The mainstream media, along with the FDA and pharmaceutical companies, predictably criticized President Trump for supporting Robert F. Kennedy Jr., labeling him a “vaccine skeptic.”
But being skeptical just means asking questions. When does asking a question become dangerous? When did science stop accepting them? How can society progress if the question of the status quo is misrepresented?
This growing hostility to skepticism is deeply troubling. It risks leaving society entirely dependent on “experts,” where anyone who dares to challenge them is dismissed as a crackpot—and, according to this mindset, the labeled crackpots are quickly silenced and deplatformed.
The FDA’s head of vaccine safety, Peter Marks, said at a health conference in London that Trump’s appointment of “vaccine skeptics” could be an opportunity to teach the world about the importance of vaccines. The assumption is that if vaccination rates go down, people will get sick and find out that the FDA is right. Of course, if people don’t get hurt, they probably won’t admit they’re wrong.
Marks has expressed concern about President Donald Trump’s choice of nominee Robert F. Kennedy Jr., a known vaccine skeptic, for Secretary of Health and Human Services and the potential appointment of Dr. Marty Makary, a critic of the approval of the COVID-19 booster, is the Commissioner of the FDA. Marks fears that the choice could lead to changes in public health policy and influence the perception of vaccines.
However, the question about the booster makes sense, because people who get the initial shot still get COVID, as do people who receive multiple booster shots. However, he claimed that RFK’s ideas were “dangerous.” Dr. Marty Makary, a surgeon at Johns Hopkins, also questioned the universal recommendation of a COVID-19 booster shot, citing cases where vaccinated people still get infected. So, it seems that there are education experts who support RFK’s position.
In addition to questioning vaccines, RFK also argued that Americans should not add fluoride to their drinking water. The main reaction was to attack him, label him a fraud, and insist that fluoride prevents cavities. However, those who oppose fluoride in drinking water do not dispute its role in cavity prevention. It is widely accepted that brushing with fluoride toothpaste is important for good oral health.
The question RFK and others are asking is whether it is necessary to fluoridate drinking water. If you brush your teeth three times a day, isn’t that enough fluoride? Do you need to consume more fluoride every time you drink water? And what about the athletes? They tend to drink more water during and after exercise—is this evidence that they need more fluoride than the average person? This is a valid question that deserves discussion.
Most developed countries do not fluoridate their water. In fact, only 25 countries have fluoridated water, and in 11 of them, not all water is fluoridated. The fact that people in 170 countries still do not have widespread tooth decay suggests that fluoridated water may not be necessary. According to a study published in Harvard Public Health“Countries that don’t fluoridate their water have also seen significant decreases in cavity rates.”
According to Philippe Grandjean, adjunct professor of environmental health at the Harvard TH Chan School of Public Health: “We must admit that fluoride has a beneficial effect on the development and protection of teeth against cavities. But should we add it to drinking water so that it enters the bloodstream and has potential to the brain? Apparently, even Harvard professors are guilty of the heresy of skepticism.
It reminds me how, during COVID, “Covidians” often say, “Follow the science”, but when someone shows you a contradictory scientific study, the response is, “No. sing science, stupid.”
The same Harvard paper outlines several critical points that must be addressed before continuing to add fluoride to drinking water. Perhaps the most important are: “We need to recognize that there is a population that is very vulnerable to fluoride in babies who drink bottled water whose formula is made with tap water, for example, or patients who undergo dialysis. If these people are at risk, their water should be from a source with less fluoride .
In earlier times, it was considered normal and prudent to ask the same questions about vaccines, drugs, and chemicals. Why is it different now?
While people like RFK are fighting fluoride and vaccines, this week, the mainstream media ran articles about “virus hunters” looking for the next pandemic. These people were actually funded by drug companies to find something scary enough to use as a marketing tool to convince people to buy drugs. Skepticism can undermine these marketing efforts.
Skepticism is not only natural but also one of the main defenses against blindly following the crowd. Historically, it is the rebels who ask all the tough questions. Now, it seems that the roles have been reversed—conservatives are the ones questioning the narrative, while liberals are demanding that everyone join the crowd.
The post “Vaccine Skeptics”: Manufactured Terms to Eliminate Inquiry appeared first on The Gateway Pundit.
