Connect with us
[the_ad id="89560"]

Business

From ‘brilliant’ to ‘aghast’: Reactions to RFK Jr.’s nomination for HHS secretary run the gamut

Published

4 months ago

12 minute read

From LifeSiteNews

By Dr. Brenda Baletti, The Defender

From “brilliant” to “aghast” – President-elect Donald J. Trump’s nomination on Thursday of Robert F. Kennedy Jr., founder of Children’s Health Defense (CHD), to run the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) triggered a range of reactions among media outlets, public health officials, and Kennedy’s long-time supporters and detractors.

In a statement posted on Truth Social and X, Trump said Kennedy would restore the public health 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!”

Kennedy, who promised to fight corruption and end the revolving door between industry and government, thanked Trump for the nomination on social media. He said he would “free the agencies from the smothering cloud of corporate capture so they can pursue their mission to make Americans once again the healthiest people on Earth.”

 

Kennedy is a longtime critic of how corporate interests have captured the public health agencies meant to regulate them, and of the outsized and corrupt role that Big Pharma plays in American life.

If confirmed, Kennedy would hold the most powerful governmental position in public health, overseeing 80,000 employees across a department that houses 13 agencies and more than 100 programs. Those agencies include the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA), the National Institutes of Health and the Center for Medicaid and Medicare Services.

CHD CEO Mary Holland told The Defender the organization “could not be more pleased” with the nomination, adding:

Kennedy has been devoted to ending the childhood chronic health epidemic for almost 20 years. He has been effective in communicating the failures of our existing public health establishment.

Based on his extensive litigation history, he is uniquely prepared to reform the regulatory institutions, the research institutions, and public education on health. I look forward to seeing dramatic, measurable improvements in Americans’ health during the Trump administration.

Democratic Colorado Gov. Jared Polis said on X that he was “excited by the news,” particularly about Kennedy’s commitment to fighting chemicals in foods, the power of Big Pharma, and to other health priorities.

“I hope he leans into personal choice on vaccines rather than bans (which I think are terrible, just like mandates) but what I’m most optimistic about is taking on big pharma and the corporate ag oligopoly to improve our health,” he added.

Rep. Chip Roy (R-Texas) told Fox News, “I think Robert is another disruptor. We need a disruptor. I will be glad and I’m looking forward to working with him,” Politico reported.

Sen. Ron Johnson (R-Wis.) called Kennedy a “brilliant, courageous truth-teller” and said he could make the “most significant impact on health.”

Vaccine stocks take a dive on news of announcement

On the flip side, some lawmakers and public health leaders expressed alarm, decrying the nomination.

U.S. Rep. Robert Garcia (D-Calif.) called the choice “f— insane” on X, Fox News reported. “He’s a vaccine denier and a tin foil hat conspiracy theorist. He will destroy our public health infrastructure and our vaccine distribution systems. This is going to cost lives.”

Dr. Richard E. Besser, CEO of the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation and a former acting director of the CDC, said that having Kennedy head up HHS “would pose incredible risks to the health of the nation,” because Kennedy’s critique of the public health agencies was worsening the mistrust lingering after the coronavirus pandemic, The New York Times reported.

Besser told CNN that some of Kennedy’s ideas about chronic health issues regarding children were good ideas, but other ideas were deeply concerning – particularly Kennedy’s proposal that individuals should decide for themselves whether to take a vaccine.

“The idea that receiving childhood vaccines would be a parental choice scares me,” he said.

READ: Canada’s public health agency still working to adopt WHO pandemic treaty: report

Current CDC Director Mandy Cohen raised concerns that Kennedy would use the position to spread misinformation and foster distrust in public health institutions, particularly with respect to vaccines.

Kennedy has called for an end to immunity for vaccine manufacturers for the injuries caused by their products. He points out that no vaccine on the childhood immunization schedule has undergone proper safety and efficacy testing.

He has been a long-term advocate for the tens of thousands of families seeking compensation for their children’s vaccine-induced autism.

Kennedy also promised that, if confirmed, he would make the V-safe vaccine injury data collected but not made public by the CDC transparent, so scientists have access to the data necessary to analyze vaccine safety

Vaccine and Pharma stocks fell sharply this morning, following yesterday’s announcement about Kennedy, Reuters reported.

 

Bavarian Nordic, which makes the mpox vaccine, was down 16 percent. Its CEO told Reuters he was concerned that Kennedy could fuel vaccine skepticism.

However, he also said that the U.S. response to the COVID-19 pandemic under Trump’s first term made him confident that the incoming administration would continue to fund biodefense.

The Trump administration launched and oversaw Operation Warp Speed, the public-private partnership to rapidly develop a COVID-19 vaccine that gave vaccine makers hundreds of billions in profits along with total immunity for any harms caused by those investigational vaccines under the Public Readiness and Emergency Preparedness (PREP) Act.

Kennedy will be ‘single greatest threat to profits in America’

Republican advisers have cautioned that Kennedy could face a difficult path to confirmation, The Washington Post reported, citing his “past statements on drugs and vaccines, and his many personal entanglements.” FiercePharma said his confirmation process is likely “to be contentious.”

Physician, professor and Substacker Dr. Vinay Prasad wrote that Trump could use a recess appointment to secure Kennedy’s position, but that he will likely need to be confirmed by the Senate where “He has a several hundred billion dollar industry that will do everything possible to stop him.”

“Many of these companies have lobbied throughout Congress,” Prasad added. “They will use those connections. Unlike other controversial appointees, RFK Jr. will be the single greatest threat to profits in America.”

If his appointment goes through, Prasad said Kennedy will face a difficult road in getting his proposed policies enacted, given the entrenched power of Pharma and the power of the media that opposes him.

Law professor Wendy Parmet, director of Northeastern University’s Center for Health Policy and Law, pointed to the potential clash between Kennedy’s anti-industry position and the big-business leanings of the Republican Party.

“We have an administration that promises to deregulate, to be business-friendly, and then we have RFK Jr., who promises to go after fast food,” Parmet told The Washington Post.

READ: Idaho health district votes to stop offering COVID vaccines at its medical centers

Health and health freedom advocates optimistic Kennedy will bring change

Despite the challenges ahead, health advocates are optimistic that changes they have been seeking for decades will come to pass.

During the COVID-19 pandemic, critics of pandemic policies were condemned and marginalized. Kennedy was censored by the Biden administration and social media companies as part of the so-called “Disinformation Dozen” for airing many of those critiques.

Over the course of the election Kennedy – who ran for president as a Democrat, then announced he was running as an independent before suspending his campaign and endorsing Trump – has repeatedly been called a “conspiracy theorist.” Both Kennedy and CHD are routinely dismissed as “anti-vax” for openly discussing the scientific evidence on the link between vaccines and chronic diseases including autism, attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder or ADHD and other neuropsychiatric and autoimmune disorders, in some children.

Rather than investigating the science, mainstream media mostly insists these links have been “debunked,” without providing any evidence for their claim.

Kennedy has also called for the removal of fluoride from public drinking water, citing recent studies and a landmark federal court decision that show it interferes with children’s brain development – a concern that has even been flagged by some mainstream public health commentators.

His supporters hope these issues will now receive serious public attention that will lead to policy change.

Holland said on X that Kennedy’s nomination came 38 years to the day after the Vaccine Injury Act that gave vaccine manufacturers immunity from liability was signed into law.

“Let’s rewrite this one,” she said.

Before Post

Related Topics:

Todayville is a digital media and technology company. We profile unique stories and events in our community. Register and promote your community event for free.

Follow Author

More from this author
Opinion / 3 hours ago

Some scientists advocate creating human bodies for ‘spare parts.’

International / 5 hours ago

Trump’s ‘Golden Dome’ defense shield must be built now, Lt. Gen. warns

Alberta / 8 hours ago

The beauty of economic corridors: Inside Alberta’s work to link products with new markets

Business

Saskatchewan becomes first Canadian province to fully eliminate carbon tax

Published on April 1, 2025

By

From LifeSiteNews

By Clare Marie Merkowsky

Saskatchewan has become the first Canadian province to free itself entirely of the carbon tax.

On March 27, Saskatchewan Premier Scott Moe announced the removal of the provincial industrial carbon tax beginning April 1, boosting the province’s industry and making Saskatchewan the first carbon tax free province.

“The immediate effect is the removal of the carbon tax on your Sask Power bills, saving Saskatchewan families and small businesses hundreds of dollars a year. And in the longer term, it will reduce the cost of other consumer products that have the industrial carbon tax built right into their price,” said Moe.

Under Moe’s direction, Saskatchewan has dropped the industrial carbon tax which he says will allow Saskatchewan to thrive under a “tariff environment.”

“I would hope that all of the parties running in the federal election would agree with those objectives and allow the provinces to regulate in this area without imposing the federal backstop,” he continued.

The removal of the tax is estimated to save Saskatchewan residents up to 18 cents a liter in gas prices.

The removal of the tax will take place on April 1, the same day the consumer carbon tax will reduce to 0 percent under Prime Minister Mark Carney’s direction. Notably, Carney did not scrap the carbon tax legislation: he just reduced its current rate to zero. This means it could come back at any time.

Furthermore, while Carney has dropped the consumer carbon tax, he has previously revealed that he wishes to implement a corporation carbon tax, the effects of which many argued would trickle down to all Canadians.

The Saskatchewan Association of Rural Municipalities (SARM) celebrated Moe’s move, noting that the carbon tax was especially difficult on farmers.

“It puts our farming community and our business people in rural municipalities at a competitive disadvantage, having to pay this and compete on the world stage,” he continued.

“We’ve got a carbon tax on power — and that’s going to be gone now — and propane and natural gas and we use them more and more every year, with grain drying and different things in our farming operations,” he explained.

“I know most producers that have grain drying systems have three-phase power. If they haven’t got natural gas, they have propane to fire those dryers. And that cost goes on and on at a high level, and it’s made us more noncompetitive on a world stage,” Huber decalred.

The carbon tax is wildly unpopular and blamed for the rising cost of living throughout Canada. Currently, Canadians living in provinces under the federal carbon pricing scheme pay $80 per tonne.

Continue Reading

Automotive

Electric cars just another poor climate policy

Published on April 1, 2025

By

From the Fraser Institute

By Bjørn Lomborg

The electric car is widely seen as a symbol of a simple, clean solution to climate change. In reality, it’s inefficient, reliant on massive subsidies, and leaves behind a trail of pollution and death that is seldom acknowledged.

We are constantly reminded by climate activists and politicians that electric cars are cleaner, cheaper, and better. Canada and many other countries have promised to prohibit the sale of new gas and diesel cars within a decade. But if electric cars are really so good, why would we need to ban the alternatives?

And why has Canada needed to subsidize each electric car with a minimum $5,000 from the federal government and more from provincial governments to get them bought? Many people are not sold on the idea of an electric car because they worry about having to plan out where and when to recharge. They don’t want to wait for an uncomfortable amount of time while recharging; they don’t want to pay significantly more for the electric car and then see its used-car value decline much faster. For people not privileged to own their own house, recharging is a real challenge. Surveys show that only 15 per cent of Canadians and 11 per cent of Americans want to buy an electric car.

The main environmental selling point of an electric car is that it doesn’t pollute. It is true that its engine doesn’t produce any CO₂ while driving, but it still emits carbon in other ways. Manufacturing the car generates emissions—especially producing the battery which requires a large amount of energy, mostly achieved with coal in China. So even when an electric car is being recharged with clean power in BC, over its lifetime it will emit about one-third of an equivalent gasoline car. When recharged in Alberta, it will emit almost three-quarters.

In some parts of the world, like India, so much of the power comes from coal that electric cars end up emitting more CO₂ than gasoline cars. Across the world, on average, the International Energy Agency estimates that an electric car using the global average mix of power sources over its lifetime will emit nearly half as much CO₂ as a gasoline-driven car, saving about 22 tonnes of CO₂.

But using an electric car to cut emissions is incredibly ineffective. On America’s longest-established carbon trading system, you could buy 22 tonnes of carbon emission cuts for about $660 (US$460). Yet, Ottawa is subsidizing every electric car to the tune of $5,000 or nearly ten times as much, which increases even more if provincial subsidies are included. And since about half of those electrical vehicles would have been bought anyway, it is likely that Canada has spent nearly twenty-times too much cutting CO₂ with electric cars than it could have. To put it differently, Canada could have cut twenty-times more CO₂ for the same amount of money.

Moreover, all these estimates assume that electric cars are driven as far as gasoline cars. They are not. In the US, nine-in-ten households with an electric car actually have one, two or more non-electric cars, with most including an SUV, truck or minivan. Moreover, the electric car is usually driven less than half as much as the other vehicles, which means the CO₂ emission reduction is much smaller. Subsidized electric cars are typically a ‘second’ car for rich people to show off their environmental credentials.

Electric cars are also 320–440 kilograms heavier than equivalent gasoline cars because of their enormous batteries. This means they will wear down roads faster, and cost societies more. They will also cause more air pollution by shredding more particulates from tire and road wear along with their brakes. Now, gasoline cars also pollute through combustion, but electric cars in total pollute more, both from tire and road wear and from forcing more power stations online, often the most polluting ones. The latest meta-study shows that overall electric cars are worse on particulate air pollution. Another study found that in two-thirds of US states, electric cars cause more of the most dangerous particulate air pollution than gasoline-powered cars.

These heavy electric cars are also more dangerous when involved in accidents, because heavy cars more often kill the other party. A study in Nature shows that in total, heavier electric cars will cause so many more deaths that the toll could outweigh the total climate benefits from reduced CO₂ emissions.

Many pundits suggest electric car sales will dominate gasoline cars within a few decades, but the reality is starkly different. A 2023-estimate from the Biden Administration shows that even in 2050, more than two-thirds of all cars globally will still be powered by gas or diesel.

Source: US Energy Information Administration, reference scenario, October 2023
Fossil fuel cars, vast majority is gasoline, also some diesel, all light duty vehicles, the remaining % is mostly LPG.

Electric vehicles will only take over when innovation has made them better and cheaper for real. For now, electric cars run not mostly on electricity but on bad policy and subsidies, costing hundreds of billions of dollars, blocking consumers from choosing the cars they want, and achieving virtually nothing for climate change.

Bjørn Lomborg

Continue Reading

Trending

X