Supporting RFKjr
A Science-based Petition is being circulated!
In my recent Commentary, I not only indicated support for RFKjr to head up DHHS but spelled out my top three recommendations for him to take. #1 was to publicly segregate between real Science and political science. IMO failure to make that key distinction is at the core of why our healthcare policies are ineffective and why our medical agencies (e.g., FDA, CDC, etc.) have lost their way.
Interestingly, some of his allies have recently posted a petition (copied below), and (in an accompanying email) indicated: If you are a medical professional, scientist, professor, or Nobel Laureate, please sign this letter of support for RFKjr for DHHS Secretary!
IMO the most significant part is the emphasis on the traditional Scientific Method. If under RFKjr’s leadership that focus is adhered to, we will be making a GIANT stride toward dumping political science and replacing it with genuine Science.
[Note 1: I don’t endorse everything RFKjr has said, but if we start with an agreement that real Science will be the adjudicator, what better can we ask for? Note 2: The Left is adamantly opposed to real Science (e.g., see here). As such they will be aggressively trying to undermine the Senate’s support for RFKjr, as an emphasis on genuine Science is a mortal threat to their ideology.]
———————————————————————————————————————————
The United States Senate:
The cornerstone of scientific progress has always been the fearless pursuit of truth through rigorous inquiry and open debate. Today, we write with growing concern about a troubling trend in our scientific discourse: the increasing tendency to dismiss legitimate scientific inquiry as "misinformation" when it challenges prevailing views.
Defunding, censoring, or unpublishing studies because they contain different conclusions from others is antithetical to the scientific method. Being unable to question data or disagree with our colleagues defeats true scientific progress, works to further increase public groupthink, and inhibits scientific exploration. As Ivar Giaever, Nobel Laureate in Physics (1973), stated "Incontrovertible is not a scientific word. Nothing is incontrovertible in science."
It is contrary to our core beliefs as Nobel laureates, scientists, and doctors who know and understand that research should drive conversations and not be used to dismiss anyone. It is also equally contrary for scientific progress to label well-designed research findings and conclusions as pseudoscience or as misinformation when another colleague merely disapproves or disagrees with those findings. Discrepancies or disagreements should encourage more communication, refinement, research, and constructive discourse. Science advances not through consensus but through rigorous testing of competing hypotheses.
We want the United States Secretary of Health and Human Services to champion people with concerns about their health, chronic diseases, health policies, and environmental toxins, and who will not avoid discussing contentious issues. Mr. Kennedy has repeatedly demonstrated this courage while maintaining an unwavering commitment to evidence-based decision-making.
The former letters by our colleagues do not reflect everyone’s views and unfairly antagonize Robert F. Kennedy Jr.
Irrespective of whether we all agree with all of Robert F. Kennedy Jr.'s positions and beliefs, it is clear that he believes in the scientific method and the right to further investigation and constructive discourse.
We also want to clarify some facts in response to those letters:
1. Mr. Kennedy's professional experience is both relevant and significant. Since the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS) was established in 1953, only five of the 29 secretaries had professional backgrounds in medicine. The majority of secretaries shared expertise in fields similar to Mr. Kennedy, such as law (approximately 10), politics and legislative experience (approximately 7), and public administration and policy (approximately 8).
2. Mr. Kennedy advocates for greater transparency in vaccine research, efficacy, and safety, positioning this within the broader context of his public health advocacy. His perspective highlights the critical importance of informed consent and bodily integrity, principles fundamental to respecting personal autonomy widely recognized under international frameworks as well as state and federal laws.
3. Inconclusive studies and findings on a subject do not establish definitive facts. Labeling Mr. Kennedy as anti-science or anti-vaccine undermines the ability of researchers and scientists to critically analyze all available data, challenge existing studies, or seek legal remedies when harm occurs. Such labeling stifles open debate and discourages independent evaluation of the science, ultimately fostering greater public distrust. Constructive discourse and the freedom to form independent conclusions are essential to advancing scientific understanding and maintaining public confidence.
4. Mr. Kennedy's stance on the fluoridation of drinking water is supported by several reputable studies, including a study published in Nature Scientific Reports, and a 2024 report by the National Toxicology Program under the Biden administration. These findings raised concerns about fluoride's potential health effects, including cognitive impairment in children, and highlighted the need for further research and public discussion about the risks, benefits, and broader industry impacts of fluoridation. Mr. Kennedy's advocacy for continued research and policy evaluation aligns with the responsibilities of government agencies that are committed to protecting public health.
5. Mr. Kennedy's position regarding AIDS treatment is relevant to fostering more public health conversations about comprehensive solutions to the highly mutable HIV. His point was that while AZT was a valuable initial step, its use as a monotherapy led to limitations, such as the development of drug resistance and significant side effects, which hindered the exploration of other potential therapies at the time.
Robert F. Kennedy Jr.'s willingness to listen, to avoid antagonizing individuals who disagree with him, and to champion those who have been harmed makes him a true advocate of public health and a qualified candidate to lead as Secretary of Health and Human Services.
Sincerely,
(If you are a medical professional, scientist, professor, etc. please sign the petition!)
Here is other information from this scientist that you might find interesting:
I am now offering incentives for you to sign up new subscribers!
I also consider reader submissions on Critical Thinking on my topics of interest.
Check out the Archives of this Critical Thinking substack.
WiseEnergy.org: discusses the Science (or lack thereof) behind our energy options.
C19Science.info: covers the lack of genuine Science behind our COVID-19 policies.
Election-Integrity.info: multiple major reports on the election integrity issue.
Media Balance Newsletter: a free, twice-a-month newsletter that covers what the mainstream media does not do, on issues from COVID to climate, elections to education, renewables to religion, etc. Here are the Newsletter’s 2024 Archives. Please send me an email to get your free copy. When emailing me, please make sure to include your full name and the state where you live. (Of course, you can cancel the Media Balance Newsletter at any time - but why would you?
Thanks for reading Critically Thinking About Select Societal Issues! Please pass a link to this article on to other associates who might benefit. They can subscribe for FREE to receive new posts (typically about once a week).
“As such they will be aggressively trying to undermine the Senate’s support for RFKjr, as an emphasis on genuine Science is a mortal threat to their ideology.]”
When has there been a time anyone can remember when the so-called-democrats, believe in anything “truthful?”
Their number one priority, is to upend everything logically based, scientifically based, financially sound and economically viable!
Time and time again, half of Americans seem reluctant to do a smidgen of research, in fact they won’t do any research because they’re simply incapable of understanding what’s true and or want to know what’s true.
Through psychological peer reviewed studies indicated that 2.5% of those who align with the “leftist-views” have psychological and mental health disorders.
When we say something like “what are they nuts?”’or “they freaking crazy” more than likely, it’s true. Sad as this may sound, ask yourself if, the past admin implemented anything logical? Resoundingly the answer is, NO! No they haven’t. Quite the opposite has happened. But why?
Well IMO this is why. When someone or a group of people haven’t anything to offer society, they typically make up, lie, mislead and attack those who think logically, critically think about what may or may not be true and make a decision based on their “critical-thinking” ability.
I do pray RFK Jr. is confirmed. I don’t agree with all of his viewpoints but who can say anyone agrees with everything someone says. We disagree with our own beliefs from time to time. What’s important is to recognize this.
May God Bless America and The Entire World!
AJR
"Robert F. Kennedy Jr.'s willingness to listen, to avoid antagonizing individuals" is admirable. There have been and still are and always will be too many others wearing opposite stripes.
This is a bit off topic, but the reason the public are so afraid of radiation is because in the 1920s Hermann Muller conducted ridiculously irrelevant experiments, subjecting fruit files to 100 million times background radiation, misinterpreted the results, and then bullied and harassed anybody who disagreed with him, ruining several careers. And he had a lot of help from the Rockefeller Brothers Foundation. His agenda was communism first, eugenics second, and biology third. He even lied during his 1946 Nobel Prize lecture, having already received results of carefully-conducted work that proved he was wrong. As John wrote, like others, he succeeded in censoring and suppressing and unpublishing others' works. And even a century later, Science Magazine refuses to retract his fraudulent papers.