The mainstream media, along with the FDA and pharmaceutical companies, are predictably criticizing President Trump for supporting Robert F. Kennedy Jr., labeling him a “vaccine skeptic.”
But being a skeptic simply means asking questions. When did asking questions become dangerous? When did science stop welcoming them? How can society progress if questioning the status quo is vilified?
This growing hostility toward skepticism is deeply troubling. It risks leaving society entirely dependent on “the experts,” where anyone who dares to challenge them is dismissed as a crackpot—and, under this mindset, those labeled crackpots are quickly silenced and deplatformed.
The FDA’s vaccine safety chief, Peter Marks, speaking at a healthcare conference in London, essentially said that Trump’s appointment of “vaccine skeptics” could serve as an opportunity to teach the world a lesson about the importance of vaccines. The assumption is that if vaccination rates drop, people will get sick and realize the FDA was right. Of course, if people don’t get sick, he’s unlikely to admit he was wrong.
Marks has expressed concern over President-elect Donald Trump’s nomination of 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 COVID-19 booster approvals, as FDA Commissioner. Marks fears these choices could lead to shifts in public health policies and influence vaccine perceptions.
However, questioning the boosters makes sense, given that people who took the initial shots still contracted COVID, as did those who received multiple booster shots. Yet, they claim that RFK’s ideas are “dangerous.” Dr. Marty Makary, a surgeon at Johns Hopkins, has also questioned the universal recommendation of COVID-19 booster shots, citing instances where vaccinated individuals still became infected. So, it seems that there are educated experts who support RFK’s position.
Apart from questioning vaccines, RFK has also argued that America should no longer add fluoride to drinking water. The mainstream reaction has been to lash out at him, label him a charlatan, and emphasize that fluoride prevents cavities. However, those who oppose fluoride in drinking water don’t dispute its role in cavity prevention. It’s widely accepted that brushing with fluoride toothpaste is important for good oral health.
The question RFK and others are raising is whether it’s necessary to fluoridate the drinking water. If you brush your teeth three times a day, isn’t that enough fluoride? Is it actually necessary to consume more fluoride every time you take a sip of water? And what about athletes? They tend to drink more water during and after exercise—does the evidence suggest they require more fluoride than the average person? These are legitimate questions that deserve thoughtful discussion.
Most developed countries do not fluoridate their water. In fact, only 25 nations have fluoridated water, and in 11 of those, not all water is fluoridated. The fact that people in the remaining 170 countries are not experiencing widespread tooth decay suggests that fluoridated water may not be necessary. According to a study published in Harvard Public Health, “Countries that do not fluoridate their water have also seen significant drops in the rate of cavities.”
According to Philippe Grandjean, adjunct professor of environmental health at the Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health: “We should recognize that fluoride has beneficial effects on dental development and protection against cavities. But do we need to add it to drinking water so it gets into the bloodstream and potentially into the brain?” Apparently, even a Harvard professor is guilty of the heresy of skepticism.
This brings to mind how, during COVID, the “Covidians” often said, “Follow the science,” yet when someone pointed out contradictory scientific studies, the response was, “Not that 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 crucial is: “We need to find out if there are populations highly vulnerable to fluoride in drinking water—bottle-fed infants whose formula is made with tap water, for example, or patients undergoing dialysis. If these individuals are at risk, their water must come from a source that is lower in fluoride.”
In previous eras, it was considered both normal and prudent to ask similar questions about vaccines, drugs, and chemicals. Why is it any different now?
While people like RFK are fighting an uphill battle against fluoride and vaccines, this week, the mainstream media ran an article about “virus hunters” searching for the next pandemic. These individuals are essentially funded by drug companies to find something frightening enough to serve as a marketing tool to convince people to buy a drug. Skepticism could disrupt these marketing efforts.
Skepticism is not only natural but also one of our key defenses against blindly following the crowd. Historically, rebels were the ones asking all the tough questions. Now, it seems the roles have flipped—conservatives are the ones questioning the narrative, while liberals are demanding that everyone go along with the crowd.
The post “Vaccine Skeptic”: A Manufactured Term to Suppress Inquiry appeared first on The Gateway Pundit.
This article may have been paraphrased or summarized for brevity. The original article may be accessed here: Read Source Article.
