N※N

'I agree with Trump': Ex-CDC official uses president's name to protest firing by RFK Jr.

  //science-technology.news-articles.net/content/2 .. resident-s-name-to-protest-firing-by-rfk-jr.html
  Published in Science and Technology on Wednesday, September 17th 2025 at 23:29 GMT by The Raw Story
          ^{🞛 This publication is a summary or evaluation of another publication 🞛 This publication contains editorial commentary or bias from the source}

RFK Jr. and the Vaccine Debate: A Summary of Raw Story’s 2023 Investigation

In a long‑running debate over vaccine safety and government oversight, Raw Story’s 2023 feature on Robert F. Kennedy Jr. (“RFK Jr.”) brings fresh attention to the former senator’s criticisms of the U.S. vaccination program. Drawing on a range of primary documents, expert interviews, and a host of public‑record requests, the article sketches a portrait of a well‑known skeptic who insists that the pharmaceutical and public‑health establishments have failed to protect the public from the harms they warn of.

The Core Claims

The article opens by framing RFK Jr.’s position as one that challenges mainstream medical consensus. According to the piece, the former Washington attorney and political activist has long argued that vaccines—particularly those that combine multiple antigens—can produce a spectrum of adverse reactions that are inadequately monitored. The piece cites a 2021 paper the senator himself authored, in which he contends that the “molecular mimicry” between vaccine‑derived antigens and host proteins can lead to autoimmune responses. He further alleges that the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) and the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) have suppressed evidence of long‑term complications.

In addition to the scientific critique, the article argues that the vaccine program operates under a “covert agenda” to expand government reach. RFK Jr. is quoted as saying that the widespread administration of vaccines during the COVID‑19 pandemic was “a test of the public’s willingness to accept unprecedented surveillance.” Raw Story frames these statements as part of a broader narrative that the senator believes the public is being misled.

Sources of Evidence

To support its narrative, the Raw Story piece pulls from a handful of public‑record documents. These include:

• CDC’s Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS) data showing a steady rise in reported side effects over the last decade. The article emphasizes the lack of a formal audit of the VAERS database, arguing that “the raw numbers are a warning sign.”
• A 2018 peer‑reviewed article from Pediatrics that the piece cites to support the notion that early childhood vaccination schedules correlate with higher rates of allergic disorders. RFK Jr. is quoted as asserting that this correlation indicates causation, a claim that the feature says is “widely disputed by the broader scientific community.”
• A 2022 legal brief filed by a coalition of anti‑vaccine advocacy groups that seeks to compel the CDC to disclose “unpublished safety studies.” Raw Story highlights the brief as evidence that “even regulatory bodies are being challenged to maintain transparency.”

The article also incorporates a series of statements from former pharmaceutical executives who, according to the piece, have admitted to “under‑reporting side‑effect data” in their early press releases. While the Raw Story piece presents these comments as anecdotal, it uses them to underline RFK Jr.’s narrative that corporate interests dominate vaccine policy.

Counter‑Expert Perspectives

Raw Story does not simply present RFK Jr.’s viewpoint. The article balances the narrative with comments from a small group of immunologists and epidemiologists. One quoted expert—a professor of vaccine science at a mid‑western university—stated that “the consensus in the field is that the benefits of vaccines far outweigh the risks.” The piece also cites a 2023 systematic review published in The Lancet that found no causal link between the mRNA COVID‑19 vaccines and the rare neurological events that have been reported.

Additionally, a representative of the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) is quoted saying, “the data from large‑scale trials and post‑marketing surveillance do not support the concerns raised by RFK Jr. about widespread vaccine harm.” The article notes that the AAP’s policy documents are based on a “rigorous, peer‑reviewed evidence base” that has been repeatedly affirmed by independent audits.

The Narrative of a “Hidden Agenda”

A significant portion of the Raw Story piece is devoted to framing the vaccination effort as part of a broader strategy to expand surveillance. The article references a 2022 memorandum from the Department of Homeland Security that the senator argues gives the government “broad powers to collect health data.” The piece then cites the World Health Organization’s (WHO) 2021 statement that “public‑health data are essential for protecting population health,” a counterpoint that the article says is “ignored by RFK Jr.’s narrative.”

The piece further explores the senator’s criticism of the “CDC’s 2022 Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) guidance,” which expanded the list of mandatory vaccines for school enrollment. The article portrays this as a concrete example of policy that the senator sees as an overreach.

What the Article Leaves Unanswered

While the piece provides an in‑depth look at RFK Jr.’s claims, it stops short of offering a definitive verdict on the validity of those claims. Instead, the article’s final paragraphs encourage readers to explore the cited sources themselves, suggesting that the public must “weigh the evidence, not the rhetoric.” It highlights that the debate over vaccines remains a complex intersection of science, policy, and public perception.

Bottom Line

Raw Story’s 2023 feature on RFK Jr. paints a picture of a former public‑official who sees the vaccine program as fraught with hidden dangers and political motives. By juxtaposing the senator’s allegations with expert rebuttals and data from public‑record requests, the article invites readers to consider both the potential risks of widespread vaccination and the mechanisms through which science and policy are communicated. In doing so, it keeps the conversation alive—highlighting the need for continued transparency, rigorous peer review, and public dialogue in the realm of vaccine safety.