FAFO Nation is cool with this. Sending their sons and daughters to die in pointless wars with our ALLIES over billionaire needs is like an extra serving of Trump lies with every gulp and reposition they take (think dessert). DeR sOuNdS ‘bOuT rIgHt To Me… smh, ycmtsu.
I’m not even hearing the old MAGAs say hands off social security, disability, medicare, medicaid, or VA benefits… and you know damn well some to most are receiving them.
More than 15,000 doctors sign letter urging Senate to reject RFK Jr. as health secretary Brandy Zadrozny Updated Thu, January 9, 2025 at 7:00 PM CST·3 min read
Robert F. Kennedy Jr., whom President-elect Donald Trump has said he will nominate for secretary of health and human services, moves between meetings with senators in the Hart Senate Office Building on Capitol Hill on Dec. 17. More than 15,000 doctors have signed a letter urging senators to vote against confirming Robert F. Kennedy Jr., President-elect Donald Trump’s pick for secretary of health and human services.
“The health and well-being of 336 million Americans depend on leadership at HHS that prioritizes science, evidence-based medicine, and strengthening the integrity of our public health system,” the letter reads. “RFK Jr. is not only unqualified to lead this essential agency — he is actively dangerous.”
The letter was posted online by the Committee to Protect Health Care, a physicians advocacy group. Beyond his well-documented anti-vaccine views and advocacy, the letter cites other conspiracy theories Kennedy has actively spread, including baseless claims about a link between school shootings and antidepressants and his promotion of disproven treatments for Covid-19.
“This appointment is a slap in the face to every health care professional who has spent their lives working to protect patients from preventable illness and death,” the letter says.
Kennedy has been meeting with Republican and Democratic senators on Capitol Hill in anticipation of his confirmation hearing, the date for which has not yet been set. Kennedy would need all but three Republican votes if all the Senate’s Democrats vote against his confirmation.
Kennedy did not return a request for comment on the letter. Asked by text about the swell of opposition from doctors and public health organizations to Trump’s intention to nominate Kennedy, Katie Miller, Kennedy’s spokesperson within the Trump transition team, dismissed the backlash as “just another grift” that would “bilk donors” to advocacy groups.
“Robert F Kennedy Jr will be confirmed and those who are spending their time undermining him will have no place and no voice at HHS,” Miller said by text. “Good luck and best wishes to them.”
The letter and a corresponding campaign urging health care professionals to contact their senators and the American Medical Association are just the latest responses from physicians and public health advocates to Kennedy’s controversial selection.
The liberal nonprofit group Protect Our Care, which advocates to preserve the Affordable Care Act, also launched a campaign this week with a report and digital ads highlighting Kennedy’s 2019 trip to Samoa before a measles outbreak that killed 83 people, most of them children. This week, Hawaii Gov. Josh Green, a physician, wrote in The New York Times that vaccine misinformation spread by Kennedy played a role in Samoa’s outbreak and warned that appointing him at the Department of Health and Human Services would jeopardize public health.
In November news releases, the health care consumer advocacy group Community Catalyst called Kennedy “wholly unqualified and a dangerous pick,” and the nonprofit progressive consumer rights group Public Citizen said Kennedy would “endanger people’s lives if placed in a position of authority over health.”
Green appeared alongside members of Congress with backgrounds in public health Wednesday at a news conference opposing Kennedy organized by 314 Action, a progressive political action committee dedicated to electing scientists.
Kennedy’s allies and a dedicated PAC, American Values 2024, have framed opposition to his selection as having been orchestrated by pharmaceutical companies to silence him and impede his efforts to make America healthy.
The Committee to Protect Health Care, which is not funded by the pharmaceutical industry or for-profit health corporations, has been active in opposing drug companies in state-level efforts to install prescription drug affordability boards.
“We definitely are no friend of Pharma, and they’re no friend to us,” said the committee’s executive director, Dr. Rob Davidson, a Michigan emergency room physician.
Davidson said he and the thousands of other signers of the letter were motivated by patients.
“Kennedy presents a clear and present danger,” he said.
This article was originally published on NBCNews.com
Blue ostriches on crack float on milkshakes between the sidewalk titans of gurglefitz. --YTown
Our current healthcare system, overall, is a bloated disaster... but I fail to see how appointing someone that wants to send us back to the stone age is going to help.
I will say... if he can significantly improve the quality of our food and cut down on the amount of processed garbage we consume then he can probably do whatever other nonsense he believes in and it would still be a net positive.
There is no level of sucking we haven't seen; in fact, I'm pretty sure we hold the patents on a few levels of sucking NOBODY had seen until the past few years.
"Hey Perplexity: has rfk jr mentioned any intentions to end vaccinations if appointed?"
Robert F. Kennedy Jr. has explicitly stated that he does not intend to end vaccinations if appointed to a position in the Trump administration. He said, "We're not going to take vaccines away from anybody"2 and "I won't take away anybody's vaccines"1. Kennedy emphasized that he wants to preserve vaccine availability for Americans and allow people to have the option to choose1.
However, it's important to note that despite these statements, Kennedy has a history of spreading misinformation about vaccine safety and efficacy35. He has made false claims linking vaccines to autism and has been critical of the CDC's vaccine recommendations5. While he insists he is not "anti-vaccine," public health experts have expressed concern about his potential influence on vaccine policies and public trust in vaccines4.
Kennedy has indicated that his focus would be on improving vaccine safety science and making scientific studies more accessible to the public15. He also mentioned the possibility of modifying the CDC's immunization schedule, which has raised concerns among health experts4.
The glaring one would be the misinformation, especially on the disproven link between autism and vaccines.
Secondly, if I am reading it correct would be the CDC schedule regarding vaccines and emphasizing a "choice." Certain health mandates should be in place, IMO, for school aged children. I would certainly hate to see things like measles reproduce themselves as an epidemic because some people were exercising their "choice." When it comes to thinks like important health, sanitation, etc. standards, I think those types of mandates meeting the need of a "compelling government interest" as it affects the health of the population, as a whole.
I am not solely attributing this to RFK, but I do think there is also a troubling trend of promoting one-off of sketchy studies to try and further a point. We're seeing that more and more in areas like health and nutrition. One-off or sketchy studies, like Andrew Wakefield's are often cited against much more widely accepted and widely dependable studies, like Human Randomized Control trials. While they are nowhere near equal footing, it doesn't stop the narrative from being promulgated. Lyuok and I used to talk about this where it creates a dynamic where you have people sitting at home citing random BS against scientists who have devoted their entire careers to creating randomized trials and research.
You do also have the plain fact that things like measles, polio, etc....aren't really a problem anymore... for now at least.
Blue ostriches on crack float on milkshakes between the sidewalk titans of gurglefitz. --YTown
I'm all for parents having a choice until that choice risks the health of others. If a parent wishes to risk their child becoming infected by these diseases that's one thing, but when they make that decision it also risks the life of every immunocompromised child in America. Those are other people's children. That I'm not okay with.
Intoducing for The Cleveland Browns, Quarterback Deshawn "The Predator" Watson. He will also be the one to choose your next head coach.
It's a good discussion and always a fine line where vaccinations are concerned. RFK continually parroting this autism angle doesn't do him any favors. If I'm being honest, and to lend your statements more credence, we're at a vulnerable time anyway because parents have been jumping off the bandwagon for years -- more than ever after the COVID lies. MMR vaccinations have dropped from 95.2 to 92.7 in just the last five years. That's drastic.
I think the science community overestimates our actual vulnerability and uses a certain brand of rhetoric that induces skepticism... and that also does nobody any favors. I also think parents became concerned, over time, when more and more vaccinations were recommended. Children are recommended for 26-28 jabs by the age of three, and typically receive 23-25
The science community also fails miserable when they continue to parrot counter-intuitive recommendations when facts clearly get in their way. Then coming up with creative ways to tell us the facts aren't facts and we're "disputing science".
All CDC info:
"For COVID-19 vaccines in children aged 5-11 years, out of 8.7 million doses administered, only 100 (2.4%) of the 4,249 reported adverse events were classified as serious."
"The COVID-19 death rate for children between 5-11 years of age in the United States is approximately 0.4 to 0.5 per 100,000 population." That's 0.0005%
So, adverse effects are 5000x higher and serious adverse effects are three times higher than death rates? And death rates from COVID are as low or lower than almost anything else in the world considered a "danger" that a child would face?? The risk of myocarditis or pericarditis among adolescents was 6.85 per 100,000 vaccinated individuals while the risk of dying from COVID is .05 per 100,000? C'mon man.
It's absurdities like these that do far more damage than RFK sounding like a loon, imo.
But yet, CDC today: "COVID-19 vaccine is recommended for children 6 months and older"
More evidence can be gleaned by simple contrast: you're entirely justified in citing a junk study and wondering why people would trust that over more expansive, reliable studies. Yet our CDC disputed the largest study in the COVID world, over 60,000 healthcare workers in Israel being documented and tested every two weeks whether they had symptoms or not. That study was a breakthrough in showing the protection from natural immunity (previously infected) was basically the same as vaccination. They swept it under the rug for over a year and then cited their own study as proof to the contrary -- from a study of 500 nameless, faceless, ageless in Kentucky. Is it really any wonder, in a world where information is at our fingertips, why people constructed a flowchart who's first box is "don't trust them"?
So, while I'll definitely concede that RFK's rhetoric can exacerbate an already existing problem, blaming him would be like blaming the gas pedal for a high-speed crash.
Greater concerns (for me at least):
US plunging life expectancy compared to ROW Rampant diabetes in even the youngest of age groups Childhood, adolescent obesity and adult obesity Everybody being prescribed 12 different drugs Malnutrition among our youth The exponential rise in diagnosis and prescription of drugs among our youth The exponential rise in chronic health issues in all age groups The absolute crap additives and pesticides readily accepted in our food, so many of which are mostly illegal on large parts of the globe
But more than anything else -- the absolute corruption in Health Agencies. The corrupt alliance between the food and drug industries and regulatory agencies that undermines public health. I don't see how it is acceptable for people to bounce back and forth from corporate America to the very agencies that are supposed to police them.
Fixing any of this would be head-and-shoulders better than the risk of more vaccine hesitancy.
Given my career, you will NEVER EVER see me stick up or defend corruption that occurs with corporations that tie into the government with that revolving door between the two, like you speak of, be it Defense, pharma, health care, etc. When I finally become president after Frank campaigns better for me , I will put up quite the wall between the two, with an immense cool-down period (ie generals becominng defense corporate execs).
You obviously know that I was a big proponent of the COVID vaccine when we were in the height of the pandemic. I do think that COVID has reached that Spanish-influenza style evolution where it has become far less lethal. I wouldn't be opposed to COVID falling in line with flu vaccines, where they are available and/or recommended, but not required.
My bigger issue, though, is that any fallout from the rush or mis-happenings of developing and implementing the COVID vaccine are used by guys like RFK Jr as a Trojan Horse to attack against much more proven, longstanding vaccines. Additionally, I think it could also strive to have a chilling effect on developing more innovative vaccines, like the ones being explored to combat cancer.
The other health topics you bring up are on point. I think its pretty clear that we, as a whole, are very devoted to devoting medical attention to acute diseases and less to proactively resolving chronic diseases (obesity, cancer, heart disease, dementia, diabetes). I do see that as a problem. We wait until people are so bad, they go into a hospital, and then we throw drugs at them. Nutrition is awful and exercise rates are awful.
I do think, however, that it would be harder to focus on dealing with combating those chronic infirmities if we still had to worry about things like measles or polio outbreaks. That could theoretically revert us to a time when you didn't have to worry about chronic disease, because here come the rats with bubonic plague
Blue ostriches on crack float on milkshakes between the sidewalk titans of gurglefitz. --YTown
I argue often with my used-to-be-far-left-bernie-bro son. Over time he's learned, because it's been proven time and time again, that my wisdom usually carries more weight than his intellect (he's far smarter than I am). I don't carry that as a badge as much as I insist that time is your greatest ally in understanding what works, what doesn't work and what is hopeless to change on this rock.
I see vaccination rates to play out exactly like this: rates will continue to drop, more parents will lend credence to anecdotal "evidence" as to why you don't need them, outbreaks will occur, outbreaks will get worse, parents will come back around and say "damn, we better get all these vaccinations!".
I don't think there is anything, and I mean nothing, that will change the above. That's not based on evidence, that's based on 50+ years of observing humans, that "science" seldom fails me anymore.
I do think, however, that it would be harder to focus on dealing with combating those chronic infirmities if we still had to worry about things like measles or polio outbreaks. That could theoretically revert us to a time when you didn't have to worry about chronic disease, because here come the rats with bubonic plague.
Where being worried about chronic disease while ignoring preventing pandemics and highly infectious disease would be the cart in front of the horse.
"Bring out your dead!!"
Now I see, the picture in my mind was incorrect, and it was actually people pulling the cart and not a horse.
Our current healthcare system, overall, is a bloated disaster... but I fail to see how appointing someone that wants to send us back to the stone age is going to help.
I will say... if he can significantly improve the quality of our food and cut down on the amount of processed garbage we consume then he can probably do whatever other nonsense he believes in and it would still be a net positive.
Unleashing polio on America? Or any number of other diseases kept in check with vaccines? Come on man. Get a dietitian to promote healthy living, not a conspiracy theorists.
That is a recurring problem I have with appointees. What qualifies RFKJ to be in charge of the Department? Same with Hegseth, Gabbard, et al. Rubio is the only one who makes sense to me that I can think of.
Blue ostriches on crack float on milkshakes between the sidewalk titans of gurglefitz. --YTown
I'm reading a book right now, The Appeal, by Grisham. Obviously, it's fiction, but man, it describes politics today. The hidden money, the hidden motives. The "back room" moves politics employ. The amount of money spent to get certain people elected, and the expected pay back.
I don't trust any politician, I don't donate to any, I don't care for them, regardless of party.
He needs to work on that one. 'Greenlandic' doesn't exactly fall off the tongue.
There is no level of sucking we haven't seen; in fact, I'm pretty sure we hold the patents on a few levels of sucking NOBODY had seen until the past few years.
imma be ticked if we do all these name changes and land grabs just to name it "east" alaska. cause yall know we absolutely would.
somebody needs to be in charge of naming things in government.
“To announce that there must be no criticism of the President, or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public.”
lets just say Trump pulls this off and we're hellbent on renaming Greenland (cause the Nords clearly sucked at naming things too), wouldn't this be the perfect opportunity to finally name the land mass Atlantis? smack in the middle of the north atlantic ocean, deep in mystery, potentially thousand of years of information trapped below the ice, most of the territory still an unknown, waiting to be further settled and discovered?
or am i tripping?
“To announce that there must be no criticism of the President, or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public.”
lets just say Trump pulls this off and we're hellbent on renaming Greenland (cause the Nords clearly sucked at naming things too), wouldn't this be the perfect opportunity to finally name the land mass Atlantis? smack in the middle of the north atlantic ocean, deep in mystery, potentially thousand of years of information trapped below the ice, most of the territory still an unknown, waiting to be further settled and discovered?
or am i tripping?
I think you are on to something. If you can get Hollywood involved, now that they seem willing to work with Trump, and "plant" some evidence of a lost civilization that would be even better!
lets just say Trump pulls this off and we're hellbent on renaming Greenland (cause the Nords clearly sucked at naming things too), wouldn't this be the perfect opportunity to finally name the land mass Atlantis? smack in the middle of the north atlantic ocean, deep in mystery, potentially thousand of years of information trapped below the ice, most of the territory still an unknown, waiting to be further settled and discovered?
or am i tripping?
I think you're tripping...
continue....
There is no level of sucking we haven't seen; in fact, I'm pretty sure we hold the patents on a few levels of sucking NOBODY had seen until the past few years.
This is an opinion piece, but I think it's well thought and mirrors a lot of the concerns and intuition that I have regarding this next administration.
Opinion: Conservatives like me fear Trump will break through guardrails that restrained him last time Matt K. Lewis
President-elect Trump’s imminent return to the White House sparks a pressing question: Can the guardrails of American democracy survive another four years of the only U.S. president who sought to undermine the peaceful transfer of power?
Many of us on the center-right are worried the answer will be “no.” After all, conservatism, at its core, is about conserving the institutions, traditions and hard-won lessons of history.
The guardrails face a tougher test with Trump’s second term. In 2016, his inexperience and the presence of structural safeguards and institutionalists — military officers, establishment Republicans and professional bureaucrats — helped check his worst impulses. In 2025, Trump and his allies are better equipped to evade resistance. He has vowed to purge dissenters and surround himself with loyalists who have learned how to manipulate the levers of power.
As author and former George W. Bush speechwriter David Frum warned (alluding to the movie “Jurassic Park”), “This time, the Velociraptors have figured out how to work the doorknobs.” Trump’s proposed Cabinet picks underscore this shift: Kash Patel, who has openly outlined an enemies list in his book “Government Gangsters,” is slated to head the FBI, while former “Fox News Weekend” co-host Pete Hegseth, a staunch ally, is poised to lead the Department of Defense. These appointments signal a deliberate strategy to consolidate power and weaken institutional checks.
Meanwhile, as Trump returns to power, he is now backed by a Republican Party reshaped in his image. Critics like former Rep. Liz Cheney and former Sen. Mitt Romney have been pushed out (the former lost a primary, the latter retired). Figures such as Sen. Mitch McConnell are too diminished to offer meaningful resistance. Former establishment Republicans, like Rep. Elise Stefanik, have fully embraced the MAGA agenda, completing the party’s transformation into a vehicle for Trump’s ambitions.
Outside of politics, the media and major institutions are also faltering as counterweights. Some, unable to stop Trump in the past, are now accommodating him. Settlements like ABC News’ payment to resolve Trump-related defamation claims risk chilling critical reporting (host George Stephanopoulos erroneously said Trump was found liable for rape because he forced himself on writer E. Jean Carroll in a dressing room in 1996, but under New York law the term for Trump’s offense is “sexual abuse”). Social media platforms like Meta seem to be aligning their policies with Trump’s base, for instance by eliminating a fact-checking system that was instituted after Facebook was used to boost the Trump campaign in 2016.
The courts have long served as a vital bulwark of democracy, but questions remain about how long that role can endure. The actions of Trump-appointed U.S. District Judge Aileen Cannon, whose rulings and maneuverings in the classified documents case appear to favor Trump, raise concerns about judicial impartiality. Further amplifying these worries are recent examples of potential conflicts of interest involving Republican-appointed Supreme Court justices, such as Clarence Thomas and Samuel A. Alito Jr., as well as controversies surrounding their spouses’ political activities.
President Biden has touted his judicial appointees as defenders of the rule of law, and in a recent ceremony, he boasted: “These judges also are a vital check on the excesses of — of other branches of government, including Congress and the executive branch when they overreach and run afoul of the constitutional and institutional safeguards.” Time will tell how effective Biden’s appointees will be at holding the executive branch accountable.
The risks are clear: intimidation and co-option of dissenters, consolidation of power within law enforcement and the military, and systematic weakening of democratic foundations.
Some will dismiss these concerns as hysteria. But conservatives are supposed to sound the alarm when traditional institutions are threatened. Not long ago, for example, many conservatives worried that liberal “social engineering” policies like redefining the institution of marriage or allowing women to serve in combat roles might begin to erode America’s foundational structures.
It is ironic that many of the same conservatives have little concern about preserving fundamental principles like the rule of law and the peaceful transfer of power.
So what should those of us who are concerned about Trump’s strongman tendencies do?
First, reject hysteria — rhetorical warnings about “fascism” have proven ineffective at swaying voters, at least so far. We shouldn’t so easily take the bait when Trump trolls us, for example, by saying he wants to change the name of the Gulf of Mexico to the “Gulf of America.”
But complacency is equally dangerous. Trump’s return offers an opportunity to reaffirm our commitment to democracy and push back against his most harmful impulses. To do so is not to be hysterical, but to be interested in preserving the "last best hope of Earth," as Abraham Lincoln put it.
Former Vice President Dick Cheney’s “One Percent Doctrine” held that even a 1% chance of terrorists obtaining a nuclear weapon warranted treating that existential threat as a certainty. By that logic, the slim possibility of Trump finding a way to remain in office beyond 2028 demands serious attention.
This isn’t a perfect analogy, nor is it a call for panic or extreme measures. Rather, it’s a call for sobriety and vigilance — particularly given Trump’s ongoing efforts to erode the norms and institutions that have safeguarded our democracy.
As Ronald Reagan warned, “Freedom is a fragile thing, and it’s never more than one generation away from extinction.”
Today, those words resonate as both a reminder and a warning. It’s up to us to protect the democratic institutions that safeguard our liberty — for this generation and the next.
Blue ostriches on crack float on milkshakes between the sidewalk titans of gurglefitz. --YTown
So your concern is that he actually has enough in place to break democracy this time around?
Help me understand this: "In 2016, his inexperience and the presence of structural safeguards and institutionalists — military officers, establishment Republicans and professional bureaucrats — helped check his worst impulses. In 2025, Trump and his allies are better equipped to evade resistance."
What are these "worst impulses" that will not be able to be held in check this time around? (Since this entire piece is pretty thin in actuals and thick as honey with hyperbole, this seems like a good place to provide some substance.)
Lastly, do you believe Trump will try to become a "dictator"?
You're acting like this isn't the guy that attempted to stop the transfer of power when he lost the previous election. That would absolutely count as a "worst impulse" and we've already seen him do it. Now he's surrounding himself entirely with toadies.
Are YOU saying he isn't trying to appoint a person to the FBI that has published a political hit list?
Someone who is worried about the direction this country will take over the next 4 years is someone who is acknowledging reality.
There is no level of sucking we haven't seen; in fact, I'm pretty sure we hold the patents on a few levels of sucking NOBODY had seen until the past few years.
I'm not acting like anything. I think the whole world is tired of Jan6 being the impetus for the fairytale of Trump wanting to take over the world and run the US as a dictator. It simply doesn't, especially when everything from that day is taken into account, really hold much water.
Are YOU saying he isn't trying to appoint a person to the FBI that has published a political hit list?
That seems like a strange off-ramp, but okay. No I'm not saying that, never did. Here's the problem with that latest "catch-all" y'all have embraced... Any of the bad actors over the last four years or more have it coming. Are YOU saying nobody should look under the hood of J6, Russia, Russia, Russia, the laptop cover-up, the DOJ being directly injected into two Trump cases? The Biden family crime syndicate? Social media censorship straight from the Mothership? No? Well, as soon as any of this is "looked into" your side will already be screaming: "Retribution!" and "Hit List!" anyway. No matter what is uncovered or proven.
Someone who is worried about the direction this country will take over the next 4 years is someone who is acknowledging reality.
That's fine -- as long as you admit it was perfectly acceptable for anyone to worry about that over the last four.
BTW, do you think Trump will try to become a dictator?
In all seriousness, no.
But I also won't act like such a farfetched thing because I never imagined that I would see an attempted coup and stuff like the confederate flag walked around the Capitol by masked rioters. Maybe I'm reading the tone of your last responses wrong, but it sounds like you're trying to subtly poke fun at posting that opinion piece... and based on how Trump ended his last term and the people he's picking to start his next term, I think that's misplaced.
There is no level of sucking we haven't seen; in fact, I'm pretty sure we hold the patents on a few levels of sucking NOBODY had seen until the past few years.
, I will put up quite the wall between the two, with an immense cool-down period (ie generals becominng defense corporate execs). 
![[Linked Image from pbs.twimg.com]](https://pbs.twimg.com/media/GhB1hPIXQAAKP67.jpg)
