Why is the bar so different for RFK Jr?
Given the barrage of hit pieces, character assaults and social media posts from politicians and others attacking Robert F. Kennedy Jr paired with screeching interrogations and accusations at the confirmation hearings last week, I was curious to learn more about Dr. Rachel Levine’s (Surgeon General) and Xavier Becerra (HHS Secretary) confirmation hearings.
What were legislators attacking and defending at that time?
Because the bar is somehow very different for RFK Jr.
“Let's not forget — we had a nominee for HHS secretary [Xavier Becerra] in THIS administration who had never dealt with health care before being nominated.”
What changed?
Perhaps a review of confirmation hearings from 2021 can give us a clue about the sacred cows of public health establishment…
We desperately need public health experts who can debunk misinformation and rumors, promote public health guidance on mask-wearing, social distancing and more, and encourage vaccinations and inform people about vaccine safety and efficacy.
Listening to hearings like these can give us insight into the narrative marketing that then permeates our news cycles and shapes our collective thinking.
Here is Dr. Rachel Levine’s opening statement for her confirmation hearing. Listen and decide for yourself how this person’s expertise contributed to public health.
Here’s a clip from Dr. Rachel Levine’s confirmation hearing…
Senator Rand Paul: Do you support the government intervening to override the parents’ consent to give a child puberty blockers, cross sex hormones and/or amputation surgery of breast and genitalia?
I find it ironic that the Left, that went nuts over hydroxychloroquine being used possibly for COVID, are not alarmed that these hormones are being used off-label. There’s no long term studies. We don’t know what happens to (children).
Incidentally, the “robust research” Dr. Levine refers to was the product of the World Professional Association for Transgender Health (WPATH). More on that here.
Newly leaked files from within the leading global transgender healthcare body have revealed that the clinicians who shape how “gender medicine” is regulated and practiced around the world consistently violate medical ethics and informed consent. The files, which were leaked from within the World Professional Association for Transgender Health (WPATH), were published today by the US-based think tank Environmental Progress.
WPATH is considered the leading global scientific and medical authority on “gender medicine,” and in recent decades, its Standards of Care have shaped the guidance, policies and practices of governments, medical associations, public health systems and private clinics across the world.
However, the WPATH Files reveal that the organization does not meet the standards of evidence-based medicine, and members frequently discuss improvising treatments as they go along. Members are fully aware that children and adolescents cannot comprehend the lifelong consequences of “gender-affirming care,” and in some cases, due to poor health literacy, neither can their parents.
“The WPATH Files show that what is called ‘gender medicine’ is neither science nor medicine,” said Michael Shellenberger, President and founder of Environmental Progress. “The experiments are not randomized, double-blind, or controlled. It’s not medicine since the first rule is to do no harm. And that requires informed consent.”
Take a look at how coverage of Levine’s confirmation was covered in the news.
“For her to be on the forefront and to also be trans is a big step in the right direction.”
Four years later, it’s important that we take a breath to consider the real life impact of Dr. Levine’s role in public health. Are we better off?
Deadly Virtue Signaling
It’s telling that the same people who go on tirades about health equity and “health care for all” and assert that “health care is a human right” aren’t the least bit interested in ensuring that the care provided isn’t actually toxic and potentially deadly garbage distributed en masse.
They cling tightly to “settled science” and refuse to even look at any evidence that might suggest that vaccines are not “safe and effective” for everyone.
Instead, it’s full steam ahead with a profitable agenda that costs many people their health, and some their livelihood… and their lives.
Despite science suggesting that different populations respond differently to vaccines, public health advocates have continued to push for mass vaccination and vaccine mandates with one-size-fits-all shots.
This is from 2014.
We sort of have a population level approach to medicine. We do it with drugs, we do it with vaccines. We assume everybody’s alike, as if they all respond the same…Our group has been among the first to show that what we know for how people to respond to drugs turns out to also be true for how people respond to biologics like vaccines. So you and I may respond very differently as a cohort of Caucasians, but my colleague who’s African American, and the population of African Americans, turn out to have a much better response to that vaccine. Hispanics have a lower response.
Well this is really important in how we deliver vaccines, how we design vaccines… perhaps the safety of vaccines. And this is new information in the biologic field that I think is going to change how we practice medicine. A vaccine in essence is working differently. The question is why the same vaccine in human beings administered the same way, and yet it stimulates a very different set of gene expression and protein secretion – that protein being antibody that protects us when we see the virus.
…the interesting thought occurs to me – maybe we only need to give African Americans half the size dose that we give to Caucasians. That’s an example of individualizing our approach to somebody. Eventually what will happen is that it won’t be something as complicated as race, it will be genetically based. So we will look at somebody’s genes that are important to developing immunity and, based on which ones they carry, say, “you don’t need the vaccine. You’re not at risk” or “You need twice the dose of the average person.. or half the dose”, or, “you’re at risk for this kind of side effect”. And that changes how we practice medicine. It’s an exciting new era in that regard.
So we may be able to save cost. We may be able to reduce the amount of side effects. If you only need half as much vaccine to reach the same level of protection, we’re adding cost and potentially risk by giving you double what you actually need…
… If we see these kinds of dramatic differences with this vaccine, will we see it with another vaccine? The answer is “Yes”. We’ve seen that with other vaccines. And does that inform our approach to new vaccine development? For example, African Americans, Hispanics, maybe more traditional minority groups, could be at greater risk for certain diseases. Let’s take HIV for example, or Hepatitis B, or any of a number of diseases. Might knowing this about genetics and how they respond to a vaccine inform how we go about developing a new vaccine for groups most at-risk of that disease?
The other thing that we didn’t find in this study, but that we have found in other studies, is the effect of gender or sex. Traditionally, for every vaccine that’s been studied, women always respond better than men. Always. Without exception. Why is that? How do we take advantage of that information in building new vaccines and developing the vaccines we currently have?
…This study demonstrates the important differences that one can find and informs how we approach the medical care of those groups. (emphasis mine)
https://medprofvideos.mayoclinic.org/videos/mayo-clinic-discovers-african-americans-respond-better-to-rubella-vaccine
(By “much better response” he means much stronger response. This is not necessarily a good thing. Think MIS-C. Think cytokine storms.)
When do you see legislators acknowledging, let alone revisiting, this?
What about this research from 2020 that suggested that some children might have dangerous hyper inflammatory responses to certain COVID vaccines?
Rostad and colleagues found that children with MIS-C had substantially higher levels of antibodies against a particular part of the COVID-virus known as the receptor binding domain (RBD), part of the virus’ spike protein that lets the virus invade cells. While not definitive proof, the findings suggest that a stronger immune response against RBD may be associated with MIS-C, either as simply an indicator or potentially in some sort of causal relationship.
The discovery that high levels of antibodies against RBD are associated with MIS-C could prove helpful in diagnosing MIS-C, Zeichner and Cruz note. But there may also be other implications. If antibodies against RBD – or some subset of antibodies against RBD – contribute to causing MIS-C, there may be some subtype or amount of antibodies against RBD that are unhelpful, or even dangerous. For example, doctors may need to consider this when treating COVID-19 patients with convalescent plasma from other patients recovering from COVID-19.
RBD is a component of many of the COVID-19 vaccines in development, Zeichner and Cruz write, so the new findings may prove important there as well. If some antibodies against RBD are associated with MIS-C or increased inflammation, it would be essential to carefully evaluate subjects enrolled in the vaccine clinical trials for evidence of increased inflammatory responses, particularly if and when those research subjects are exposed to and infected with the COVID-19 virus.
The possibility is an important reminder, they write, that the urgent desire for a vaccine must not eclipse the need for thoughtful, thorough testing.
RBD is a component of many of the COVID-19 vaccines in development, Zeichner and Cruz write, so the new findings may prove important there as well. If some antibodies against RBD are associated with MIS-C or increased inflammation, it would be essential to carefully evaluate subjects enrolled in the vaccine clinical trials for evidence of increased inflammatory responses, particularly if and when those research subjects are exposed to and infected with the COVID-19 virus.
The possibility is an important reminder, they write, that the urgent desire for a vaccine must not eclipse the need for thoughtful, thorough testing.
Have ANY of the legislators who call RFK Jr an “anti-vaxxer” and a “conspiracy theorist” been willing to revisit this science now that so many children have suffered from serious inflammatory reactions and health consequences subsequent to COVID vaccines?
We see similar hypocrisy with regards to the “we didn’t elect Elon Musk” outrage.
(I share reservations with many about the role of Elon Musk, but this argument just doesn’t fly given the silence about every other unelected “expert” who was granted the power to tell us what to do.)
These were the people we were told to trust.
Many of us now have our eyes open and are looking for evidence that our representatives have the mental capacity and the courage to learn from their mistakes.
Personally, I’d like to see which ones are willing to address ANYTHING that has been presented in the COVID Dossier.
I won’t hold my breath.
But I won’t shut my eyes and look away either.
As to WHY they bombard us with transgenderism, Laura Aboli speaks the Truth most eloquently here that the goal of pushing transgenderism is ultimately to make us also accept transhumanism. Must-see video clip:
"Transhumanism: The End Game (2023)"
https://substack.com/@elizabethrosemary/note/c-83851203
4m 16s
🤮 I can hardly stand watching that hearing. A fake woman claiming to be highly qualified for leading medical advice....