Although I am not a scientist, I enjoy reading about science. I could never understand the refusal of the bureaucracy of public health to acknowledge natural immunity or the discouragement of even trying therapeutic drugs.
Even I, as an undergrad 50 years ago took a virology course and understood herd immunity. I couldn't believe the official propaganda.
I began following Dr. Jay and you on X.
Whenever I see a thing like cancel culture I assume it is a reactionary coverup.
It was plain to see that the NIH was fearing a revolt from their dogma from any influence the Great Barrington Declaration might have.
I am more than pleased that Dr. Jay Bhattacharya was named as the nominee for the Director of NIH.
I think you have a typo here Alex. You said, “ and we will again need scientists to maintain a curiosity and professionalism, a degree of humility and grace, that Dr. Bhattacharya lied & breathed throughout the COVID-10 pandemic”. Don’t you mean “lived and breathed”? Terrific article, I apologize if I read that wrong.
I am not a member of the scientific community, but I have had the distinct pleasure of meeting and interacting with Jay several times and can attest to his grace and humanity. Despite being an overly curious civilian, Jay made the time to actively engage with me and not behave like a politician (shake, smile, move on) or the self-important elite academic that is so common at many institutions. He and others like yourself were voices of reason during a period that was anxiety producing for all. For that grounding, I will be always grateful.
His ability to avoid being swept up in the emotion of the pandemic and stay focused on a science centric approach to Covid, assures me he will persevere no matter what mud or roadblocks the bad actors sling during his approval process or when he assumes responsibility for the NIH. With Jay at NIH and Marty Makary at FDA, some much needed balance will return to these heavily tarnished but critical institutions.
I fully concur with every sentiment you have written, the smear job on you, Jay and colleagues is beyond reprehensible.. it is to be loathed, those responsible, quite correctly to be called out, named, reminded of their discourse, their subversion of the health sciences and indeed science itself, science a discipline owned by humanity, yet Misappropriated entirely be a select hand chosen few, chosen for their known human weaknesses and failings, their willingness to sell out, average Joes and Jayne’s happy for money to prostitute themselves upon the altar of greed and avarice, happy to denigrate, malign, deride, abuse and vilify good, solid, upright, conscientious scientists who by dent of their actions demonstrated at the time it was most needed who they really are, of what truly defines and constitutes their morality… ethics and humanity and a love for the same.
In contrast the detractors these people like yourself, your colleagues who stood and still stand with you worth a dozen, a hundred of these wanton usurpers, whores and sellouts.
I say we never ever let the names of those who denigrated and vilified in lieu of promises made them, grants assured ever forget just how loathsome, the true human detritus they actually are, to many have suffered, died, are still suffering because of their greed, their selling out, humanity cannot, must not ever allow their actions to be merely swept under the proverbial rug, nope, never ever, we have all lost to much resulting from their evil, for evil truly defines their then and ongoing present behaviours… we, humanity unqualified as we are demand our faith in science be restored, that we reclaim ownership of science … more so given the broad acceptance that literally took millennia to have science accepted as it was, used to be before they who sold out the discipline and their colleagues so short sightedly and selfishly did so….
In so reaching this conclusion I am reminded of all that science had endured to reach the pinnacle of acceptance, the pogroms, superstitions, burning at the stake as heretics, all to advance what truly was and became cherished by so many before being so wickedly smitten by a minority of connected and self entitled ass holes…
Thank you for such a well written piece on the great man himself, a man I have come to admire from the many podcasts and papers authored by him I have been privileged to read since those darkest of days 2021 through late 2022 especially… it gives great heart and confidence to know that in such hands “our, humanity’s” science like a phoenix will rise from the ashes of one of the darkest chapters to assail this great discipline… just saying..
Thank you Alex for your thoughtful piece. RFK seems to illicit a lot of controversy but what I have learned in these last 4 years is not to believe everything spouted in MSM or government officials. The shots were not safe for me. Here in the greater Toronto area, 5 doctor’s died within 2 weeks of each other after the 4th shot. The media reported and bashed antivaxxers for claiming the deaths were attributable to the shots. Tell me how that statement could be made like it was a fait accompli without any diagnostic tests? Or how could they spew safe and effective without proper trialling or active independent data collection? Somehow the overseers like the captured FDA etc get a pass, no questions asked. I’m not as naive as I was when this all started. Too much disinformation was tabled as solid science.
Sadly, I believed the press when they smeared or debased a scientist or doctor for having alternate views to the lockdowns or shots. Even google is in on the censorship. Google Dr. Bryam Bridle and it’s a hatchet job on his stellar reputation. Duck duck go lays out his extensive accomplishments. His life has been attacked, he lost his lab privilege and office. He never had a twitter account but an imposter set an account up in his name and spewed nonsense. So many intelligent, caring people destroyed by some overreaching power. So, when it comes to RFK, I don’t believe all the negative press, I now know how that works. He’s being accused of wanting to get rid of the polio shots but my understanding is they’re new polio shots that haven’t gone through proper trialling, he wants better trialling.
I watched Dr. Bhattacharya on his substack. You obviously don’t know people over a screen but you can’t help but get a feel for who they are. Paul Offit for instance does not instil confidence in me but leaves me feeling manipulated. Dr. Bhattacharya on the other hand comes across as a really caring person who is smart and intelligent. I’ve noticed that those who go against the grain are passionate about their field and display a sincerity and integrity. The trust I have for him comes from my gut. People who oppose him cause me to wonder whether they are protecting a hidden agenda. I so hope he gets in.
'Even google is in on the censorship.' Don't be surprised. Google long ago abandoned its vow of "Don't be evil", if it ever did honor it.
As for RFK, don't pay attention to anything anybody writes about him. Go listen to one of his two or three hour interviews with people like Joe Rogan or Tucker Carlson.
Thank you for writing this! Early in the covid madness, I became alarmed that the government, media, and academia, were suspiciously in lock-step promoting a single narrative that could not be challenged or questioned: We were all disease vectors and facing terrible outcomes if we didn’t barricade ourselves in our homes for months or years, to await the production of an experimental pharmaceutical product. I turned to Twitter/X, where I had never previously ventured, to seek out anyone who wasn’t on the government/Big Pharma payroll. There I found you, Dr. Bhattacharya, and several others you mentioned. All of you were a lifeline in the midst of the chaos. What I appreciate SO much, in addition to Dr. B's obvious expertise in this arena, is his civility in response to people who ruthlessly denigrated him and others who didn’t fall in line. He never resorted to profanity or name calling when someone disagreed with him. I was horrified by the academics who immediately launched into expletives when anyone dared to oppose them. (From the elite pedigree, I expected their command of the English language to be better than a few overused swear words.) But Dr. B was never like that, and he garnered my never-ending respect for his expertise, kindness, resilience, and grace.
It was that early 2020 STAT News piece by John Ioannidis that started me on the Covid skeptic track. The pushback he got about that made me surprised that his career survived.
Respect. In a cold rightwing world, your heartwarming intro to Dr Jay should be compulsory reading for every journalist who comments on him and the NIH. And your collective analysis plus the insights about the progress of the covid pandemic should also be compulsory reading. The H5N1 flus are going to be real trouble, thank goodness we can have faith that Dr Jay is exceptionally talented (as you are). Thank you.
Thank you,Al, for this pivotal and characteristically articulate article regarding Jay Bhattacharya. Hi appointment as head of the NIH would literally make all the difference in the world. I deeply hope it happens.
I believe you meant "lived" rather than "lied" in the "We need Dr. Jay" paragraph. That typo was especially unfortunate, given your celebratory message.
Interesting to hear more about Jay Bhattacharya. I'm concerned by his lack of experience, and by his focus on the errors made during the pandemic. That's water under the bridge now. We need to look upstream to what is coming rather than worry about what is downstream now.
But I do like Jay Bhattacharya's attitude, as you have illustrated it. And to put the pandemic to rest so we can move on, I am hoping he will do something like a new Asilomar conference on the dangers of gain-of-function research. Get both sides in a room talking rather than simply firing off broadsides from afar.
What do you think about Bobby Kennedy's nomination? I find that one hard to accept. Jay Bhattacharya and Martin Kulldorff are for it because they think Bobby Kennedy will take on the establishment. I think that view is naive and dangerous.
Bobby Kennedy is a trial lawyer, and an expert at distorting science and truth for his own selfish ends. His voice should be heard, certainly, but he should have no role in our government, particularly heading the nation's premier science organization. He's a self-centered firebrand, with none of the grace of Dr. Jay.
I think there's an opportunity in everything. Kennedy's fears about vaccine research stem from his long history as an environmental lawyer fighting against industry lying about pollution and then seeing government officials aid industry in covering up lies about the extent of pollution or the consequences of pollutants.
Pharmaceutical industry has, unfortunately, committed some of the same crimes (not everyone, not every time, but enough to cause distrust). From opioids to mRNA vaccines for SARS-CoV-2 mandated for kids, there have been a few examples of industry covering up the adverse effects of their drugs and sometimes government allies being too credulous or supportive of industry's preferred messaging for novel drugs.
Having someone like Kennedy steer the ship briefly could very well bring about positive change that reassures skeptics & cynics (like Kennedy and many others) that the government adequately manages conflicts of interests and ultimately serves the people, not large & powerful industry players.
It's also good to examine adverse effects of vaccines. We can acknowledge that many vaccines are properly prescribed (e.g. polio, MMR, etc.) while also acknowledging that novel technologies like mRNA vaccines for SARS-CoV-2 for kids are not as tried, tested, and true to our goals of marginal, long-term, all-cause harm-reduction in medicine. By embracing the pro's and con's, and having someone distrustful of vaccines establish systems to improve trust in vaccines, we could end up with systems for e.g. grading the level to which vaccines are established vs. experimental, and we can be more open about our adverse effects reporting systems & analyses.
It's even possible Kennedy could be convinced to find the underlying cause of autism. While the rise of autism diagnoses could be changing diagnostic criteria, it could also be attributed to environmental factors or pollutants (or possibly drugs, even if not the typical childhood vaccines but, say, drugs taken by the mother during embryonic development). Finding the true cause of autism could end all questions about whether/not something causes autism.
It's not easy to steer big ships like HHS, and when all is said & done more is said than done. Nonetheless, I'm not as afraid about RFK and his nominees as many seem to be. On the contrary, I think it'll be an interesting experiment and I trust our political & social guardrails to prevent errors from snowballing into larger harms. Knowing Jay, I'm especially reassured that we could end up far better off with reformers in charge given the benefit of the doubt. I trust they care about people and want to do good during their time at the helm.
Bobby Kennedy said this during an interview in June 2023:
"My concerns about 5G is that the RF radiation from 5G is dangerous. It penetrates and disrupts the blood-brain barrier. It also is associated with glioblastomas and other cancers. And it causes a lot of other dramatic health effects. There are literally thousands and thousands of studies on that. I've litigated on that issue and I've won at the federal court of appeals. So, you know, you can say it's a conspiracy theory. But the federal court of appeals, you know, I also won a case on Monsanto and glyphosates that called non-Hodgkin's lymphoma, that was called a conspiracy theory.
"What I've said about 5-G is it is dangerous. It is under-regulated. Other countries regulate it much better than us. And we need to protect our children. We should not be having these antennas on elementary schools. We should be warning people, probably do not put that cell phone next to your head. You've got, you where we're seeing this epidemic now of glioblastomas. And almost all of them are connected to the ear that you favor the cell phone with.
"You know, there is study after study that shows that -- and I'm in litigation on that issue right now. And you know, if we get a fair trial, we're going to win that litigation as well."
My father spent his 40-year career in bioelectromagnetics investigating the effects of radio-frequency radiation on the human body and the science is clear. Many other scientists and engineers did too. They found that there is no causal link between that non-ionizing radiation and human health. Bobby Kennedy says there are thousands of studies showing a link between radio frequency radiation and disease, but there are no such studies. Not even one.
Bobby Kennedy knows that, but he lies about it anyway., in a very persuasive, almost pathological way. And it's not just 5G cellphone radio waves that he lies about. He has falsely claimed the following as well:
— vaccines cause autism and other diseases
— genetically modified foods are harmful
— Wifi radiation breaks down the blood-brain barrier and causes cancer and other diseases
— Roundup causes cancer
— ultra-processed foods cause obesity and chronic diseases
— HIV is not the cause of AIDS
— high-fructose corn syrup is more harmful than table sugar
— etc., etc.
Bobby Kennedy has no training or experience in science, medicine or public health. He's never held an executive office in any corporation or in government. As far as I can tell, the only real job he has ever held was as an assistant district attorney in Manhattan over 40 years ago, and he quit that job when he didn't pass the bar. (And he was arrested shortly after that for being high on heroin on an airplane, an addiction he battled for 14 years.) The rest of his long career consisted mainly of playing off the Kennedy name in lawsuits and in writing books and speaking.
Bobby Kennedy does seem like a likeable guy, and he has lots of friends among the elite. He's also been a womanizer his whole life, with great success. He has a magnetic personality and a silver tongue. Those people skills make him a good trial lawyer and a good campaigner.
But in my opinion, they make him a bad choice for a position like the secretary of health. I'm not a fan of Tony Fauci, but at least he and Frances Collins were top-notch scientists and top-notch executives. Very knowledgeable and very experienced. Though they made some blunders, overall they did a good job.
I don't think Bobby Kennedy would come even close to them. Bobby Kennedy is like Tucker Carlson, Joe Rogan, Tulsi Gabbard, Naomi Wolf, Vivak Ramaswamy, Steve Kirsch, and others like them. Interesting to listen to, with some fresh ideas that are welcome in a stale political environment, but not a person qualified to be in government, or particularly, to lead an evidence-based government agency.
Do I think Bobby Kennedy would be a disaster as health secretary? Not really. People in that position like Xavier Becerra have set a very low bar that is easy to clear. I just think he would be ineffective and embarrassing. He would do no good in an important job where we need someone doing a whole lot of good.
The list might be misrepresenting what he has said about some of those things, but mostly I disagree that all of them are "lies". Those statements as presented also preclude any room for scientific controversy or gray area.
For example, having read in detail about metabolic chemistry for 15 years, and despite the use of the currently faddish term "ultra processed foods", I'm convinced the modern diet can absolutely be a cause of poor health.
On the subject of vaccines, leaving aside the trigger word "autism", vaccine safety has not been studied or even followed up to the extent it should; there definitely needs be investigation into whether administering multiple vaccines at the same time into infants, with their developing immune systems, might have some detrimental long-term effects.
Although I am not a scientist, I enjoy reading about science. I could never understand the refusal of the bureaucracy of public health to acknowledge natural immunity or the discouragement of even trying therapeutic drugs.
Even I, as an undergrad 50 years ago took a virology course and understood herd immunity. I couldn't believe the official propaganda.
I began following Dr. Jay and you on X.
Whenever I see a thing like cancel culture I assume it is a reactionary coverup.
It was plain to see that the NIH was fearing a revolt from their dogma from any influence the Great Barrington Declaration might have.
I am more than pleased that Dr. Jay Bhattacharya was named as the nominee for the Director of NIH.
Keep pursuing truth, Alex.
I think you have a typo here Alex. You said, “ and we will again need scientists to maintain a curiosity and professionalism, a degree of humility and grace, that Dr. Bhattacharya lied & breathed throughout the COVID-10 pandemic”. Don’t you mean “lived and breathed”? Terrific article, I apologize if I read that wrong.
Thank you for catching that. fixed!
Here's another, unless there's a new award I haven't heard of yet: "Nobel Laurette Michael Levitt..."
Thank you for the post, Alex. So refreshing. Thank God for Dr Jay Bhattacharya and for you too.
I am not a member of the scientific community, but I have had the distinct pleasure of meeting and interacting with Jay several times and can attest to his grace and humanity. Despite being an overly curious civilian, Jay made the time to actively engage with me and not behave like a politician (shake, smile, move on) or the self-important elite academic that is so common at many institutions. He and others like yourself were voices of reason during a period that was anxiety producing for all. For that grounding, I will be always grateful.
His ability to avoid being swept up in the emotion of the pandemic and stay focused on a science centric approach to Covid, assures me he will persevere no matter what mud or roadblocks the bad actors sling during his approval process or when he assumes responsibility for the NIH. With Jay at NIH and Marty Makary at FDA, some much needed balance will return to these heavily tarnished but critical institutions.
I fully concur with every sentiment you have written, the smear job on you, Jay and colleagues is beyond reprehensible.. it is to be loathed, those responsible, quite correctly to be called out, named, reminded of their discourse, their subversion of the health sciences and indeed science itself, science a discipline owned by humanity, yet Misappropriated entirely be a select hand chosen few, chosen for their known human weaknesses and failings, their willingness to sell out, average Joes and Jayne’s happy for money to prostitute themselves upon the altar of greed and avarice, happy to denigrate, malign, deride, abuse and vilify good, solid, upright, conscientious scientists who by dent of their actions demonstrated at the time it was most needed who they really are, of what truly defines and constitutes their morality… ethics and humanity and a love for the same.
In contrast the detractors these people like yourself, your colleagues who stood and still stand with you worth a dozen, a hundred of these wanton usurpers, whores and sellouts.
I say we never ever let the names of those who denigrated and vilified in lieu of promises made them, grants assured ever forget just how loathsome, the true human detritus they actually are, to many have suffered, died, are still suffering because of their greed, their selling out, humanity cannot, must not ever allow their actions to be merely swept under the proverbial rug, nope, never ever, we have all lost to much resulting from their evil, for evil truly defines their then and ongoing present behaviours… we, humanity unqualified as we are demand our faith in science be restored, that we reclaim ownership of science … more so given the broad acceptance that literally took millennia to have science accepted as it was, used to be before they who sold out the discipline and their colleagues so short sightedly and selfishly did so….
In so reaching this conclusion I am reminded of all that science had endured to reach the pinnacle of acceptance, the pogroms, superstitions, burning at the stake as heretics, all to advance what truly was and became cherished by so many before being so wickedly smitten by a minority of connected and self entitled ass holes…
Thank you for such a well written piece on the great man himself, a man I have come to admire from the many podcasts and papers authored by him I have been privileged to read since those darkest of days 2021 through late 2022 especially… it gives great heart and confidence to know that in such hands “our, humanity’s” science like a phoenix will rise from the ashes of one of the darkest chapters to assail this great discipline… just saying..
Kia Kaha and best wishes from New Zealand
Thank you Alex for your thoughtful piece. RFK seems to illicit a lot of controversy but what I have learned in these last 4 years is not to believe everything spouted in MSM or government officials. The shots were not safe for me. Here in the greater Toronto area, 5 doctor’s died within 2 weeks of each other after the 4th shot. The media reported and bashed antivaxxers for claiming the deaths were attributable to the shots. Tell me how that statement could be made like it was a fait accompli without any diagnostic tests? Or how could they spew safe and effective without proper trialling or active independent data collection? Somehow the overseers like the captured FDA etc get a pass, no questions asked. I’m not as naive as I was when this all started. Too much disinformation was tabled as solid science.
Sadly, I believed the press when they smeared or debased a scientist or doctor for having alternate views to the lockdowns or shots. Even google is in on the censorship. Google Dr. Bryam Bridle and it’s a hatchet job on his stellar reputation. Duck duck go lays out his extensive accomplishments. His life has been attacked, he lost his lab privilege and office. He never had a twitter account but an imposter set an account up in his name and spewed nonsense. So many intelligent, caring people destroyed by some overreaching power. So, when it comes to RFK, I don’t believe all the negative press, I now know how that works. He’s being accused of wanting to get rid of the polio shots but my understanding is they’re new polio shots that haven’t gone through proper trialling, he wants better trialling.
I watched Dr. Bhattacharya on his substack. You obviously don’t know people over a screen but you can’t help but get a feel for who they are. Paul Offit for instance does not instil confidence in me but leaves me feeling manipulated. Dr. Bhattacharya on the other hand comes across as a really caring person who is smart and intelligent. I’ve noticed that those who go against the grain are passionate about their field and display a sincerity and integrity. The trust I have for him comes from my gut. People who oppose him cause me to wonder whether they are protecting a hidden agenda. I so hope he gets in.
'Even google is in on the censorship.' Don't be surprised. Google long ago abandoned its vow of "Don't be evil", if it ever did honor it.
As for RFK, don't pay attention to anything anybody writes about him. Go listen to one of his two or three hour interviews with people like Joe Rogan or Tucker Carlson.
Thank you for writing this! Early in the covid madness, I became alarmed that the government, media, and academia, were suspiciously in lock-step promoting a single narrative that could not be challenged or questioned: We were all disease vectors and facing terrible outcomes if we didn’t barricade ourselves in our homes for months or years, to await the production of an experimental pharmaceutical product. I turned to Twitter/X, where I had never previously ventured, to seek out anyone who wasn’t on the government/Big Pharma payroll. There I found you, Dr. Bhattacharya, and several others you mentioned. All of you were a lifeline in the midst of the chaos. What I appreciate SO much, in addition to Dr. B's obvious expertise in this arena, is his civility in response to people who ruthlessly denigrated him and others who didn’t fall in line. He never resorted to profanity or name calling when someone disagreed with him. I was horrified by the academics who immediately launched into expletives when anyone dared to oppose them. (From the elite pedigree, I expected their command of the English language to be better than a few overused swear words.) But Dr. B was never like that, and he garnered my never-ending respect for his expertise, kindness, resilience, and grace.
Remember George Washington’s words: “government is force.” Nothing quashes reason better than force.
The best thing about the 2020-2021 period is it provided convincing evidence that when government and science are combined, you get government.
I hope Jay realizes that there should be a separation of government and science.
It was that early 2020 STAT News piece by John Ioannidis that started me on the Covid skeptic track. The pushback he got about that made me surprised that his career survived.
I wish Dr. B all the best, and I really hope that the toxic culture of DC doesn't grind him down too much.
Respect. In a cold rightwing world, your heartwarming intro to Dr Jay should be compulsory reading for every journalist who comments on him and the NIH. And your collective analysis plus the insights about the progress of the covid pandemic should also be compulsory reading. The H5N1 flus are going to be real trouble, thank goodness we can have faith that Dr Jay is exceptionally talented (as you are). Thank you.
Thank you,Al, for this pivotal and characteristically articulate article regarding Jay Bhattacharya. Hi appointment as head of the NIH would literally make all the difference in the world. I deeply hope it happens.
I believe you meant "lived" rather than "lied" in the "We need Dr. Jay" paragraph. That typo was especially unfortunate, given your celebratory message.
Thank you - I've fixed the typo.
Interesting to hear more about Jay Bhattacharya. I'm concerned by his lack of experience, and by his focus on the errors made during the pandemic. That's water under the bridge now. We need to look upstream to what is coming rather than worry about what is downstream now.
But I do like Jay Bhattacharya's attitude, as you have illustrated it. And to put the pandemic to rest so we can move on, I am hoping he will do something like a new Asilomar conference on the dangers of gain-of-function research. Get both sides in a room talking rather than simply firing off broadsides from afar.
What do you think about Bobby Kennedy's nomination? I find that one hard to accept. Jay Bhattacharya and Martin Kulldorff are for it because they think Bobby Kennedy will take on the establishment. I think that view is naive and dangerous.
Bobby Kennedy is a trial lawyer, and an expert at distorting science and truth for his own selfish ends. His voice should be heard, certainly, but he should have no role in our government, particularly heading the nation's premier science organization. He's a self-centered firebrand, with none of the grace of Dr. Jay.
I think there's an opportunity in everything. Kennedy's fears about vaccine research stem from his long history as an environmental lawyer fighting against industry lying about pollution and then seeing government officials aid industry in covering up lies about the extent of pollution or the consequences of pollutants.
Pharmaceutical industry has, unfortunately, committed some of the same crimes (not everyone, not every time, but enough to cause distrust). From opioids to mRNA vaccines for SARS-CoV-2 mandated for kids, there have been a few examples of industry covering up the adverse effects of their drugs and sometimes government allies being too credulous or supportive of industry's preferred messaging for novel drugs.
Having someone like Kennedy steer the ship briefly could very well bring about positive change that reassures skeptics & cynics (like Kennedy and many others) that the government adequately manages conflicts of interests and ultimately serves the people, not large & powerful industry players.
It's also good to examine adverse effects of vaccines. We can acknowledge that many vaccines are properly prescribed (e.g. polio, MMR, etc.) while also acknowledging that novel technologies like mRNA vaccines for SARS-CoV-2 for kids are not as tried, tested, and true to our goals of marginal, long-term, all-cause harm-reduction in medicine. By embracing the pro's and con's, and having someone distrustful of vaccines establish systems to improve trust in vaccines, we could end up with systems for e.g. grading the level to which vaccines are established vs. experimental, and we can be more open about our adverse effects reporting systems & analyses.
It's even possible Kennedy could be convinced to find the underlying cause of autism. While the rise of autism diagnoses could be changing diagnostic criteria, it could also be attributed to environmental factors or pollutants (or possibly drugs, even if not the typical childhood vaccines but, say, drugs taken by the mother during embryonic development). Finding the true cause of autism could end all questions about whether/not something causes autism.
It's not easy to steer big ships like HHS, and when all is said & done more is said than done. Nonetheless, I'm not as afraid about RFK and his nominees as many seem to be. On the contrary, I think it'll be an interesting experiment and I trust our political & social guardrails to prevent errors from snowballing into larger harms. Knowing Jay, I'm especially reassured that we could end up far better off with reformers in charge given the benefit of the doubt. I trust they care about people and want to do good during their time at the helm.
Bobby Kennedy said this during an interview in June 2023:
"My concerns about 5G is that the RF radiation from 5G is dangerous. It penetrates and disrupts the blood-brain barrier. It also is associated with glioblastomas and other cancers. And it causes a lot of other dramatic health effects. There are literally thousands and thousands of studies on that. I've litigated on that issue and I've won at the federal court of appeals. So, you know, you can say it's a conspiracy theory. But the federal court of appeals, you know, I also won a case on Monsanto and glyphosates that called non-Hodgkin's lymphoma, that was called a conspiracy theory.
"What I've said about 5-G is it is dangerous. It is under-regulated. Other countries regulate it much better than us. And we need to protect our children. We should not be having these antennas on elementary schools. We should be warning people, probably do not put that cell phone next to your head. You've got, you where we're seeing this epidemic now of glioblastomas. And almost all of them are connected to the ear that you favor the cell phone with.
"You know, there is study after study that shows that -- and I'm in litigation on that issue right now. And you know, if we get a fair trial, we're going to win that litigation as well."
My father spent his 40-year career in bioelectromagnetics investigating the effects of radio-frequency radiation on the human body and the science is clear. Many other scientists and engineers did too. They found that there is no causal link between that non-ionizing radiation and human health. Bobby Kennedy says there are thousands of studies showing a link between radio frequency radiation and disease, but there are no such studies. Not even one.
Bobby Kennedy knows that, but he lies about it anyway., in a very persuasive, almost pathological way. And it's not just 5G cellphone radio waves that he lies about. He has falsely claimed the following as well:
— vaccines cause autism and other diseases
— genetically modified foods are harmful
— Wifi radiation breaks down the blood-brain barrier and causes cancer and other diseases
— Roundup causes cancer
— ultra-processed foods cause obesity and chronic diseases
— HIV is not the cause of AIDS
— high-fructose corn syrup is more harmful than table sugar
— etc., etc.
Bobby Kennedy has no training or experience in science, medicine or public health. He's never held an executive office in any corporation or in government. As far as I can tell, the only real job he has ever held was as an assistant district attorney in Manhattan over 40 years ago, and he quit that job when he didn't pass the bar. (And he was arrested shortly after that for being high on heroin on an airplane, an addiction he battled for 14 years.) The rest of his long career consisted mainly of playing off the Kennedy name in lawsuits and in writing books and speaking.
Bobby Kennedy does seem like a likeable guy, and he has lots of friends among the elite. He's also been a womanizer his whole life, with great success. He has a magnetic personality and a silver tongue. Those people skills make him a good trial lawyer and a good campaigner.
But in my opinion, they make him a bad choice for a position like the secretary of health. I'm not a fan of Tony Fauci, but at least he and Frances Collins were top-notch scientists and top-notch executives. Very knowledgeable and very experienced. Though they made some blunders, overall they did a good job.
I don't think Bobby Kennedy would come even close to them. Bobby Kennedy is like Tucker Carlson, Joe Rogan, Tulsi Gabbard, Naomi Wolf, Vivak Ramaswamy, Steve Kirsch, and others like them. Interesting to listen to, with some fresh ideas that are welcome in a stale political environment, but not a person qualified to be in government, or particularly, to lead an evidence-based government agency.
Do I think Bobby Kennedy would be a disaster as health secretary? Not really. People in that position like Xavier Becerra have set a very low bar that is easy to clear. I just think he would be ineffective and embarrassing. He would do no good in an important job where we need someone doing a whole lot of good.
I'm not saying Kennedy is right about everything, but I think you're overstating that list of what you say "that he lies about".
Do you think he hasn't said all those things in the list, or that any of those things that he has said is not a lie?
The list might be misrepresenting what he has said about some of those things, but mostly I disagree that all of them are "lies". Those statements as presented also preclude any room for scientific controversy or gray area.
For example, having read in detail about metabolic chemistry for 15 years, and despite the use of the currently faddish term "ultra processed foods", I'm convinced the modern diet can absolutely be a cause of poor health.
On the subject of vaccines, leaving aside the trigger word "autism", vaccine safety has not been studied or even followed up to the extent it should; there definitely needs be investigation into whether administering multiple vaccines at the same time into infants, with their developing immune systems, might have some detrimental long-term effects.
When is the last time you remember government telling the truth?