THE TRUTH WILL BE REVEALED

Kennedy's Confirmation Hearing: A Pharma engineered disgrace.

“Come senators, congressmen
Please heed the call
Don’t stand in the doorway
Don’t block up the hall
For he that gets hurt
Will be he who has stalled
There’s a battle outside and it is ragin’
It’ll soon shake your windows and rattle your walls
For the times they are a-changin’”

Bob Dylan

“You’re either on the side of transparency and accountability, or you are standing in the way. The choice is yours. Please choose wisely.”

Nicole Shanahan

Much has been said about Robert F. Kennedy Jr.’s confirmation hearing. Mainstream media (MSM) has characterized Kennedy as a danger to public health, dismissing him as crazy, a conspiracy theorist, a proponent of pseudoscience, and even dishonest, inhumane, and irresponsible. But let’s take a closer look at the senators who participated in the hearing.

Were their questions genuinely aimed at understanding Kennedy’s current positions on critical issues? Or were they nothing more than talking points designed to undermine his credibility and score political points?

Between 1990 and 2024, key senators who participated in this hearing received substantial contributions from the pharmaceutical industry:

• Senator Bernie Sanders: $1,953,613

• Senator Elizabeth Warren: $1,224,145

• Senator Raphael Warnock: $1,763,425

• Senator Ron Wyden: $1,207,873

These contributions represent a significant conflict of interest, and these senators should have recused themselves from the panel. Obviously they did not. Until something is done to address the profound conflicts of interest within government agencies and among elected officials, necessary and substantive changes—like those Kennedy proposes—will remain impossible. The American people and our health will continue to suffer at the hands of corrupt politicians and federal agencies.

The Race-Based Vaccine Controversy

Senator Angela Alsobrooks attempted to paint Kennedy as racist by questioning his past statements about black Americans potentially requiring a different vaccine schedule than white Americans. However, her line of questioning ignored the scientific reality that different ethnic groups exhibit varying immune responses to vaccines and drugs.

A peer-reviewed study states:

“Although the immunogenicity to vaccinations is likely to be dependent on multiple factors, for example vaccine composition, it is likely that there will be some variability to each of the candidate vaccines depending on race.”

“Although we are still in the early stages of studies reviewing immunogenicity of candidate vaccines against Covid-19, it is key that clinical trials take the potential differences between ethnicities into account during study development as well as during post-study data analysis.” 🔗 Source: National Library of Medicine

Alsobrooks’ implication that Kennedy is racist is intellectually dishonest and ignores scientific evidence.

Hepatitis B Vaccine and Autism: Senator Cassidy’s Falsehood

Senator Bill Cassidy insisted that Hepatitis B vaccines “absolutely, definitively” do not cause autism and demanded that Kennedy affirm this to the public. However, the CDC itself has—following an ICAN legal suit which they lost, concluded that there are no scientific studies proving Hepatitis B vaccines do not cause autism. (The evidence supporting this conclusion is easily accessible through attorney Aaron Siri or investigative journalists Del Bigtree.)

Senator Hassan’s Misinformation on “Settled Science”

Senator Maggie Hassan accused Kennedy of “re-litigating and churning settled science so we can’t go forward and find out what the cause of autism is and treat these kids and help these families.” But then, she herself spread misinformation.

She claimed that the journal retracted Dr. Andrew Wakefield’s study—which initially suggested a link between vaccines and autism—because “science sometimes gets it wrong.”

Yes, Senator Hassan, a lot of times science does get it wrong. That is precisely why we should not draw a line in the sand about “settled science”. Science should always be considered unsettled. That is the entire point of science - to constantly question, debate and replicate. Even the most fundamental hard sciences such as physics, considers its science as theoretical in principal. We must constantly test those theories. And No Ms. Hassan, science didn’t get it wrong in the instance of Wakefield’s research. Just ask Dr. Paul Marik, the most published critical care physician in America or Dr. Peter Mc Cullough, one of the most published American cardiologist, or countless other medical freedom physicians whose long standing peer reviewed research papers were retracted inappropriately, not because their scientific studies were wrong, but solely based on political agendas. The only explanation was that the information was inconvenient to our public health agencies and their agenda because fraud or misconduct was never uncovered. Science and medical journals have been corrupted by the pharmaceutical industry for decades. Our public health agencies are their willing accomplices.

The Editors-in-Chief of the leading peer reviewed medical journals provided that conclusion for us decades ago. Moreover, Hassan’s argument ignores the growing corruption in medical journals, a fact exposed by the very Editors-in-Chief of leading peer-reviewed journals from decades ago.

• Dr. Marcia Angell, Harvard physician and former Editor-in-Chief of the New England Journal of Medicine (NEJM), stated:

“It is simply no longer possible to believe much of the clinical research that is published, or to rely on the judgment of trusted physicians or authoritative medical guidelines. I take no pleasure in this conclusion, which I reached slowly and reluctantly over my two decades as an editor.” 🔗 Source: Her book, The Truth About Drug Companies – How They Deceive Us and What to Do About It

Angell was not labeled a conspiracy theorist or fired from Harvard for making these statements. Yet Kennedy’s book, The Real Anthony Fauci, was censored and maligned for presenting similar evidence.

• Dr. Arnold Relman, former Editor-in-Chief of the NEJM, warned:

“The medical profession is being bought by the pharmaceutical industry—not only in terms of the practice of medicine, but also in terms of teaching and research. The academic institutions of this country are allowing themselves to be the paid agents of the pharmaceutical industry. I think it’s disgraceful.”

• Dr. Richard Horton, Editor-in-Chief of The Lancet, admitted:

“The case against science is straightforward: much of the scientific literature, perhaps half, may simply be untrue. Afflicted by studies with small sample sizes, tiny effects, invalid wxplortory analyses, and flagrant conflicts of interest, together with an obsession for pursueing fashionable trends of dubiousd importance, science has taken a turn towards darkness.” 🔗 Source: The Lancet

Horton later contradicted himself by publishing flawed, industry-driven COVID-19 studies—exemplifying exactly what he had previously condemned.

Why Is No One Asking What Causes Autism?

Kennedy has repeatedly asked a simple question: Why have the NIH, CDC, and FDA failed to conduct comprehensive research into the causes of autism? If they truly wanted to find out, there would be dozens of studies investigating potential links—including vaccines. Instead, these agencies actively prevent such research from being conducted. Senator Hassan, can you explain why?

Autism is destroying the lives of millions of children and their families and will bankrupt the country if we fail to uncover its cause. Instead of maligning Kennedy, the Senate should be applauding his push for transparency and commitment to investigating the root causes of autism and chronic diseases.

Caroline Kennedy’s Selective Criticism

Caroline Kennedy, a career diplomat, was awarded ambassadorships to Japan and Australia—a position largely attributed to her last name rather than expertise. She also authored a few books. She presented the Profile in Courage Award, established by the Kennedy family, to individuals who demonstrate political courage. How did Ms. Kennedy and her family miss the incredible environmental work that Bobby has accomplished? He litigated and won lawsuits against a behemoth chemical company who was contributing to the toxins in our waterways and helped establish over 250 water keeper groups around the world.

Help me to understand why a private citizen should have to sue a chemical company when our federal agency, the EPA, is tasked with protecting the health of our environment and all Americans. A recipient of Time Magazine Hero of the Planet award, this should have warranted a Profile in Courage award. He has sued and won hundreds of cases against environmental polluters. Why was he not considered for this prestigious award? Ms. Kennedy, in her New York Times letter, expressed her profound concerns about her cousin Robert, whom she professes a close relationship with, is quite curious to me. As a clinical psychologist, I have to ask myself, why did she remain silent during his run for President? Wouldn’t that position, the leader of the free world, have been the greatest threat of all? The truth is, Ms. Kennedy is a supporter of the vaccine industry so this profound conflict of interest is in fact quite revealing about her motivation and integrity. I can only conclude that her malicious opinion about her cousin was nothing more than inflammatory, which was designed to paint a picture of cruelty, inhumanity and antisocial behavior. It would appear that image may be more reflective of her personality traits.

Perhaps what is the most disturbing aspect of this situation is the reality that we’re the sickest industrialized country in the world who spends more on health care than any other first world country and HHS has done nothing about that horrific reality. Why would anyone insist on maintaining this status quo? Accepting money from a powerful and corrupt industry appears to be the only viable explanation why this committee has worked so hard to discredit Mr. Kennedy. Let’s not forget, pharmaceutical companies are the most corrupt corporations in the world. They have been fined tens of billions of dollars for fraud and dishonest business practices yet our public health agencies believe that they provide honest and accurate information about their clinical trials. Even the NIH has investigated this issue, stating “The absence of reported absolute risk reduction in COVID-19 vaccine clinical trials can lead to outcome reporting bias that affects the interpretation of vaccine efficacy.”

In addition, there is a 242 page FDA document; Communicating risks and benefits - An Evidence Based User's Guide which states: (Page 60 #2)

“Provide absolute risks, not just relative risks. Patients are unduly influenced when risk information is presented using a relative risk approach; this can result in suboptimal decisions. Thus, an absolute risk format should be used. "

Obviously during the pandemic, our public health agencies decided that it was in the best interest of the public that they be “unduly influenced” by preventing them from having true informed consent about an EUA vaccine. They stated over and over and over again that these vaccines were “safe and effective”. It is impossible to conclude that any EUA product is safe and effective. Its very status as an EUA vaccine defines the reality of an emergency which necessitates less robust safety and efficacy standards. So I ask you, who has been looking out for the American people? Certainly not HHS. Kennedy has spent 40 years fighting corporate corruption that has poisoned Americans for decades.

The real question we should be asking is : Why are Democrats so afraid of Kennedy’s call for transparency in medicine? If vaccines are truly safe and effective, they should welcome rigorous studies to confirm it. Their refusal suggests that they themselves are uncertain and have other agendas to defend their recommendation for mandatory vaccines in order for children to attend public school.

Final Thoughts: A Captured System

What questions should have been asked of a candidate for secretary of HHS?

1) Given the reality that America suffered more deaths, per capita, from Covid, than any other first world country, what would you do differently if you were confirmed as Secretary of HHS during the next pandemic?

2) Given the chronic disease epidemic that has plagued our citizens, what would you do differently if confirmed?

3) Given the obesity epidemic in our country, what would you do differently to improve the health of all American citizens?

4) Why did our public health agencies provide the public with relative risk statistics vs absolute risks for the Covid vaccines? They were aware of the “suboptimal decision” that would be made by the American people under those circumstances. Had they provided the absolute risk data, it showed <1% efficacy. Would you be willing to tell the American people the truth, during the next pandemic?

5) Do you believe that there is such a thing as “settled science”? If not, please explain why you hold a different opinion.

6) How would you plan to unravel the regulatory capture of each of our federal agencies, which would be under your guidance?

The list could go on and on. Instead, the agenda of this politically motivated confirmation hearing was innuendo and misinformation meant to fuel the fire of fear, and to prevent Kennedy from being confirmed. Using inaccurate medical and scientific information, these Senators corrupted what should have been an essential investigation into Kennedy’s views, beliefs and plans. The Senate’s effort to discredit him was not about public health—it was about protecting the pharmaceutical industry. As Secretary of HHS, myriad agencies would be under his control yet the preponderance of questions and concerns were related to vaccines. This was never a confirmation hearing. It was a partisan kangaroo court, ruled by the pharmaceutical industry.