You can't blame a dude for deaths because he met with someone that was an anti-vaxer.

You know it's more than that.

"Vaccines cause X" was a lunatic fringe argument until Andrew Wakefield blamed thimerosal for autism in a small study in the UK. That argument didn't go anywhere until RFK Jr penned a six thousand word article for Rolling Stone. It was never a good article; without the Kennedy name it never would have gained traction but traction it gained and the entire US anti-vax movement erupted around it. The dozens upon dozens of inconsistencies, false allegations and outright mistruths have never been acknowledged by RFKJr; he did apologize for saying the unvaccinated have less freedom than Anne Frank did but the fact that it came out of his mouth suggests that his whole "teach the controversy" standpoint is disingenuous.

As to the vaccine manufacturers, I'll say this: we had a family friend who worked in epidemiology. From 1983-1985 he was working on an AIDS vaccine that showed promise but the board opted to cease his department's research because the potential profit was outweighed by the potential liability. When they opted not to restart the research after the 1986 childhood vaccine injury act, he opted to return to academia. The entire department dissolved, not because of any direct company decision but because none of the researchers were interested in working at a place that put such a low premium on human life.

And here it is, 2024, and we have what appears to be an AIDS vaccine with 100% efficacy. We've been through a lot since then, obviously... but it's fallacious to argue that everyone should be able to sue over public health measures, particularly when there's an entire fund earmarked for vaccine injury and an entire other fund earmarked for non-vaccine public health injury. The argument "I should be able to sue whoever I want" is a very different one from "I should be taken care of if something bad happens due to a public health measure."

Your kids can get HepB from nail clippers, by the way. "Largely transmitted" is not the same as "uniquely transmitted." I had a discussion with a pediatrician about the chicken pox vaccine once. I mention I had dealt with chicken pox and it made sense for my kid to do the same. the pediatrician mentioned that there was a lot less flesh-eating bacteria when I had chicken pox and that the principle reason for vaccinating against varicella is the horrific secondary infections they now tend to see with pox.

But this is all basic, google-able shit. It's the difference between investigating why rather than investigating enough to justify your viewpoint.

I did a movie with John Asher, BTW. Nice guy. He blamed RFK's article for his divorce. Jenny McCarthy had been wheeling around months, looking for someone to blame for their kid's autism. That article gave her someone to hate so that she didn't have to come to terms with her kid's uniqueness. They split up over it and she launched a second career.

So I honestly have no fucking idea what the hell happened in Samoa and I don't care. What I do know is that RFK Jr is responsible for the whole of the American anti-vax movement and that he likes it that way. I'm not sure what "nuance" you're looking for here.