missed.

Saint George overdosed and had a cardiac arrest while resisting arrest. The corporate mass-media and Minneapolis, Minnesota's execrable Jewish mayor, Jacob Frye merely leveraged the "bad optics" of a dimunitive White police officer arresting an amiable, banana-dancing Negro felon who had attempted to pass a counterfeit bill at a Negro-run convenience store; then Floyd overdosed on his stash which he consumed trying to conceal it from the police, only to violently resist arrest, and then to succumb a few minutes later from a heart attack with enough fentanyl in his system to kill a horse.

Per the autopsy report from the trial, Saint George Floyd was never choked, nor did the big banana boy have any bruising on his neck or back.

The more public stuff that is not necessary to prosecute the case that is hashed out (usually ignorantly) in the media before the trial, the more likelihood there will be idiot jurors like the ones who acquitted O.J. Simpson for butchering his White ex-wife and her Jewish waiter boyfriend, because they wanted to send a racial message to the LAPD about Rodney King ─ the inebriated and combative Negro who was mildly beaten by the Los Angeles police after a dangerous high-speed chase in 1991 that was recorded on amateur videotape, thus leading to the Los Angeles riots in 1992 when the police officers were acquitted of racial animus by a White jury. (None of the other Negroes in Rodney King's car were molested or even arrested by the LAPD.)

Candace Owens is so damn dumb that I am all beside myself. She and Alex Jones and the usual lot are certainly not helping.

[Wahrheitssucher]

idiots, tramps, alcoholics and ascetics being the only eligible candidates.

Fine, I'll do it!

[Wahrheitssucher]

If future jury members catch a whiff of this viral news story, they may begin to believe there is some substantial reason to believe Robinson is innocent that is being kept from them, and this could lead to a verdict of not guilty.

Er… yeah!
And quite rightly they would! (Jeez!)
Jury’s AND DEFENCE lawyers are not supposed to be denied access to the actual evidence. Do you agree or not?

Sure, but actual evidence has to be separated from speculation.
If Robinson's defense introduces into evidence some email from Joe Kent's team indicating a person's belief that little green men shot Charlie Kirk, that would obviously be false and it would get in the way of justice. Joe Kent should therefore avoid creating evidence that would have that effect…

It's possible that there is something there, but if no one involved in this dispute will say that there is, not even anonymously, then I have to conclude that this story is as empty as it appears.

Erm… Why are you shilling for Israel, Mr.W?
Why?
Do they have you in a bind or something?
Or are you perhaps an infiltrator who talks the talk about 8-decades-old history so as to be able to attempt to exert influence on opinions regarding current zionist nefarious activity?

This isn’t complicated!
No investigation into possible FOREIGN involvement in a high-profile murder case should be CLOSED DOWN immediately a Zionist stooge (Kash Patel) discovers it is occurring.

You are repeatedly inventing ridiculous reasons to avoid that simple, basic fact. Why?

[Wahrheitssucher]

.
Here is yet more claimed evidence of Google searches from Israel days BEFORE Kirk’s murder, which is related to the alleged evidence that has been released to us minions, that purports to be implicating Tyler Robinson.

Its a search for a very specific Utah address! Wait to you see what it is of:

[Wahrheitssucher]

Okay, so the Candace Owens grifter's club thinks that "Lone Gunmen" can't happen without a big CIA, FBI, MI5, Mossad conspiracy, but that is just not true.

Why disparage the work Candace Owens (and a large portion of people on X) have been doing over the past few weeks to sus out who may have orchestrated, participated in, or performed the Charlie Kirk assassination?

Good question.
Candace has discovered and shared very informative facts. Her style of delivery is goofy, long-winded, self-serving, overly-religious and tedious. Consequently I can only watch her podcasts on x1.75 speed, as the actual informative content is buried under a great deal of unnecessary guff!
But only a deceiver would disparage that genuine research as ‘grifting’.
Scott is not a trustworthy source on this or any of the high-profile 60s assassinations. On the contrary he is a deliberate obfuscator.

Much like the research surrounding the (likely wildly exaggerated) Holocaust, my only desire with the outcome of the Charlie Kirk murder investigation is that the full, naked, unvarnished truth come to the fore.
Is that yours as well?

I’ll answer that for him: no he does NOT want that.
For some reason, he is working for the EXACT opposite.

And he also wants to divert discussion as much as possible.
E.g.

…[snip]… I personally believe in vaccines and see nothing wrong with measels and polio vaccinations for school kiddies. I think if we do stop mandating this, I can see nothing good coming from it. We have forgotten how deadly and crippling these diseases actually were. And the idea that vaccines cause autism is completely-debunked poppycock.
Yes, it is possible to get a bad batch of a vaccine, and it has happened once or twice, but there is a far greater chance of getting the disease itself without getting vaccinated. People tend to be innumerate and irrational and emotional, which is not particularly helpful.