Supporting RFK Jr. — A Science-based Petition is being circulated!

In my recent Commentary, I not only indicated support for RFK Jr. 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 RFK Jr. 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!

©2025 All rights reserved.


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.orgdiscusses the Science (or lack thereof) behind our energy options.

C19Science.infocovers the lack of genuine Science behind our COVID-19 policies.

Election-Integrity.infomultiple 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?

0 replies

Leave a Reply

Want to join the discussion?
Feel free to contribute!

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *