RFK Jr -- the antiscience health secretary

Post Reply New Topic

US health secretary and vaccine sceptic Robert F. Kennedy Jr has called for the retraction of a Danish study that found no link between aluminium in vaccines and chronic diseases in children — a rare move for a US public official. Aluminium has been used for almost a century to enhance the immune system’s response to some vaccines. But some people claim the ingredient is linked to rising rates of childhood disorders such as autism.

Public-health officials in Kennedy’s position rarely request that studies be retracted, says Ivan Oransky, a specialist in academic publishing and co-founder of the media organization Retraction Watch. Through this request, “Secretary Kennedy has demonstrated that he wants the scientific literature to bend to his will”, says Oransky.

...

Annals of Internal Medicine says it stands by the study and has no plans to retract it. Christine Laine, editor in chief for the journal, wrote in a comment on the study’s web page on 11 August that “retraction is warranted only when serious errors invalidate findings or there is documented scientific misconduct, neither of which occurred here”.

...

Since then, Grohmann says, the claim that aluminium in vaccines causes autism has been debunked “again and again”. “If there was a mechanism of action where a particular vaccine caused autism, we’d see it in 80, 90, 100% of people receiving the vaccine, and we don’t,” he says. Any association between autism and vaccines is probably a coincidence of timing, he says. “In other words, vaccines might be given at the age of two, and autism genetically might also kick in at the age of two,” he adds.

Watch the whole interview, if you have the ability, and listen to what is actually said. The truth is that the science is FAR from settled.

Misled? How? Truth is misleading?

Watch the whole interview, if you have the ability, and listen to what is actually said. The truth is that the science is FAR from settled.

I doubt that I would ever believe anything a heroin addict or a former heroin addict had to say.

He made asinine comments about autism. That makes it on topic here.

Several ex-CDC directors who branded Robert F. Kennedy Jr. “dangerous” in a Sept. 2 New York Times editorial and across cable networks are themselves closely tied to lobbying firms, pharmaceutical interests, and nonprofit groups with industry funding, according to an inquiry by the Daily Caller News Foundation.

The editorial came shortly after Kennedy removed Susan Monarez as CDC director on Aug. 27, following disputes over changes to the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP). Monarez is scheduled to testify before the Senate Health, Education and Pensions Committee, with prepared remarks obtained by the New York Times indicating she will claim Kennedy pressured her to approve ACIP decisions in advance and dismiss vaccine staff according to the NYT.

A Health and Human Services spokesperson countered the criticism, telling the Daily Caller News Foundation: “Conflicts of interest and an entrenched status quo have broken the American people’s trust in our public health system. Secretary Kennedy is committed to transparency and upholding gold-standard science to restore confidence in our country’s health care institutions.”

Former Biden CDC Director Rochelle Walensky, who coauthored the editorial, previously bypassed ACIP recommendations to approve COVID-19 boosters in 2021 in line with President Joe Biden’s pledge, despite limited supporting data as reported here. The editorial also criticized Kennedy’s backing of President Donald Trump’s July Medicaid reforms under the Big Beautiful Bill, which restricts federal dollars for able-bodied adults without dependents or work. Authors did not disclose that several among them hold financial stakes in industries affected by the legislation.

Mandy Cohen, acting CDC director under Biden, is now an advisor to Manatt, Phelps & Phillips, a firm that in 2025 lobbied on Medicaid and Medicare for multiple health industry clients, including advocacy groups for illegal immigrants seeking expanded Medicaid coverage. Records show Manatt represented major health providers, pharmaceutical companies, and groups pressing to influence Trump’s health legislation according to Senate filings. When Manatt recruited Cohen in March, they highlighted her expertise in Medicaid and public health strategy in their announcement.

William Roper, CDC director under President George H. W. Bush and another coauthor of the editorial, previously served on the board of DaVita Inc., which controls a third of the U.S. dialysis market. SEC filings show Roper joined the board in 2001 and stepped down in 2020, during which a WBTV investigation found he earned about $3.6 million between 2010 and 2018. Kennedy has targeted diabetes, a leading cause of kidney disease, with efforts to cut sugary drinks from federal food programs and to expand nutrition education in medical schools.

Roper also sat on the boards of Express Scripts and later Cigna until 2021, without disclosing these roles while serving as dean of UNC’s medical school, according to WBTV. His time at UNC coincided with scrutiny of U.S. collaborations with the Wuhan Institute of Virology on coronavirus engineering — partnerships some scientists and officials, including Kennedy, say may have fueled the COVID-19 outbreak as documented here.

Other signatories of the editorial, including Jeffrey Koplan and David Satcher, have ties to the CDC Foundation, which has received millions from commercial entities. A 2019 study found Coca Cola alone donated $1 million between 2010 and 2015, while internal CDC emails revealed corporate coordination on obesity policy. Critics, including U.S. Right to Know, argue the foundation undermined public trust by enabling hidden corporate influence.

Koplan has also been involved with the China Medical Board, funded by the Rockefeller Foundation, a backer of climate initiatives. These connections stand in contrast to the Trump administration’s push to end dangerous medical research partnerships with China and bolster domestic pharmaceutical independence.

Tom Frieden, another former CDC chief, has continued to work with the WHO, even as U.S. funding was withdrawn during Trump’s administration as reported here.

Requests for comment sent to Cohen, Roper, Koplan, Satcher, Frieden, Schuchat, and Walensky went unanswered.

Watch the whole interview, if you have the ability, and listen to what is actually said. The truth is that the science is FAR from settled.

Even if the science isn't settled, as this interview claims, that still doesn't make it proper for RFK Jr to ask for an article to be retracted. I think there are a few arguments for why.

1. RFK Jr doesn't have a medical degree. He doesn't have a medical background. Retractions from journals should come from the authors of the paper or from a consensus of experts in the field. One person in charge of a government agency isn't the same as multiple independent researchers verifying the study.

2. Even if the science is still far from settled, this doesn't mean we should retract studies in general. Even though we do not know, the existing science indicates what the best approach is, given our current body of knowledge. Each article or study that is conducted with good methodology will help shape this body of knowledge. As we do more studies, we will likely learn more. Learning more may mean that the science changes. This doesn't mean that the current science is bad. It doesn't mean that vaccines are bad. It just means that this is our best guess until we know more. (To be clear, guess may be a bit informal. This isn't the same as a random person having a guess. This is an educated guess made by many experts in the field with different interests and with years of experience).


3. The funding of a study doesn't automatically invalidate a study. Sure the former CDC directors have ties to industry. The could be possible conflicts of interest. Some of the scientists may be funded by these same sources. Not all of them are. Some scientists may be funded by universities. Some by governments. Some by non profits. Some from big pharma. This doesn't inherently make any of them right or wrong. We should consider any conflicts of interest due to funding sources of course, but saying someone is tied to industry doesn't automatically invalidate their statements about RFK Jr or science.

The survey is being held as as the proof that injecting aluminium into kids is safe. As it's about the only piece of "evidence" of such, do you not therefore feel it's pretty important to hold it to high scrutiny before placing such significant charge on its claims?

Firstly, the survey, any survey, even if perfect, cannot "prove" safety; it can show an absence of ill effects, but science 101 - absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. Only clinical trials can establish safe levels, and this has never been effectively undertaken, not even on lab animals, never mind humans.

Then, the survey is - I'd like to say rubbish but in the interest of cordiality let's say it has some questionable methods - I deduced 2 or 3 issues with a ten minute scan of the synopsis and I'm no scientist, and I gather there's more to be found. A gold standard it most certainly isn't.

Neither of those points are conspiracy. They're statements of fact. An actual clinical trial would not be difficult, but for all their billions and surety in what the outcome would be nobody in pharma seems to want to do one.

If you'd rather just "believe" then fine, most of you seem to cling to this modern "expert-informed" science-themed faith structure which seems to be a modern stand in for religions of yore, but at the end of the day actual scientific method shats all over it no less

Personally I've got no idea if aluminium is safe or vaccines cause autism, that's all way above my pay grade - something is causing s**t to happen but could be any number or combination of stuff from pollutants to electromagnetics to too tight paternal underwear, such is the staggering change of modern life, and I rule nothing out. But that survey makes me want to trust nothing it's proponents claim.