RFK Jr. Says He Will Prosecute “Lying” Medical Journals "Killing Americans"

Joined
Apr 11, 2010
Messages
2,957
RFK Jr. Says He Will Prosecute “Lying” Medical Journals "Killing Americans"

RFK Jr. Says He Will Prosecute “Lying” Medical Journals That Lancet Editor Called “Information-Laundering Operations,” Says They Are “Killing Americans”

RFK Jr. has launched a frontal assault on the medical journals which were looked to for authoritative information during COVID, of which the editor of The Lancet, the premier medical journal in the world, shockingly said in 2004:

”medical journals have become an important but underrecognized obstacle to scientific truth-telling. Journals have devolved into information-laundering operations for the pharmaceutical industry.”

RFK Jr. said in a interview with Dr. Drew that the medical journals were “deceiving doctors, they are harming people, they are killing Americans, and we need to make it stop.”

Kennedy Jr. argued, in an interview with Dr. Drew, that “lying” in medical journals is a major cause of division in America.

“We cannot trust the sources that are there to actually provide us with good information,” Kennedy said to TV host Dr. Drew.


RFK Jr

How I’ll End Medical Corruption with Dr Drew

On day one of my Presidency I am going to call all of the heads of the medical journals and threaten them with a RICO lawsuit if they don’t stop lying to the people.https://t.co/Jja1ZZ4PCS
— Barbara C. Hickman (@_bhickman) August 13, 2023

Kennedy said:

“As soon as I’m elected and appoint my Attorney Genral, one of the first meetings the Attorney General is going to have is to call the editors and publishers of those journals…and tell them we are about to file racketeering cases against them for lying to the public, under antitrust acts and under fraud acts, and under RICO which is a statute that my father wrote. If they don’t come up with a plan as to how they are going to divorce themselves from the pharmaceuticals industry, then we are going to go into their offices and we are going to confiscate their files and we are going to prosecute them criminally. Because this is just part of the big lie to the American public. They’re deceiving doctors, they are harming people, they are killing Americans, and we need to make it stop.”

Kennedy Jr.s’ father Bobby Kennedy was the Attorney General of the United States under President John F. Kennedy.

Richard Horton, the editor of The Lancet, wrote in The New York Review of Books in a famous article, “The Dawn of McScience”:

“The process of [scientific] publication has been reduced to marketing dressed up as legitimate science. Pharmaceutical companies have found a way to circumvent the protective norms of peer review. In all too many cases, they are able to seed the research literature with weak science that they can then use to promote their products to physicians.”

In the summer of 2020 The Lancet was forced to retract a peer-reviewed study which bashed hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) as a treatment for COVID, although doctors around the world and other studies were reporting life-saving properties. The Lancet came under fire when suspicious scientists requested the raw data and found out that it had been faked.

Under FDA rules, a new vaccine cannot be granted EUA – Emergency Use Authorization – as long as there is an available alternative.” The availability of HCQ as a cheap and effective alternative for treating COVID would have saved countless lives. It also would have greatly slowed the roll-out of the COVID vaccines, by nearly a year, and subjected them to greater scrutiny.

The New England Journal of Medicine, affiliated with Harvard, also published the fake anti-hydroxychloroquine study and was forced to retract. But despite the retractions, thousands of articles quoting the study remained on the Internet, and can be found to this day.

However, any study showing the effectiveness of remedies such as HCQ or Ivermectin which are posted on social media such as Facebook are quickly found and censored by Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg’s censorship teams and algorithms.

The influence of Big Pharma on the US and world medical establishment is notorious, In 2014 DrugWatch reported that Big Pharma, with companies like Pfizer at the top of the list, paid $3.5 billion to hospitals and doctors in the previous year to promote their products. Many critics call it legal bribery.

In the short documentary The Illusion of Evidence-based Medicine, Science Ethics Professor Leemon McHenry explains how many science studies in medical journals are actually “ghostwritten” by pharmaceutical industry marketing departments, then given to scientists who may have done some work with a new drug, but had nothing to do with the study. The scientists then put their names on the study as well as their institutional affiliations.

The pharmaceutical industry writers can and do tweak the science on a new drug, such as by omitting clinical trials deaths and other negative events. The pharma companies then run expensive ads for the new drug in the medical journal, alongside the compromised study, enriching the medical journal.

In a 2009 New York Times report, “Ghostwriting Is Called Rife in Medical Journals,” the Times revealed:

“Six of the top medical journals published a significant number of articles in 2008 that were written by ghostwriters, according to a study released Thursday by editors of The Journal of the American Medical Association.

Among authors of 630 articles who responded anonymously to an online questionnaire created for the study, 7.8 percent acknowledged contributions to their articles by people whose work should have qualified them to be named as authors on the papers but who were not listed.

In the scientific literature, ghostwriting usually refers to medical writers, often sponsored by a drug or medical device company, who make major research or writing contributions to articles published under the names of academic authors.”

Bobby Kennedy Jr. is running for the Democratic nomination for US president.

The Illusion of Evidence-based Medicine (view at Rumble)

 
Last edited by a moderator:
This should be ground-swelled.

Not only that, but more awareness concerning the Price-Anderson Act which compensates the nuclear industry against liability claims arising from nuclear incidents, and the PREP ACT which immunes pharmaceutical companies from prosecution.

Because we all know that Trump, DeSantis, and others will never even mention the topics.
 
Last edited:
The government going from censorship of whatever it deems to be "misinformation" to outright criminalizing it - gee, what could possibly go wrong?

Anyway, here's a totally unrelated thread I'm just going to link to completely at random for no particular reason:
Kennedy said: “[...] one of the first meetings the Attorney General is going to have is to call [...] and tell them we are about to file racketeering cases against them for lying to the public [...] under RICO [...]"

Now that sounds familiar, somehow ... where have I heard that kind of thing before ... ?

Oh, well. Never mind.

I'm sure it's nothing important.
 
Last edited:
The government going from censorship of whatever it deems to be "misinformation" to outright criminalizing it - gee, what could possibly go wrong?

Anyway, here's a totally unrelated thread I'm just going to link to completely at random:



Now that sounds familiar, somehow ... where have I heard that kind of thing before ... ?

Oh, well. Never mind.

I'm sure it's nothing important.
Can't spread rep around anymore apparently
 
The government going from censorship of whatever it deems to be "misinformation" to outright criminalizing it - gee, what could possibly go wrong?

Anyway, here's a totally unrelated thread I'm just going to link to completely at random:



Now that sounds familiar, somehow ... where have I heard that kind of thing before ... ?

Oh, well. Never mind.

I'm sure it's nothing important.

Honestly I’m not sure what the problem is with this. this isn’t censorship, it’s already a crime to take property under false pretenses, how much deeper of a criminal act is it to publish false medical journals intending to peddle unsafe products?
 
Honestly I’m not sure what the problem is with this. this isn’t censorship, it’s already a crime to take property under false pretenses, how much deeper of a criminal act is it to publish false medical journals intending to peddle unsafe products?

Oh, don't mind me.

I'm sure Robert "Defender of the Bill of Rights [1]" Kennedy Jr., his Attorney General, and the Department of Justice - as well as (of course) their preferred "experts" and "fact checkers" - would only ever use the power of the federal government to identify, target, punish the disseminators of, and thereby save us from 100%, real, certified, gen-yoo-wine "lies" and "misinformation", and never, ever anything else (not even by accident).

I guess there's not really any need to worry about it, after all (or about what anyone who comes after them might do under such precedents).

So ... never mind. I don't know why I even bought it up. Carry on.

:shrugging:



[1] Which happens to include something called "the First Amendment" - but don't mind that, either.
 
I don't see any value in replacing a "misinformation" Gestapo with a "misinformation" Cheka. [1]

But I guess I'm just weird that way.



[1] Especially when the former merely censored [2] (which was bad enough), but the latter would outright criminalize & actively punish.

[2] For the most part, with some exceptions.
 
false medical journals

Were you absent the last 3 1/2 years???

Who decides what is false? Even if it is false, who decides if someone knew it was false instead of believing it themselves?

This will only have the effect of silencing any proposed papers that may in any way be deemed controversial.
 
Last edited:
Who decides what is false? Even if it is false, who decides if someone knew it was false instead of believing it themselves?

Why, attorneys general and their "experts" will decide, of course - and juries could then be invited to agree with them (though I suppose it would be much more effective and efficient if we go ahead and skip the jury thing and just empower a federal executive committee of some kind, instead).

This will only have the effect of silencing and proposed papers that may in any way be deemed controversial.

Don't worry, comrade - Ur Science® will only be controversial criminal if t disagrees with Muh Science®.
 
Last edited:
[MENTION=28167]Occam's Banana[/MENTION] [MENTION=30558]CaptUSA[/MENTION]

Sure, I see the problem with that, and I do agree with you.

A solution needs to be sought.

End PREP Act and all similar. Allow law-suits in the event of harm.


I am not sure how to address:

If pharmaceutical corporations hide or falsifies data and provides that data to journals, physicians and the individuals taking it, and journals/publications repeat that false information due to leveraging/coercion/incentive.

If ICD-10 codes are check-marked for one cause of injury/death when actually caused by another. This is coded by hospital personnel, again, due to leveraging/coercion/incentive.

What do you propose according to libertarian principles?
 
What do you propose according to libertarian principles?

Get the government out of the medical field in any and every respect (such as by ending pharmaceutical subsidies and immunities from liability, to give just two blindingly obvious examples). IOW: The exact diametric opposite of what RFK Jr. is proposing to do with this nonsense about prosecuting whomever he (or his AG, or their "experts") happens to deem to be "lying".

It's not that hard to figure this stuff out. Libertarianism ain't rocket Science®, after all.
 
Last edited:
Get the government out of the medical field in any and every respect (such as by ending pharmaceutical subsidies and immunities from liability, to give just two blindingly obvious examples). IOW: The exact diametric opposite of what RFK Jr. is proposing to do with this nonsense about prosecuting whomever he (or his AG, or their "experts") happens to deem to be "lying".

It's not that hard to figure this stuff out. Libertarianism ain't rocket Science[SUP]TM[/SUP], after all.

Of course. You and I are in complete agreement. But until then, and according to populace consensus will never happen, what to do when thousands/millions are being injured/die. Casualties of war?

I am asking because your and my solutions are considered “impractical” and completely “unrealistic”.

I will always continue beating the drum, while understanding that in my lifetime, I and other loved ones must suffer the harsh realities.

Edit to say, as an Agorist, risk versus reward, how do I become compensated for any injury I may encounter?
 
Last edited:
Edit to say, as an Agorist, risk versus reward, how do I become compensated for any injury I may encounter?

Would you expect McDonalds to compensate you for your obesity? It was a side-effect of their product that was not included in their marketing. At some point, you have to accept personal responsibility for what you put into your body.

That being said, if you can prove that they misrepresented their product, you should have the ability to use the tort system to seek recompense. That's what's missing in the current state of affairs where drug companies get liability protections.

I think we can all agree that those need to be removed. But that's a far cry from using the legal system to criminalize "lying" medical journalists.
 
Why, attorneys general and their "experts" will decide, of course - and juries could then be invited to agree with them (though I suppose it would be much more effective and efficient if we go ahead and skip the jury thing and just empower a federal executive committee of some kind, instead).

Don't worry, comrade - Ur Science[SUP]TM[/SUP] will only be controversial criminal if t disagrees with Muh Science[SUP]TM[/SUP].

We can have a Supreme Science committee that will decide. It can be housed in The Ministry of Truth. The Ministry of Love will handle the prosecution of those who spread disinformation.
 
Of course. You and I are in complete agreement. But until then, and according to populace consensus will never happen, what to do when thousands/millions are being injured/die. Casualties of war?

I am asking because your and my solutions are considered “impractical” and completely “unrealistic”.

I will always continue beating the drum, while understanding that in my lifetime, I and other loved ones must suffer the harsh realities.

Well, you sure as hell don't do things as draconian as storm-trooper-ing the offices of publications with which you disagree, and then criminally prosecuting their editors and authors by abusing laws such as the RICO statutes in matters for which they were never designed or intended [1] - not if you actually give a damn about liberty, anyway.

More government pro-action is never the solution to too much government pro-action - and if the right things aren't going to be done because they run counter to "popular consensus" [2] (or to whatever that consensus considers to be "impractical" or "unrealistic"), then the populace is going to suffer the consequences until they stop being wrong (because reality is a thing, and causes will always have their effects). You might as well ask "how can this problem be solved without addressing its source?" - and the answer is "it can't be". Absent striking the root, all you can do is add new wrong things (such as RFK Jr.'s proposed persecution of what he deems to be misinformation and "lying") on top of the pile of old wrong things (such as pharmaceutical subsidies and immunities to liability).

Edit to say, as an Agorist, risk versus reward, how do I become compensated for any injury I may encounter?

I don't know. I am not an Agorist.



[1] We've already seen the consequences of that kind of bullshit in the form of "civil asset forfeiture".

[2] Fortunately, however, "popular consensus" ultimately doesn't matter. As I have often said elsewhere, and most recently in this post from another thread:
I will be curious how many pro-gun folks will exercise their natural right and flood the streets. If they don't, and merely seek permission... I don't live there anyway.

Most of them won't "flood the streets" and most of them will "merely seek permission" (and will meekly comply if they don't get it). That's because most people ("pro" X, or "anti" X, or entirely indifferent to X) are inert ballast who will just go along with whatever. As such, they are entirely irrelevant to such matters.

Hoping and waiting for the "masses" to "wake up" and "do something about it" (regardless of what "it" might be) is an exercise in pud-pulling and black-pilling frustration. It has never happened - and it is never going to happen. What might happen, though, is that enough people under the right circumstances will "do something about it" (such as active non-compliance - or, in the limit, even violent resistance). What those circumstances might be, and how many would be "enough" under those particular circumstances, are things that no one can really know in advance. (That's why they say "hindsight is 20/20". It's also why things like central economic planning are doomed to fail.)

IOW: "the people" are not coming to save us.
 
Last edited:
Well, you sure as hell don't do things as draconian as storm-trooper-ing the offices of publications with which you disagree, and then criminally prosecuting their editors and authors by abusing laws such as the RICO statutes in matters for which they were never designed or intended [1] - not if you actually give a damn about liberty, anyway.

More government pro-action is never the solution to too much government pro-action - and if the right things aren't going to be done because they run counter to "popular consensus" [2] (or to whatever that consensus considers to be "impractical" or "unrealistic"), then the populace is going to suffer the consequences until they stop being wrong (because reality is a thing, and causes will always have their effects). You might as well ask "how can this problem be solved without addressing its source?" - and the answer is "it can't be". Absent striking the root, all you can do is add new wrong things (such as RFK Jr.'s proposed persecution of what he deems to be misinformation and "lying") on top of the pile of old wrong things (such pharmaceutical subsidies and immunities to liability).



I don't know. I am not an Agorist.



[1] We've already seen the consequences of that kind of bull$#@! in the form of "civil asset forfeiture".

[2] Fortunately, however, "popular consensus" ultimately doesn't matter. As I have often said elsewhere, and most recently in this post from another thread:

Well, RFK is a start, at least in raising awareness concerning the corrupt pharm complex.

I still have yet to find a way for others to understand and swallow the only and proper remedy. Too many people actually profit by this.
 
Well, RFK is a start, at least in raising awareness concerning the corrupt pharm complex.

Using the power of government to jackboot publications you don't like is certainly the start of ... something.
 
Using the power of government to jackboot publications you don't like is certainly the start of ... something.

You are preaching to the choir here. If it were up to me, government would not exist, and small-cell communities, property rights and bi-lateral contracts would be the norm.

Reaching "republicans" is difficult enough, and more times than not next to impossible. Reaching democrats in my area is equally as so. But, folks are paying attention to RFK, and if I leave "party" or my anarchist view out of it, I am at least able to converse with them. On rare occasion, where the two are similar, I sometimes reference that RP has said similar things that RFK is now discussing.

The problem-solving process involves:

1. Discovery of the problem (which is where we are, and where RP, RFK, and folks like us come in).

2. Deciding to tackle the issue

3. Seeking to understand the problem more fully

4. Researching available options or solutions

5. Taking action to resolve the issue


It seems we are more than usually stuck on #1, and to a lesser degree #2, let alone reaching #3 and #4. At this point, such as TSA, DC lobbyists, Central Banking and other, #5 is but a pipe dream.
 
Well, RFK is a start, at least in raising awareness concerning the corrupt pharm complex.

I still have yet to find a way for others to understand and swallow the only and proper remedy. Too many people actually profit by this.

He cut right to the heart of it. People have no idea that the prestigious white coat, Harvard medical establishment is no different than any twenty dollar Times Square whore. Except the Times Square whore is more honest.
 
The problem as I see it is people have lost their first line of defense. They have adapted an unhealthy lifestyle with little to no exercise and extremely poor eating habits. Furthermore they have surrendered their own bodies ability to heal itself for Big Pharma medications that do not cure but only treat symptoms. Furthermore, people do not deal with mental/emotional problems because they once again rely on Big Pharma that provides them with the happy pill that once again doesn't treat the problem.

Eat healthy, stay physically active, and stay away from the health professionals.
 
Back
Top