President elect Donald Trump has selected Robert F. Kennedy Jr. as his pick for the United States Secretary of Health and Human Services (HHS). Kennedy, commonly referred to as RFK Jr., comes from a prominent Democratic family; he is the son of former U.S. Attorney General and Senator Robert F. Kennedy and the nephew of President John F. Kennedy, who was assassinated in 1963. Despite his political heritage, RFK Jr. is known for his unconventional positions, notably his skepticism towards vaccines and various mainstream health initiatives, which he has advocated against in his career as an environmental lawyer.

BREAKING: Donald Trump has chosen Robert F Kennedy Jr as his new health secretary.

Sky's @jamesmatthewsky reports. https://t.co/PAiZ4D1jU3

📺 Sky 501, Virgin 602, Freeview 233 and YouTube pic.twitter.com/06krLqkAND

— Sky News (@SkyNews) November 14, 2024

 

At 70, Kennedy recently ran for president as an independent candidate, after initially attempting a Democratic primary bid. His campaign was notable for its bold stances and media scrutiny. Among the more unusual stories from his past, he recounted dumping a dead bear cub in New York's Central Park in 2014 after it was struck by a car. Another incident involved him allegedly sawing off the head of a dead whale he found beached, intending to transport it on his car roof.

 

Kennedy’s campaign, however, faced substantial challenges, and he eventually suspended it in favor of endorsing Trump for president in August. He attributed his lack of success to censorship from the media and opposition within the Democratic Party, which he believes attempted to stifle his run. In his endorsement, Kennedy promised to "Make America healthy again" under Trump's administration.

 

If confirmed by the Senate, RFK Jr. would assume leadership of the Department of Health and Human Services, an agency charged with safeguarding Americans' health and providing essential services, particularly for vulnerable populations. The health secretary plays a critical role as the president’s top advisor on health, welfare, and income security programs and oversees critical areas, including health research, disease prevention, and food and drug safety.

 

The department also supervises 11 agencies, such as the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). The FDA is responsible for food labeling and drug approvals, while the CDC leads in managing and preventing disease outbreaks. Kennedy’s views on public health and medical science, which have historically diverged from those of the CDC and FDA, could introduce significant shifts in how these agencies operate.

 

Trump expressed strong support for Kennedy’s nomination in his official statement, which underscored Kennedy’s potential to reshape HHS. Trump said, “I am thrilled to announce Robert F. Kennedy Jr as The United States Secretary of Health and Human Services (HHS). For too long, Americans have been crushed by the industrial food complex and drug companies who have engaged in deception, misinformation, and disinformation when it comes to Public Health.”

 

Trump’s statement further reflected his confidence in Kennedy’s vision: “The Safety and Health of all Americans is the most important role of any Administration, and HHS will play a big role in helping ensure that everybody will be protected from harmful chemicals, pollutants, pesticides, pharmaceutical products, and food additives that have contributed to the overwhelming Health Crisis in this Country.”

 

He concluded with optimism about the potential changes Kennedy could bring, adding, “Mr. Kennedy will restore these Agencies to the traditions of Gold Standard Scientific Research, and beacons of Transparency, to end the Chronic Disease epidemic, and to Make America Great and Healthy Again!”

 

The nomination of RFK Jr., an outspoken critic of some government health policies, as head of HHS marks a significant shift. His selection has prompted discussions about the future direction of U.S. public health, with supporters praising his dedication to transparency and critics questioning how his unconventional views might shape HHS policies.

 

Based on a report by BBC 2024-11-15

 

 

 

Good choice. Democrat sycophant heads are already exploding.

Let's hope he opens a full investigation into the last four years. Listening to the media the term anti-vaxxer is being used but this just isn't the case. I have previously posted where he clearly states he's not an anti-vaxxer. It's the same demonising language used against anyone critical of the mRNA gene therapy. Don't trust mRNA jabs then you're an anti-vaxxer. Complete nonsense. What's needed is actual independent and transparent science.

Edited November 14, 20241 yr by dinsdale

Just now, dinsdale said:

Let's hope he opens a full investigation into the last four years.

 

I do as well. But not for the same reason. They say sunlight is the best cure. Shining a light into the world of conspiracy theories anti anti-science nuttery is always a good thing.

Ah! Conspiracy theories. Funny you mention that as conspiracy theories in relation to covid are no longer conspiracy theories. Do you still think SARS-CoV-2 is zoonotic and originated in a wet market? Remember saying that it originated in the Wuhan lab was deemed a conspiracy theory and any mention that this was the case was censored as such. Now it's the overwhelmingly accepted that the Wuhan lab was indeed the source of the outbreak.

1 minute ago, dinsdale said:

Ah! Conspiracy theories. Funny you mention that as conspiracy theories in relation to covid are no longer conspiracy theories. Do you still think SARS-CoV-2 is zoonotic and originated in a wet market? Remember saying that it originated in the Wuhan lab was deemed a conspiracy theory and any mention that this was the case was censored as such. Now it's the overwhelmingly accepted that the Wuhan lab was indeed the source of the outbreak.

 

I don't know where coronovirus came from but it was not manufactured or deliberately released to kill millions of people starting with the Chinese first.

16 minutes ago, pattayasan said:

 

I don't know where coronovirus came from but it was not manufactured or deliberately released to kill millions of people starting with the Chinese first.

Did I say it was deliberately released? Not manufactured? So no gain of function research. It was Obama that stopped this in the US and that's why it went to Wuhan and Fauci was complicit in this. To say you don't know where it came from and saying it's zoonotic in nature ("not manufactured") is to ignore all evidences that says it came from a lab where gain of function research was taking place. As I posted it's no longer a conspiracy theory. It's widely accepted as MOST likely. Of course all actual evidence was destroyed by the CCP (why would they do that?) and there has been ZERO evidence of the wet market origin.

Edited November 14, 20241 yr by dinsdale

Donald J. Trump

@realDonaldTrump

I am thrilled to announce Robert F. Kennedy Jr. as The United States Secretary of Health and Human Services (HHS). For too long, Americans have been crushed by the industrial food complex and drug companies who have engaged in deception, misinformation, and disinformation when it comes to Public Health. The Safety and Health of all Americans is the most important role of any Administration, and HHS will play a big role in helping ensure that everybody will be protected from harmful chemicals, pollutants, pesticides, pharmaceutical products, and food additives that have contributed to the overwhelming Health Crisis in this Country. Mr. Kennedy will restore these Agencies to the traditions of Gold Standard Scientific Research, and beacons of Transparency, to end the Chronic Disease epidemic, and to Make America Great and Healthy Again!

Edited November 15, 20241 yr by dinsdale

A worm in every brain by 2026!

4 hours ago, dinsdale said:

Did I say it was deliberately released? Not manufactured? So no gain of function research. It was Obama that stopped this in the US and that's why it went to Wuhan and Fauci was complicit in this. To say you don't know where it came from and saying it's zoonotic in nature ("not manufactured") is to ignore all evidences that says it came from a lab where gain of function research was taking place. As I posted it's no longer a conspiracy theory. It's widely accepted as MOST likely. Of course all actual evidence was destroyed by the CCP (why would they do that?) and there has been ZERO evidence of the wet market origin.

 

There was no "gain of function". An unrelated virus was not genetically modified to become the coronavirus.

5 hours ago, pattayasan said:

 

There was no "gain of function". An unrelated virus was not genetically modified to become the coronavirus.

NIH official finally admits taxpayers funded gain-of-function research in Wuhan — after years of denials

At long last, National Institutes of Health (NIH) principal deputy director Lawrence Tabak admitted to Congress Thursday that US taxpayers funded gain-of-function research at the Wuhan Institute of Virology in China in the months and years before the COVID-19 pandemic.

https://nypost.com/2024/05/16/us-news/nih-director-admits-taxpayers-funded-gain-of-function-research-in-wuhan-four-years-after-covid-pandemic-began/

He will nominate Majorie Taylor Greene as Education Secretary. LOL. 

6 minutes ago, Eric Loh said:

He will nominate Majorie Taylor Greene as Education Secretary. LOL. 

I see those in hiding found the courage to start posting again today. The forum just got dumber

8 minutes ago, mdr224 said:

I see those in hiding found the courage to start posting again today. The forum just got dumber

The bizarreness of his nomination prompted me to post. Will be dumb not to comment on such strange nomination. You live that world and perhaps felt it was normal. 

Can I interest anyone in a bowl of whale head soup or, perhaps, some bear cub pate?

1 minute ago, RayC said:

Can I interest anyone in a bowl of whale head soup or, perhaps, some bear cub pate?

 

Did you add too much salt?

5 hours ago, dinsdale said:

NIH official finally admits taxpayers funded gain-of-function research in Wuhan — after years of denials

At long last, National Institutes of Health (NIH) principal deputy director Lawrence Tabak admitted to Congress Thursday that US taxpayers funded gain-of-function research at the Wuhan Institute of Virology in China in the months and years before the COVID-19 pandemic.

https://nypost.com/2024/05/16/us-news/nih-director-admits-taxpayers-funded-gain-of-function-research-in-wuhan-four-years-after-covid-pandemic-began/

@pattayasanNothing to say? You said 

 

5 hours ago, pattayasan said:

There was no "gain of function". An unrelated virus was not genetically modified to become the coronavirus.

I still can't believe people believe the BS they were fed, and again I say, if early on in the piece anyone posted this virus escaped from a lab in Wuhan and not the wet market they were deemed conspiracy theorists and their posts were removed. The wet market origin was what people were told to be the truth by the CDC, governments, legacy media etc.. The sheeple believed it and some obviously still do.

2 hours ago, Eric Loh said:

The bizarreness of his nomination prompted me to post. Will be dumb not to comment on such strange nomination. You live that world and perhaps felt it was normal. 

You say appointing someone that will take on big pharma, big food, the health industry, the food chemical industry, the agricultural chemical industry and the hijacking of science by said industries is a bad thing. Well I guess some people can only see the side they're told to see.

Edited November 15, 20241 yr by dinsdale

Its all about Optics!

If it looks healthy , it must be Healthy!

Second in line for Bidens HHS

 

 

 

 

5 hours ago, dinsdale said:

NIH official finally admits taxpayers funded gain-of-function research in Wuhan — after years of denials

At long last, National Institutes of Health (NIH) principal deputy director Lawrence Tabak admitted to Congress Thursday that US taxpayers funded gain-of-function research at the Wuhan Institute of Virology in China in the months and years before the COVID-19 pandemic.

https://nypost.com/2024/05/16/us-news/nih-director-admits-taxpayers-funded-gain-of-function-research-in-wuhan-four-years-after-covid-pandemic-began/

That's what the NYPost calls gain of function research.

Anyway your claim is another B.S. as the viruses concerned by this program could not have been 'ancestors' of the Covid 19 virus.

Your other claim is also innacurate. While the lab leak is considered as one possible hypothesis it is currently not the dominant one.

13 minutes ago, riclag said:

Its all about Optics!

If it looks healthy , it must be Healthy!

Second in line for Bidens HHS

 

 

 

 

Another confirmation of the level of MAGA propaganda! 😃

5 hours ago, dinsdale said:

NIH official finally admits taxpayers funded gain-of-function research in Wuhan — after years of denials

At long last, National Institutes of Health (NIH) principal deputy director Lawrence Tabak admitted to Congress Thursday that US taxpayers funded gain-of-function research at the Wuhan Institute of Virology in China in the months and years before the COVID-19 pandemic.

https://nypost.com/2024/05/16/us-news/nih-director-admits-taxpayers-funded-gain-of-function-research-in-wuhan-four-years-after-covid-pandemic-began/

 

Not gain of function. Why don't you listen to what Fauci said instead of a bunch of unqualified crackpots? Seems that qualifications and expertise aren't welcome in MAGA world.

10 minutes ago, candide said:

That's what the NYPost calls gain of function research.

Anyway your claim is another B.S. as the viruses concerned by this program could not have been 'ancestors' of the Covid 19 virus.

Your other claim is also innacurate. While the lab leak is considered as one possible hypothesis it is currently not the dominant one.

You obviously have forgotten that Fauci changed the definition of gain of function. Bit like the UK when they changed how excess deaths are calculated. Can't remember the actual figure and it doesn't really matter but it went from something like +14% to -2% overnight. It's semantics and manipulation of definitions to support a position.

As for "Any way your claim is another B.S. as the viruses concerned by this program could not have been 'ancestors' of the Covid 19 virus." I don't understand. There were spike protiens found on the virus that shouldn't be there. No animal tested had this structure. If there was actually transparency rather than censorship you too would know this. It's all out there you just have to look and be willing to make up your own mind but you also need to be willing to change your position. This is something I doubt you have the ability of doing.

"In an October 2021 letter to Congress, Tabak had acknowledged NIH funded a “limited experiment” at the Wuhan Institute of Virology that tested whether “spike proteins from naturally occurring bat coronaviruses circulating in China were capable of binding to the human ACE2 receptor in a mouse model.”

He did not describe it as gain-of-function research — but disclosed that EcoHealth “failed to report” the bat coronaviruses modified with SARS and MERS viruses had been made 10,000 times more infectious, in violation of its grant terms.

The NIH scrubbed its website of a longstanding definition for gain-of-function research the same day that the letter was sent."

  

"EcoHealth Alliance president Dr. Peter Daszak, in a hearing earlier this month before the House Select Subcommittee on the Coronavirus Pandemic, testified that his organization “never has and did not do gain-of-function research, by definition.”

But that claim directly contradicted Daszak’s private correspondence, including a 2016 email in which he celebrated the end of an Obama administration pause on gain-of-function research.

The EcoHealth head was also called out in sworn testimony to the COVID panel by Dr. Ralph Baric, a leading coronavirologist who initiated the research himself and declared it was “absolutely” gain-of-function."

https://nypost.com/2024/05/16/us-news/nih-director-admits-taxpayers-funded-gain-of-function-research-in-wuhan-four-years-after-covid-pandemic-began/

 

This is not "what the NYPost calls gain of function research." These are people testifying under oath to Congress. The NYP is reporting it as news and not some sort of support for a conspiracy theory. 

3 minutes ago, dinsdale said:

You obviously have forgotten that Fauci changed the definition of gain of function. Bit like the UK when they changed how excess deaths are calculated. Can't remember the actual figure and it doesn't really matter but it went from something like +14% to -2% overnight. It's semantics and manipulation of definitions to support a position.

As for "Any way your claim is another B.S. as the viruses concerned by this program could not have been 'ancestors' of the Covid 19 virus." I don't understand. There were spike protiens found on the virus that shouldn't be there. No animal tested had this structure. If there was actually transparency rather than censorship you too would know this. It's all out there you just have to look and be willing to make up your own mind but you also need to be willing to change your position. This is something I doubt you have the ability of doing.

"In an October 2021 letter to Congress, Tabak had acknowledged NIH funded a “limited experiment” at the Wuhan Institute of Virology that tested whether “spike proteins from naturally occurring bat coronaviruses circulating in China were capable of binding to the human ACE2 receptor in a mouse model.”

He did not describe it as gain-of-function research — but disclosed that EcoHealth “failed to report” the bat coronaviruses modified with SARS and MERS viruses had been made 10,000 times more infectious, in violation of its grant terms.

The NIH scrubbed its website of a longstanding definition for gain-of-function research the same day that the letter was sent."

  

"EcoHealth Alliance president Dr. Peter Daszak, in a hearing earlier this month before the House Select Subcommittee on the Coronavirus Pandemic, testified that his organization “never has and did not do gain-of-function research, by definition.”

But that claim directly contradicted Daszak’s private correspondence, including a 2016 email in which he celebrated the end of an Obama administration pause on gain-of-function research.

The EcoHealth head was also called out in sworn testimony to the COVID panel by Dr. Ralph Baric, a leading coronavirologist who initiated the research himself and declared it was “absolutely” gain-of-function."

https://nypost.com/2024/05/16/us-news/nih-director-admits-taxpayers-funded-gain-of-function-research-in-wuhan-four-years-after-covid-pandemic-began/

 

This is not "what the NYPost calls gain of function research." These are people testifying under oath to Congress. The NYP is reporting it as news and not some sort of support for a conspiracy theory. 

 

Which person/s in congress labelled it "gain of function"?

 

What virology qualifications did the person/s have?

5 minutes ago, dinsdale said:

You obviously have forgotten that Fauci changed the definition of gain of function. Bit like the UK when they changed how excess deaths are calculated. Can't remember the actual figure and it doesn't really matter but it went from something like +14% to -2% overnight. It's semantics and manipulation of definitions to support a position.

As for "Any way your claim is another B.S. as the viruses concerned by this program could not have been 'ancestors' of the Covid 19 virus." I don't understand. There were spike protiens found on the virus that shouldn't be there. No animal tested had this structure. If there was actually transparency rather than censorship you too would know this. It's all out there you just have to look and be willing to make up your own mind but you also need to be willing to change your position. This is something I doubt you have the ability of doing.

"In an October 2021 letter to Congress, Tabak had acknowledged NIH funded a “limited experiment” at the Wuhan Institute of Virology that tested whether “spike proteins from naturally occurring bat coronaviruses circulating in China were capable of binding to the human ACE2 receptor in a mouse model.”

He did not describe it as gain-of-function research — but disclosed that EcoHealth “failed to report” the bat coronaviruses modified with SARS and MERS viruses had been made 10,000 times more infectious, in violation of its grant terms.

The NIH scrubbed its website of a longstanding definition for gain-of-function research the same day that the letter was sent."

  

"EcoHealth Alliance president Dr. Peter Daszak, in a hearing earlier this month before the House Select Subcommittee on the Coronavirus Pandemic, testified that his organization “never has and did not do gain-of-function research, by definition.”

But that claim directly contradicted Daszak’s private correspondence, including a 2016 email in which he celebrated the end of an Obama administration pause on gain-of-function research.

The EcoHealth head was also called out in sworn testimony to the COVID panel by Dr. Ralph Baric, a leading coronavirologist who initiated the research himself and declared it was “absolutely” gain-of-function."

https://nypost.com/2024/05/16/us-news/nih-director-admits-taxpayers-funded-gain-of-function-research-in-wuhan-four-years-after-covid-pandemic-began/

 

This is not "what the NYPost calls gain of function research." These are people testifying under oath to Congress. The NYP is reporting it as news and not some sort of support for a conspiracy theory. 

Ah, you’ve brought quite the gish gallop here—throwing in Fauci, gain-of-function, congressional testimony, and the New York Post for good measure. Let’s unpack your chaos.

1. “Fauci changed the definition of gain-of-function”
   The definition debate exists because “gain-of-function” covers a broad spectrum of research. What Fauci and others pointed out is that NIH-funded research didn’t meet their established criteria for GOF involving dangerous pathogens. That’s not “changing” the definition—it’s clarifying boundaries. As for the NIH website update? It’s standard practice to update language for clarity—not a smoking gun.

2. EcoHealth and spike proteins
   The congressional testimony confirms experiments involving bat coronaviruses, but no evidence shows these were precursors to SARS-CoV-2. Saying spike proteins “shouldn’t be there” ignores years of evolutionary virology that explains such features appearing naturally. Transparency wasn’t lacking here; some people just ignore the scientific consensus because it doesn’t fit their narrative.

3. NIH “admitting” gain-of-function funding
   Tabak acknowledged a grant violation related to reporting—not evidence of a global conspiracy or pandemic origins. And Daszak’s and Baric’s statements to Congress reflect ongoing debates over how GOF is defined, not proof of wrongdoing or lab-origin.

4. NYPost as gospel
   The New York Post isn’t a neutral observer; it leans heavily toward sensationalism. Just because it reports on testimony doesn’t mean it’s unbiased or that the testimony proves your argument.

Finally, accusing others of being unwilling to change their minds while clutching at cherry-picked “evidence” isn’t exactly the self-awareness flex you think it is. Science evolves with evidence, but baseless insinuations and misinterpretations? Those don’t hold up. Try grazing on better sources next time.

1 hour ago, dinsdale said:

You say appointing someone that will take on big pharma, big food, the health industry, the food chemical industry, the agricultural chemical industry and the hijacking of science by said industries is a bad thing. Well I guess some people can only see the side they're told to see.

To take on big players pharma etc, you need someone grounded by science and evidence, not somebody who rejects it. He was nominated not for the reasons that you posted and you know it. 

2 minutes ago, pattayasan said:

 

Which person/s in congress labelled it "gain of function"?

 

What virology qualifications did the person/s have?

Sorry. I didn't realize you can't read vis a vis qualifications. Try reading the article or get someone to read it for you. As for "Which person/s in congress labelled it "gain of function"?" it's BEFORE congress not in Congress. Do you not know the difference? People testify BEFORE Congress under oath. 

4 hours ago, ballpoint said:

A worm in every brain by 2026!

And roadkill on every table.

4 minutes ago, dinsdale said:

Sorry. I didn't realize you can't read vis a vis qualifications. Try reading the article or get someone to read it for you. As for "Which person/s in congress labelled it "gain of function"?" it's BEFORE congress not in Congress. Do you not know the difference? People testify BEFORE Congress under oath. 

 

Which elected member of congress call it "gain of function"? The answer is either a name or none, which is it?

 

And if you don't want to go there, what are names and qualifications of those who testified before congress that it was a gain of function leading to the coronavirus?

 

hint: Fauci and the NIH, actual virologists, said it wasn't.

Edited November 15, 20241 yr by pattayasan

3 minutes ago, Eric Loh said:

To take on big players pharma etc, you need someone grounded by science and evidence, not somebody who rejects it. He was nominated not for the reasons that you posted and you know it. 

 

Why? What you need is to have people around you with said qualifications. The man is not stupid no matter what your OPINION of him is. Bit like Musk. It wasn't him alone that managed to parallel park a rocket. It was him and his team.