• Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more

The Truth about RFK Jr

At SBM Jonathan Howard wrote, "However, recently our medical establishment has been floating an even more farcical justification [than copying Denmark without explanation] for their vaccine vandalism. Incredibly, they expect us to believe their true goal is to “rebuild trust” in “core, essential vaccines” and to “increase vaccine uptake among children“. Though he didn’t provide a shred of evidence, Dr. Marty Makary said that “Defining a hierarchy of vaccines by importance can help increase childhood vaccination rates.” Below are examples of Dr. Makary, as well as Dr. Jay Bhattacharya and even Kennedy himself, mindlessly repeating the same dronelike talking point that they seek to protect vaccines by attacking vaccines. This is obviously disingenuous performance art from bad-faith actors who enjoy being on camera, and it too is a recycled technique."

Dr. Howard continued, "Predictably, he [Marty Makary] botched basic facts about rotavirus...The flu killed 288 children last year, 89% of them not fully vaccinated, and it is killing children right now. Yet the flu vaccine is also on the chopping block and the headlines read RFK Jr. Says it May Be “Better” if Fewer Children Receive the Flu Vaccine...Kennedy also said that it would be better if “everybody got measles” and that “only very very sick kids should die from measles”. Dr. Makary predictably repeated his boss’s talking points, which are both false and repellent. Healthy children have died of measles under their “leadership,” and normal people also care about the fate of very very sick kids." As someone on social media observed, the existence of a vaccine prompts one to ask why any child should die of measles.

Dr. Jake Scott said, "The idea that trimming the schedule will boost vaccination rates gets the problem backwards." Dr. David Higgins said, "As a pediatrician, I heard from a parent just this week: 'What vaccines are recommended now? I am so confused.'"
 
Yesterday Jeremy Faust, host of Inside Medicine discussed the revised protocol for the 1.6 million dollar study being funded through HHS to be performed by researchers at the University of South Denmark. Although it had been reported that the study was cancelled, this is untrue. "An unnamed source stated, 'There are some very minor changes to the study protocol, but none of the ethical or legal concerns that have been identified with the original protocol have been adequately addressed by the revised protocol. The revised protocol continues to assert that the study is ethically acceptable to conduct in Guinea-Bissau because it is not yet the universal standard of care in Guinea-Bissau to provide the birth dose.

The revised study would still not pass muster with a US Institutional Review Board (IRB) for [ethical] approval, so it remains illegal for HHS to have funded this study, and it is grossly unethical for the investigators to be conducting this study by exploiting Guinea-Bissau’s poverty and current inability to provide the birth dose universally.'"

Dr. Faust continued, "Dr. David Boulware, a clinical trial designer and professor at the University of Minnesota also reviewed the revised protocol this evening for Inside Medicine. Boulware believes that there is one potential way the trial might be ethical. “If the trial only enrolled children born to [verifiably] Hepatitis B-negative mothers, there could be legitimate claims of equipoise.” However, that doesn’t mean such a trial would be a useful exercise. “It might be a dumb trial,” he added, “but at least it would not be overtly unethical.” He also said, "I would also add that since the primary outcome of the revised study remains completely meaningless, the study will only be able to detect potential harms due to vaccination—which the researchers might be able to game because they haven’t specified precisely how they will measure any neurocognitive outcomes—but not any benefits. That, finally, seems to be the point."
 
Last edited:
The day before yesterday Jeremy Faust also treated the same matter, the story proposed for Guinea Bissau. Dr. Faust wrote, "There are several scientific problems with this and other parts of the protocol. First, Hepatitis B acquired by newborns is not expected to cause mortality for years. So, trying to detect a decrease in all-cause mortality at 42 days (or 6 months, or 6 years), is doomed to fail."
EDT
Dr. Fause continued, "Dr. Boulware believes the protocol to be “ethically deficient,” (by virtue of the Declaration of Helsinki) because “it exposes a foreseeable subset of newborns to preventable, lifelong harm by withholding a proven intervention without adequate risk stratification or mitigation, fails to ensure that risks are minimized and proportionate to potential social value, and does not provide sufficiently robust informed consent or post-trial protections for participants placed at elevated risk.”"
 
Last edited:
Dennis Normile reported that Japan suspended its HPV vaccination program due to the public's concerns, then restarted it. "But vaccination supporters believe the spell may have been broken. “I am confident coverage will resume to previous levels as quickly as it fell simply due to peer power,” [Cancer epidemiologist Sharon] Hanley says. To her, the 9-year interlude holds an important lesson: “When the government is not supporting [a vaccine], then the people won’t support it.”"
 
In a CIDRAP opinion piece Dr. Jake Scott discussed how to counter vaccine falsehoods. With respect to the no saline placebo argument, he countered with, "The hepatitis B vaccine, for instance, has been tested in numerous placebo-controlled trials. One early example: a randomized, double-blind trial published in the New England Journal of Medicine in 1980. Researchers enrolled 1,083 subjects and randomized them to receive the vaccine or placebo. The placebo contained only the aluminum adjuvant and was packaged in vials visually indistinguishable from the vaccine. Using the adjuvant alone as the control allowed researchers to attribute any differences specifically to the hepatitis B antigen rather than to the aluminum salt that both groups received. They followed up with participants for 24 to 30 months. Side effects were similar between groups."
 
Chris_Halkides said:
Dr. Steven Novella at Science-based Medicine wrote, "But to dig one level deeper – part of his problem is that he confuses hazard for risk. Medicine functions optimally when it is explicitly founded on a science-based risk vs benefit analysis. For each intervention, what is the net effect on the health outcomes of the patient? What is the benefit of the intervention vs the side effects and other risks? This should make obvious sense. Hazard is the mere potential for harm, without any consideration for the probability of harm. The analogy I favor is the notion of a shark at an aquarium in a tank. That shark is certainly a hazard, but as long as it remains in the tank and you remain outside the tank, the risk is very low. What RFK is doing is the equivalent of not driving to the hospital to be evaluated and potentially treated for an acute life-threatening disease because you are afraid of getting into an accident on the way there."
Click to expand...
I'm no genius nor an expert not even I can understand these concepts. What sort of idiots are in charge of health.
 
What I like about this video (31:00) is the barely-suppressed rage at the complete idiocy of this whole situation. You can tell that he had to re-draft the script five times to get rid of the profanity.

 
David Gorski (Science-based Medicine) discussed the VICP: "The thing to remember about the VICP [Vaccine Injury Compensation Program] and the Vaccine Court is that there are certain conditions on what is called the Vaccine Injury Table that are considered automatically eligible for compensation. Colloquially referred to as “table injuries,” these are known potential injuries from vaccines that are accepted based on scientific, clinical, and epidemiological evidence...Were RFK Jr. to succeed in adding autism to the table—and I no longer see any reason why he will not ultimately succeed—then Congress would be forced with the choice of vastly increasing the budget of the VICP, which would likely require a large increase in the tax on vaccines that funds it, or simply altering the law to allow vaccine injury lawsuits to bypass the VICP and go straight to federal courts."

Dr. Gorski went on to examine the Danish study planned for Guinea-Bissau (Jeremy Faust and Paul Offit have also written on this topic): "That’s right. Stabell Benn is going to try to prove that the birth dose of hepatitis B vaccine causes autism and atopic dermatitis, something that we already know that vaccines do not cause. These secondary outcomes are slam-dunk evidence (to me) that this study was designed to support antivaccine messaging and policy...who knows when or even if the CDC and/or Stabell Benn and Aaby will post the full protocol, as required, to ClinicalTrials.gov."

Dr. Gorski concluded, " If he really leans into this method, he could conceivably drive all the remaining vaccine manufacturers out of the US market by 2027...He will eliminate vaccines in the US if he can. We need to find a way to stop that, but time is running short to do that."
 
Last edited:
Paul Offit (Beyond the Noise) wrote, "Recently, on January 16, 2026, a study was published in the journal, Lancet, that put the final nail in the Tylenol-causes-autism coffin. Researchers evaluated 17 studies that had used sibling controls finding that Tylenol use during pregnancy did not increase the risk of autism spectrum disorder, attention deficit-hyperactivity disorder or intellectual disabilities. Case closed."
 
Jeremy Faust hosted a roundtable retrospective on the first year on public health. A summary of this hour long conversation stated in part, "But Angela [Rasmussen] drew a hard line: the collapse in trust wasn’t mainly because of imperfect messaging—it was driven by sustained, intentional lying about science and vaccines, now with official branding."
 
Dr. Zachary Rubin assessed the rural health policies of the present administration in this video and this one. Seven months ago Dr. Noc had talked about similar issues here.
 
STAT reported on an interview given by the new chair of the ACIP, pediatric cardiologist Kirk Milhoan. "At the same time, Milhoan cast doubt on the scientific rigor of current public health decision-making. “I don’t like established science,” he said, adding “science is what I observe.” He pushed back on co-host Brinda Adhikari’s assertion that vaccines have been proven to reduce the spread of polio and measles viruses. “I’m looking at the observable science,” he said. “And what I’m saying is that there is an emotion when people use the word proven.”"

Later in this report: "“I think also, as you look at polio, we need to not be afraid to consider that we are in a different time now than we were then. Our sanitation is different, our risk of disease is different, and so those all play into the evaluation of whether this is worthwhile of taking a risk for a vaccine or not,” Milhoan said."

And, "Milhoan also seemed to suggest that the ongoing outbreaks will generate modern estimates of the risks measles poses. “What we’re going to have is a real-world experience of when unvaccinated people get measles,” he said. “What is the new incidence of hospitalization? What’s the incidence of death?”"
 
Jonathan Howard (Science-based Medicine) wrote, "Although MAHA doctors described themselves as “medical scholars” who based their opinions on a “sober assessment of available evidence”, in reality, they were content creators first and foremost. They rose to prominence via their emotionally manipulative social media output, and their videos, podcasts, Tweets, Fox News clips, and blogs were deliberately designed to stoke fear and rage regarding COVID mitigations...Despite claiming to be apolitical scientists, MAHA doctors were open about their political leanings and ambitions. Brushing off January 6th and dead children in Samoa, MAHA doctors openly campaigned for both Trump and Kennedy, who himself compared vaccine mandates to Nazi Germany. This too was effective- Kennedy and Trump are in power- and none of it was hidden. MAHA doctors were loud and clear about their loyalties and intentions."
 
Norman Alexander said:
This sort of shtick is easy to do if you just say what you need at the time, and forget what you said more than 10 minutes ago. I don't think he's even got a true position on vaccines. I don't think he has researched the subject or thought it through in any depth. Like using a dead bear-cub as a joke, and strapping a whale-head to the roof of the car. The worm ate the bit of his brain that did "good judgement calls".
Click to expand...
Sadly we now can see he does seem to be a true believer
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

ISF - Join now!

Every member here is approved by hand. No bots, no spam, just people who care about evidence and honest debate.

Membership is free!

Create your free account

Back
Top Bottom