Friends, RFK, Jr. spent the day fielding tough questions from Senators, and, based on his unflappability, it appears more likely than ever that he'll be our next Secretary of Health and Human Services. Not many people would have predicted that six months or a year ago!
https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c74mj39dkklo
Amid all the "winning" that the Trump Administration has been doing, we got our first tactical retreat today: the rescinding of a memo that had "paused" many federal grant programs. The White House says that the concept of a pause is still very much alive and well, even though the memo is no more. The bottom line, in political terms, is that threatening to cut off the federal gravy train was always going to be a controversial move, and this climb-down will be interpreted by many Democrats as a sign of Trumpian weakness and as a victory for them. Whether that's true or not, we need to be careful about "feeding the beast" of TDS, because one retreat can easily turn into dozens, and we sure don't want that.
https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cyv48540n4po
A lot of Big Tech firms, and their bosses, have been kowtowing to DJT of late, which is glorious to behold, but one notable holdout has been Bill Gates of Microsoft. We need to keep up the pressure on Microsoft, therefore, and make ole Bill feel as lonely and defeated as he is. Microsoft frankly has a lot to answer for, and I would strongly suggest that the DOJ put it in its crosshairs.
https://foundationforfreedomonline.com/microsoft-government-censorship-industry-revolving-door/
The German establishment continues to berate and isolate the AfD, which it considers to be a "far right" party. Comparisons between the AfD and the Nazis abound in Germany. They may even be as common as allusions to Hitler on MSNBC! Well, the AfD isn't "Nazi", and the Germans who support it should not be treated like political lepers. It's quite possible that the only way that Germany will ever get a conservative, populist government is if one of the mainstream parties "gets over itself" and agrees to work with the AfD. I hope they will.
https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/ceq901dxjnzo
Finally, we're learning more about how the building blocks of life may have been distributed about the galaxy by asteroids, and the data strongly suggests that life may have developed on plenty of planets besides this one. Thus, it's a good thing that we're making a move on Mars before the little gray men beat us to it!
RAY TO DR. WADDY
ReplyDeleteBefore "making a move on Mars" or any other place in space, how about getting those two (2) stranded astronauts back to earth?
Ray from Jack : F . . .ing A ,Ray!
ReplyDeleteDr. Waddy from Jack: RFK Jr.: How strange it is to see him looking very much as is his father might have at that age! Just saying.
ReplyDeleteI have misgivings about him though the fact that you and people like Sen. Ron Johnson think well of him does mitigate them. My gut still tells me he is something of a crank though not a purposefully disingenuous one. He says he thinks anyone who wants McDonalds should be able to get it. That still doesn't ease my concern about an impending Bloomberg style "nanny state" interfering with our personal food choices. Remember Obama telling us "oh sure, you'll be able to keep your Dr." He might even have meant it.
I admire RFK's political and personal courage and the positions on abortion he expressed. He deftly parried Sanders' characteristic marxist "command in the guise of a question "that he admit health care is a right. BTW, what the deuce is a "onesie"? And he treated haughty schoolmarm scold Elizabeth Warren, who no doubt spurns him for his unMassachusettslike heresy, with deserved disdain
If he starts having comprehensive dictatorial liberal flashbacks in office I hope DJT will keep him focused on correcting manageable faults in our national health. I still think having enough food is a pretty healthy thing overall.
Hey Jack,
DeleteI hope you don't mind if I cut in here. I sometimes wonder if your "Dr. Waddy from Jack" intro is intended to segregate replies only from this Blogpost's wizard. So, at the risk of butting in where I'm not welcome, I wish to ask a question. BTW... it is not intended to instigate or call you into question. Quite the contrary, I sincerely want to understand.
Here's the question...
After watching RFK's confirmation hearing, and seeing DJT's unequivocal endorsement, what did either of them say that makes you consider him a "crank"?
Are you seriously concerned about his taking away "food choices" or a trip to the Happy Meal Palace?
At this point, has he failed to demonstrate sincerity and provide data supporting his concern for the overall well-being of our nation's citizens?
Even if he ultimately wielded "comprehensive dictatorial liberal" power (and how could that happen?), what of his vision, put into practice, would cause you concern?
What specific points of his agenda do you think would impact the ability of the nation to have enough food?
Again, I ask those questions not to cajole, but as a staunch right-winger and one considerably concerned about our nation's "wellness," (very different from "healthcare") I don't understand some of my "tribe's" concerns about this guy—albeit within the role for which he is nominated.
Then, there is a separate discussion about how much BIGGER RFK Jr made the tent!
Help me Jack (and Ray for that matter)! Let's see if we can plant this conservative back on terra firma!
OK... admittedly, there are multiple questions in that post. And at the risk of being a real pain in the a$$, I'll ask another...
DeleteOne might think the reaction from the libs in the Senate hearing (AKA: Pocahontas, Sanders, Warner, etc) suggest Trump made the right pick?
It is totally ironic that the clips even PBS used in their 5 minute recap are the most revealing:
(https://youtu.be/qOhdZ5VI1c8?si=00y_dZcXeVrHr0eL)
Doesn't that cause you some modicum of comfort?
Richie from Jack: No problem at all in your asking me all of these questions. I am grateful for your interest in my comments and am much interested in yours.
ReplyDeleteI address my comments Dr. Waddy from Jack so that he will know it's from me. I forget why but I couldn't get my device here to cease using the term anonymous. I have an adversarial relationship with computers. Sometimes when I address my comments to persons in addition to Dr. Waddy I'll use the term et al to try to show that my comments are never meant exclusively for my stated addressees. In Navy communications we used the term "Information Addressee" and everyone is at least an Information Addressee for me
I noted that my "gut " was telling me that he was "something of a crank). I've been following American politics since 1960, yes, but an evaluation by my gut is not objective, its merely a feeling perhaps informed somewhat by experience. He appears to me to be prone to eccentricity at times (eg. his renunciation of his dem loyalty) and hope it does not keep him from being a team player. I fully acknowledge that if DJT had concerns in that vein he might well not have nominated him. But if DJT is repaying a political debt that is understandable to me as a standard political tactic.
I see the environmental movement as almost exclusively leftist and RFK's devoted environmental activism does give me some pause. My experience is that liberals always couch their views and intents in imperative tones confirming the fact that they consider themselves unimpeachable. Bloomberg's ridiculous soda bans in NYC are an example.
But I expressed further on what I consider to be his strong points. I'm going to continue next . . . because I keep switching back to your comments and I'm afraid that by doing so I will inadvertently erase what I've written. Next. . .
RAY TO JACK AND RICHIE
ReplyDeleteNothing complicated here. Get busy and start reading some of those books RFK Jr. wrote, with special attention to "The Real Anthony Fauci, Bill Gates, Big Pharma, and the Global War on Democracy and Public Health". Kennedy is the #1 Enemy of this racket, and they fear him greatly, now that he has some authority to investigate that racket. Another racket is Contracting and The Pentagon, where huge bucks are made from wars. Wonder if some of those assholes in the Senate who hate RFK Jr. the most are benefitting from some of these rackets?
Exactly Ray. Pharma has become corrupt and the last pandemic exposed their "racket" to those who choose to see clearly and be honest with themselves.
DeleteGiven the consequences of his stand against the powers of "healthcare," you have to admire RFK Jr. The reactions of those in the Senate who are on the take for large donations from the pharmaceutical industry is telling. As a result, he is making few friends in the donor class. His motivations appear to center on "wellness". Those themes are highlighted in the books you mention.
To Jack's point, his environmental leanings can be troubling, but they are consistent for someone with a "wellness" lens. Recently, I've wondered if he is starting to realize how tilted the environmentalist influence actually is. They have become their own "big." It will be interesting to see.
Regardless, his role at HHS will have little reach into the realm of environmentalism, and for that reason, we have little to fear in his appointment. On the contrary, he brings good things to this ticket and expands the "tent" to those who might lean center/left but are sickened by the "health" of our country.
Richie from Jack: His comment that his party left him does him much credit. Yes , I hope that the big tent DJT has fostered includes very many more like RFK, especially those who make the impact he has made by rejecting the antiamerican left - more RFKs and more Tulsis please - and of course everyone (eg especially labor union members who may have painfully realized the contempt the dem party has for them ), everyone who now understands the lamentable capture of the Dems by the far left. The only ones I hope stay away are RINOS or radical plants.
ReplyDeleteI think RFK is completely sincere in his expressed convictions and that he has taken pains to provide adequate empirical evidence to support them.
I do not foresee any of his policy resulting in a shortage of food in the US. I meant my comment on the fact that we have enough to be an irony expressing some doubt about his assertion that we are a very unhealthy nation. Having enough food is a very healthy factor I think.
As a fellow staunch right winger ( I cannot adequately express the pride and elation I harbor from being a rightist after this blessed redemption for our country; I've never seen anything like it or the promise it affords) I share the your concern for the obvious expansion of our base and , yes, I think it probable, with my caveats, that RFK does America much, much good by joining us.
To my ignorance , I refuse to view PBS but I assume their bias in all presentations. I hope DOGE gets them on the list for defunding because their presumptuous and disingenuous misuse of tax payer funds is a blatant symbol of the blithe frivolity with which the antimerican left considers the taxpayer. Same for National Endowment for the Arts though their enablement of art which sneers at Christianity and Western Culture is quite serious, not all frivolous.
A big yes! The completely characteristic Schumeritic disdain afforded DJT's nominees by the usual blatherers very much endorses DJT's judgement. To be savaged by these low life's is an honor, as DJT knows better than anyone.
Hope I have addressed your concerns adequately. Please let me know if I have not.
Hi Jack!
DeleteThank you so much for your excellent response and for allowing me to respond to posts that mention the Dr. of Waddy. In my book, he is a wizard, and that is meant as a high compliment.
To your support for making a bigger tent, I would simply say: Absolutely, the shift in the Democratic Party has indeed left many, including principled individuals like RFK Jr., feeling alienated. The inclusivity of DJT's tent is commendable, welcoming those principled like RFK Jr. and Tulsi Gabbard who have seen through the anti-American left's agenda. It's heartening to see people from diverse backgrounds, including labor union members, recognizing the drive and realigning with actual American values.
I agree. RFK Jr. stands out for his sincerity and the empirical, scientific credibility he provides for his convictions. His approach to policymaking is based on reality, not political ideology, which is refreshing and sorely needed in today's political climate.
While having enough food is undoubtedly crucial, it's not an indicator of health. The quality of food, the presence of unhealthy additives, and the overall nutritional value are much more vital. RFK Jr. rightly pointed out that our nation's health crisis isn't about food availability but what we consume. If you forced me to choose between quantity and quality, that's easy. Obesity, diabetes, and other diet-related diseases are rampant despite the abundance of choices we all share. Having enough does not equate to "being healthy." Having a little less might have some health benefits (though maybe not economic).
I share your disdain for PBS, especially its public financing. To me, this is an easy budget cut that is coming. I might have to celebrate that day. My point was that we've reached a crescendo of the leftist scream that only makes our points! It is with great pleasure that they do so without being asked!
Lastly, I share your confidence in DJT's nominees, not because of who nominated them but because they represent the most well-spoken, qualified anti-establishment types who will put their reputations on the line to save America. Call that hyperbolic if you wish, but I think it is true.
Thank you again for your transparent contributions to this site. I enjoy reading your wisdom from History, which I lack. Best to you.
Ray from Jack: I'll rely on your perception of RFK's book. I'm in the middle of three books right now. But what would motivate a "war on health?" The only force I could imagine capable of such evil would be Marxists, not big business, for the former of whom history has confirmed willingness to do ANYTHING to get their way.
ReplyDeleteFor my part I think big pharma and food owed a debt of gratitude for the miraculous prosperity we have in this blessed country. I take a veritable cornucopia of pills and they keep me alive. Surely these immense businesses (in a country of which business is still the business - look at the good President we have gotten from the business world) are due correction but not, I think, condemnation.
I'm concerned that in his apparent zeal (like DJT, RFK ain't young and at that age, we know, it takes a lot of grit to be as devoted, active and gutsy as they are) he might overdo remedial measures directed at big corporations. Might there be some reflexive antibusiness conviction left in him? Consider the execrable example being set by NY's far left Gov. on the environment. She wants to punish energy providers for their "obvious" PAST perfidy in casually saturating our world with lethal carbon and she may be able to actually do it in the People's Republic of NY. It's just a caution; RFK is probably not inclined to such stupidity.
Hi Jack,
ReplyDeleteHere I am butting again into a conversation to which I have not been invited.
But I appreciate your transparency, Jack, and celebrate your current health status following a "cornucopia of pills." This is not to diminish the quality of life you enjoy because of that - Jack. Quite the contrary! Let's enjoy your success on that front and hope it continues for many years.
To your point about RFK Jr and Big Pharma, his critique of the same centers on public health, accountability, and ethical practices. All of which are sorely lacking. His approach has centered on corporate profits over patient health. He is pushing for:
- Regulatory Reforms - demanding transparency in drug trials and side effects
- Root Causes - advocating for treatments that address root causes rather than just managing symptoms
Although his environmentalist concerns are counter to many conservative values, they focus on sustainability. Granted, the left has bastardized the word "sustainable" and does not represent truthful reality.
RFK Jr.'s "zeal" targets the integrity of healthcare, which is sorely lacking. To your point, Jack so is the integrity of the so called sustainability of life on planet Earth. That is the piece that we may think RFK Jr. is missing. Hopefully, he is "growing up" on that front.
For RFK, his goal appears to be a healthier populace that has access to ethical, affordable, and effective diet, exercise, and treatment without the profit motive getting in the way.
Jack, do you doubt that big corporations are not seeking profits for their shareholders above all else? I don't. Wall Street's corporate valuations are in "nosebleed" territory and going higher. The only way for the board and C-Suite members to sustain shareholder value is to continue that trend. The financial pressure on boards is tremendous and currently completely unreasonable.
Then you have to ask the really hard questions: Does the pharmaceutical industry control traditional medicine? Or is it the other way around?
Another question: Does the pharmaceutical industry really solve root problems with our health? Or is it more of a mechanism to control and suppress symptoms? And then, how much does the profit motive interfere?
Yep, I know. Those are tough, pointed questions. But since when has a true Conservative shied away from that?
Richie from Jack: Thanx again for your comments and criticism; they are very well taken. You are always welcome to engage in the kind of mutually courteous dialogue you practice with me . Its a privilege; thanks for complimenting my knowledge of history. I am an amateur but I cherish the opportunity to discuss history with professionals. I love history, travel to historical sites and participating in 18th and 19th century reenactment(in which I have had the thrill of "reliving" history in what I call "moments of authenticity".)
ReplyDeleteDr. Waddy is a fine expositor and debater. He reasons very well and
makes very good use of empirical information. . Have you ever seen him in live dialogue? He's formidable in expressing his convictions, opinions and his intriguing and sometimes counterintuitive predictions. And he's always fair minded about opposing views , always manifesting well taken caveats and counters.
Above you have expressed well supported positions contrary to that I embodied in my "irony" on having enough food and in doing so have mitigated it some in my mind.
That is a dang good question about whether big pharma seeks to resolve root problems or simply to treat symptoms. I've always been convinced that big business"s fundamental concern is for the bottom line. I have always thought that , on balance ,that is a good thing because it motivates them to what we want and need qand has been the fount of our blessed prosperity. But in posing that question, for which I inadvertently suggested a possible answer in my last sentence, you have raised a very telling doubt.
I agree that that is a prime question : does big pharma control traditional medicine?! Never thought of that.
RFK's honest intents are honorable but I just hope the profit motive is not unduly suppressed. It has been a source of much good. JFK was right to an appreciable extent when he said "businessmen are a bunch of S.O B.s " but our miraculous economy has benefitted from their tenure. Marxists even tried to extirpate it and did nothing but unequaled evil in the effort. I'm sure RFK has, in his courageous political change, shed any possible and unlikely sympathy with any aspect of that detested creed.
Hi, again Jack,
DeleteI should disclose that I am a businessman. I have owned multiple businesses and believe capitalism is by far the best economic system.
I have no problems with "profit motive" as long as it is checked by something on the other end of the scale.
Most businesses face substantial risk if they betray the customer's trust. However, the pharmaceutical industry is shielded from much of this counterbalance.
The well-intentioned National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act (NCVIA) started the ball rolling in 1986. Other legislation, such as the Public Readiness and Emergency Preparedness Act (PREP Act), further made drug companies immune (pun intended) from the consequences of malpractice.
Much of the favorable legislation and treatment (even purchase of their products!) they have enjoyed results from their generosity to our elected officials through our nation's campaign finance "reforms."
Enter the COVID pandemic, and it was amazing to find that you could not get a Doctor to prescribe Ivermectin or Hydroxychloroquine even if you begged. I personally experienced this weird phenomenon. At the time, my doctor readily admitted the pressure from within the medical establishment as the reason.
To the pharmaceutical profit motive, the cost of the tried-and-true drugs mentioned above was pennies on the dollar (due to expired patents) compared to the commonly prescribed Paxlovid or Remdesivir, which could easily cost $1,000 per course.
You can argue any of these drugs' effectiveness and the results of potentially tainted scientific studies. However, you can't argue the "under patent" versions' contribution to their maker's bottom line.
As mentioned above, I'm all for companies and businesses making a profit when the customer can vote with their feet and dollars and have civil recourse. To your point, when there is proper balance, that environment has spurned innovation and gains in productivity measured in leaps and bounds... safely.
But there is a huge thumb on the scale when it comes to the industry that makes the chemicals commonly prescribed by our traditional medical practitioners.
I hope RFK Jr.'s intentions are honorable, as you state. Up until recently, I have been very skeptical of at least some of his platform. Though I would not be surprised if he might make a statement such as you cite, I can not find a reference to a quote attributed to him saying, "Businessmen are a bunch of SOBs." Do you have a source for that? I'd be interested in knowing the context.
Thanks again, my good man Jack, for your willingness to share ideas and perspectives.
Richie from Jack: JFK was quoted saying what I cited. I read it decades ago (although certainly after his passing; early '60s news sources wouldn't have printed the emprecation) but I don't remember where.I will swing ponderously into reference function , as a retired librarian,on this. I got a kick out of some of his brusque commentaries (eg. "Washington has the charm of a northern city and the intellectual dearth of a southern city"). I think he made the quote about businessmen when he was a having a tiff with some aspect of big business. It was of course too sweeping an evaluation. BTW, I tried to accomplish a small business, as a chimney sweep and was an utter failure. I have acrophobia and my business plan (as it were) should have taken that into consideration. More later as I read your latest welcome comments over again.
ReplyDeleteRichie from Jack: Another quote which tickles me is attributed to very blunt Admiral King, the Commander in Chief of the Navy in WWII: "When the going gets tough they send for the S.O.B.s " Anyway:
ReplyDeleteIn an overly litigious society I can see affording protection from malpractice liability for manufactures of vital products such as medications to be a good thing. By saving the manufacturers the costs of malpractice insurance one would think the sale price of the product would be brought down. But even if it was, by the legislation you cited, the prices are still beyond appalling. For those who cannot afford them, insurance for the same must be made available, if NECESSARY or already through Medicare or Medicaid, at public cost. But then the taxpayer may be getting jobbed by big pharma. "Enough is too much!" Your assertion that the immunity provided big pharma needs to be brought to an appropriate balance makes a great deal of sense. Heretofore I knew nothing about all this but I consider myself schooled by you, Ray and Doc Waddy.
I loath the thought of government interfering with free enterprise but there is no doubt that there have been times in our history when it had to be done (eg. the late 19th and early 20th century and the 30's and WWII).
RFK's demonstrated concern for that makes it understandable that he be nominated to effect such change. Could it be that big pharma is as venal as to stand in the way of addressing root causes of needs for drugs? It appears RFK thinks so and I hope he can prove good reason because he may administer strong purgatives to the industry.
Hi, again Jack,
ReplyDeleteThank you for your excellent response! I had to look up Admiral King and found him to be a fascinating character! I love the President Roosevelt quote who said (King) "shaves every morning with a blowtorch,"! It might well be that we need more of the Admiral in leadership both inside Government and Business!
You've highlighted a critical issue: the balance between protecting essential businesses from frivolous lawsuits and ensuring companies are still accountable to the patients (public) they serve.
The cavernous gap between patented drugs and those no longer afforded that protection presents a substantial moral dilemma for their respective boards and stockholders. We may not share the same faith in man's level of debauchery, which may taint our views to some point.
It would be interesting to know, and I suspect the results would be equally revealing for the efficacy and safety of vaccines produced before and after our legislators enacted protectionist legislation. Some of these vaccines are still used today over 50 years later.
Did you know that when I was a kid (1960s), children had about five (5) distinct vaccine doses? Today, that number is 72. I chose to spell that out to dispel a mistype: "seventy-two."
Your concern about government intervention in free enterprise is legitimate and one I share. Ultimately, I do NOT want the government or all the polluted three-letter global health alliances to be the arbiters. As my previous post suggests, they are too easily paid off.
What is the answer, then? I'm not sure, but cleaning up and exposing the current apparatus seems like a reasonable start.
How about some Accountability?
How about some Transparency?
If you've watched the "fact checkers" on the different social media platforms of our day - and - the peer pressure brought to bear on individual medical practitioners, that is sorely lacking.
What is the solution? To me, it starts with an Admiral King at the helm. Another quote associated with Admiral King was exemplified by his belief that even the best needed "a kick in the ass every six weeks" to avoid complacency.
Maybe, just maybe, RFK Jr. (and some other DJT cabinet nominees) is/are that modern-day Admiral.
(BTW... thanks again for your service!)