Why do 77 Nobel laureates want the Senate to block RFK Jr?

Article highlights:

• ‍‍The flaws in the opposition to Robert F. Kennedy Jr.'s HHS nomination
• Nobel laureates declare RFK Jr. unfit to head HHS
• Corruption at “highly respected" institutions
• 77 Nobel laureates tried to influence the HHS before
• Laureates' conflicts of interest
• Nobel laureates the cream of humanity?
• Some key questions

‍

The flaws in the opposition to Robert F. Kennedy Jr.'s HHS nomination

In the wake of Robert F. Kennedy Jr.'s (RFK Jr) nomination to lead the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), near daily "hit pieces," have been published. These pieces are prime examples of "astroturfing," a tactic where orchestrated campaigns give the appearance of widespread grassroots opposition. In reality, these campaigns are often coordinated by powerful entities with vested interests in maintaining the status quo.

Central to these campaigns are 77 Nobel laureates who signed a letter opposing Kennedy’s nomination. Many of these laureates maintain significant ties to the pharmaceutical and healthcare industries through consulting roles, research funding, advisory positions, and business ownership. These relationships warrant closer scrutiny when evaluating their opposition to Kennedy’s nomination.

Additionally, scientific freedom and open inquiry would be diminished were the laureates to be followed, particularly in public health. It is commonly accpeted that science thrives on rigorous debate and the exchange of diverse perspectives, lending credence to the idea public health policies that affect millions should indeed be open to challenge.

Interestingly, the group of laureates includes economists. Considering the profound economic fallout from COVID-19, it is surprising that a group of economists would oppose a public debate on health policies and their economic impact, raising concerns about where their priorities lie.

Nobel Laureates declare RFK Jr. unfit to head HHS

The 77 Nobel laureates who sent their letter to Senate members asking them to oppose the confirmation of Kennedy as secretary of HHS cited his lack of credentials, experience, and criticism of "proven medical practices" as reasons for their opposition. They stated that the head of the agency should be someone who will improve, not "threaten," the “highly respected” institution and its employees.

In addition to his lack of credentials or relevant experience in medicine, science, public health, or administration, Mr. Kennedy has been an opponent of many health-protecting and life-saving vaccines, such as those that prevent measles and polio; a critic of the well-established positive effects of fluoridation of drinking water; a promoter of conspiracy theories about remarkably successful treatments for AIDS and other diseases; and a belligerent critic of respected agencies (especially the Food and Drug Administration, the Centers for Disease Control, and the National Institutes of Health). The leader of DHHS should continue to nurture and improve — not threaten —these important and highly respected institutions and their employees. (Link added.)

No substantive argument

While these laureates have received their awards for original research and discoveries, they are asking the Senate to stifle research and inquiries into urgent issues regarding public health which would threaten to upset the existing structures and remove outside influences that have captured these agencies.

The letter does not include a substantive argument for why RFK JR is wrong about any of the issues they highlighted but relies on "vague assertions, appeals to authority, and dismissive rhetoric." James Lyons-Weiler was taken aback by the lack of substance in their letter, arguing that,

[t]he letter is striking in its lack of substantive engagement with the issues it purports to address. While it leverages the collective prestige of its signatories, it fails to provide a detailed or evidence-based critique of RFK Jr.’s positions. Instead, it relies on vague assertions, appeals to authority, and dismissive rhetoric, leaving its arguments hollow and unconvincing.

Corruption at “highly respected institutions"

Their letter follows the House subcommittee’s pandemic report that was released just days earlier and exposed “. . . high-level corruption in America’s public health system,” the very same agencies that they called “respected:” the HHS, CDC, FDA, and NIH, including top officials Dr. Anthony Fauci [who headed the NIAID, an agency under the NIH] and his senior advisor, Dr. David Morens. 

CDC — Rather than relying on CDC data, former Director Rochelle Wilensky asked American Federation of Teachers (AFT) President [Randi] Weingarten “to provide specific language for the school closure guidance and even went so far as to accept numerous edits made by AFT.” Keeping the schools closed for longer than necessary, per the AFT’s wishes, created serious learning losses for students and was responsible for skyrocketing mental and physical health concerns — “with suicide attempts by 12-17 year-aged girls rising 51%.”

FDA — Two leading FDA scientists who “warned their colleagues about the dangers of rushing the vaccine approval process and the likelihood of adverse events” were ignored. Instead, the agency rushed approval of the COVID-19 vaccine “and days later, the Biden Administration mandated the vaccine..” [1]

NIH — “NIH’s procedures for funding and overseeing potentially dangerous research are deficient, deliberately obstructed the Select Subcommittee’s investigation, likely lied to Congress on multiple occasions, unlawfully deleted federal COVID-19 records, and shared nonpublic information about NIH grant processes with EcoHealth President Dr. Peter Daszak.”

Dr. Fauci — Dr. Fauci promoted the “Proximal Origins” paper discrediting the lab-leak theory to promote his preferred narrative of a natural pandemic. Dr. Fauci admitted to Congress that the six-foot social distancing guideline, which resulted in school and small business closures [while large businesses were allowed to remain open] and which had no science behind it, had “just sort of appeared.” He publicly criticized then-President Trump’s travel bans but privately agreed with him.  

Dr. David Morens — “Dr. David Morens, deliberately obstructed the Select Subcommittee’s investigation, likely lied to Congress on multiple occasions, unlawfully deleted federal COVID-19 records, and shared nonpublic information about NIH grant processes with EcoHealth President Dr. Peter Daszak.”

Despite the subcommittee's revelations of corruption and misconduct at HHS, CDC, FDA, and NIH—agencies lauded as “highly respected” by the Nobel laureates—the laureates argue against RFK Jr.'s nomination on the grounds that he might undermine these institutions. It is not know which of the laureates were aware of the subcommittee’s findings, exposing corruption within these very agencies, at the time of their signatures. To date, none of the laureates has recanted their support for the letter.

77 Nobel Laureates tried to influence the HHS before

In support of Dr. Peter Daszak

This is not the first time a group of 77 Nobel laureates tried to use their credentials to influence a government body. In May 2020 laureates sent a letter to HHS Secretary Alex Azar and NIH Director Francis Collins. They objected to the NIH’s termination of a grant to Peter Daszak and EcoHealth Alliance, claiming that “this action sets a dangerous precedent by interfering in the conduct of science and jeopardizes public trust in the process of awarding federal funds for research.”

They wrote that Dr. Daszak and his colleague’s work on coronaviruses was important and that they needed to be able to collaborate with other scientists abroad, including those in Wuhan, China.

Dr. Daszak and his colleagues have been conducting highly regarded, NIH supported research on coronaviruses and other infectious agents, focusing on the transmission of these viruses from animal hosts to human beings. Their work depends on productive collaborations with scientists in other countries, including scientists in Wuhan, China, where the current pandemic caused by a novel coronavirus arose. Now is precisely the time when we need to support this kind of research if we aim to control the pandemic and prevent subsequent ones. 

The laureates claimed that the grant was terminated based on erroneous information that was given to then-President Trump by a reporter who thought that “the grant awarded millions of dollars to investigators in Wuhan.”

Despite the misrepresentation of Dr. Daszak’s grant, . . .  the NIH informed Dr. Daszak and his colleagues that the grant was being terminated because “NIH does not believe that the current project outcomes align with the program goals and agency priorities.” Such explanations are preposterous under the circumstances. 

. . . 

The abrupt revoking of the award to Dr. Daszak contravenes these basic tenets and deprives the nation and the world of highly regarded science that could help control one of the greatest health crises in modern history and those that may arise in the future.

What the subcommittee found out about Dr. Daszak

This is the same Dr. Daszak, leading EcoHealth Alliance, who subcommittee members found had violated the terms of its NIH grant, using U.S. taxpayer dollars for gain-of-function research in Wuhan. The HHS is now taking action against them.

[U]nder the leadership of Dr. Peter Daszak — used U.S. taxpayer dollars to facilitate dangerous gain-of-function research in Wuhan, China. After the Select Subcommittee released evidence of EcoHealth violating the terms of its National Institutes of Health (NIH) grant, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) commenced official debarment proceedings and suspended all funding to EcoHealth.‍

Laureates' conflicts of interest

The pharmaceutical ties of just a few of the letter’s signatories include:

• David Baltimore won a Nobel Prize in Medicine in 1975. His work with pharma includes Director of Regulus Therapeutics Inc. a member of the board of directors of Immune Design Corp., purchased by Merck in 2019, and a founder of Calimmune, Inc., a privately-held clinical-stage gene therapy company in 2008.
  In 1996 he headed the NIH AIDS panel that was attempting to produce a vaccine for the illness. Dr. Fauci had reached out to him as early as 1990 to discuss an AIDS vaccine.
• Joseph L. Goldstein won a Nobel Prize in Medicine in 1985 for research on cholesterol. His work with colleague Michael S. Brown earned them the Nobel Prize and paved the way for the development of cholesterol-lowering drugs, such as statins.  His net worth, as of November 7, 2024, is an estimated $49.9 million based on his shares of Regeneron. Regeneron is the manufacturer of Regen-Cov, a monoclonal antibody used to treat Covid-19. He’s been a member of its Board of Directors since 1991. He has been a member of the board of directors of the Lasker Foundation since 2007 and Chair of the Lasker Medical Research Awards Jury since 1996. To date, 214 NIH investigators have been Lasker Award recipients. “The NIH also sponsors the Lasker Clinical Research Scholars Program with the Lasker Foundation.” 
• Roger David Kornberg won the Nobel Prize in Chemistry in 2006. His pharmaceutical and related positions include: founder of Cocrystal Discovery, Inc., (founded in 2008). Chairman at Cocrystal Pharma, Inc. since 2014. founder of Cognos Therapeutics, Inc., chairman at Autonomous Medical Devices, Inc., Chairman & Chief Scientist at Neotx Holdings Ltd., Independent Non-Executive Director at Xenetic Biosciences, Inc., advisor at Teal Ventures Management LLC.
• Drew Weissman, who won the Nobel Prize for Medicine with Katalin Karikó in 2023, "played a pivotal role in creating mRNA vaccines for COVID-19, operating with BioNTech/Pfizer and Moderna to make adequate immunizations." His net worth is $7 million generated from his “thriving professional pursuits in promoting medical science,” making him the most prosperous in his field. Their award has been heavily criticized as the COVID-19 mRNA vaccines have resulted in great harm to millions of people. Dr. Robert Malone criticized the premise of the award, stating that he had invented the technology stating that Karikó and Weissman get the Nobel. . . for adding the pseudouridine that allowed unlimited spike toxins to be manufactured in what could have been a safe and effective vaccine platform, if safely developed.
• Venkatraman Ramakrishnan, who won the Nobel Prize in Chemistry in 2009, has resided in the U.K. since 1999. In 2019 he was a founding partner in Ahren Innovation Capital, London, UK, which has clients in the medical/pharmaceutical industry.
• Steven Chu won a Nobel Prize in Physics in 1997. He served as U.S. Secretary of Energy under President Barack Obama from January 2009 to April 2013. Interested in molecular and cellular physiology, he helped start Bio-X, a multi-disciplinary initiative combining the physical and biological sciences with engineering and medicine during his tenure as the Theodore and Francis Geballe Professor of Physics and Applied Physics at Stanford University.

Nobel Laureates the cream of humanity?

Nobel laureates are often put on a pedestal where their every word is taken as truth, whether or not in an area in which they are expert. However, as Forbes's former contributor Matthew Francis wrote, that is not necessarily the case. A Nobel prize does not necessarily go to the best scientists, the wisest people, or the finest human beings.

The Nobel Prizes are not the final say in good science, and Nobel laureates are not necessarily the best scientists — much less the wisest human beings.

. . .

. . . Sometimes the prize seems to go to the winners' heads so much that they seem to lose it entirely.. William Shockley, a co-discoverer of the transistor, and James Watson, who won the Nobel for discovering the structure of DNA, both used their reputations to promote very racist ideas. Most recently, Tim Hunt said some sexist and insulting things in front of a group of female Korean scientists — who had invited him to speak, no less.

. . .

The defense of these men and others seems largely based on the idea that they, as Nobel prizewinners, are somehow doing such good work that they are above reproof. But they are not gods; Nobel prizewinners are fallible human beings.

. . . We ordinary people can't change the Nobels or the laureates who receive them. We can, however, do two things: acknowledge the flaws in the Nobel Prize, and with that knowledge, decide not to treat Nobel laureates as though they are infallible beings.

Nobel created the Nobel Prize to assuage his guilt

The Nobel Prize resulted from a case of mistaken identity, as Celebrity Net Worth author Brian Warner recounted in the story of Alfred Nobel, its creator. Several newspapers, in their obituaries for his brother Ludvig, mistakenly printed Alfred’s name, proclaiming that “[t]he Merchant of Death is dead.”

A pacifist, Nobel had invented dynamite believing that it would be used primarily for mining and construction projects. However, people quickly realized that it would make a good weapon of war. Nobel, himself, ultimately opened armaments factories across Sweden and Russia.

"As royalties for the invention poured in from around the world, Alfred and his brothers invested the money in oil fields near the Caspian Sea. The three remaining Nobel brothers each became immensely wealthy, but none more than Alfred. During his life, Alfred was awarded 350 patents and, rather hypocritically, used his royalties to open 100 armaments factories throughout Sweden and Russia."

Shocked upon reading of his demise, he was even more shocked to realize that he "would be remembered with such disparaging contempt." As a result, he changed his will, which had left everything to his direct heirs, and instead ear-marked 94% of his wealth to be used to establish the Nobel Foundation which "would award annual prizes to those who have made the "greatest benefit on mankind in physics, chemistry, peace, physiology or medicine, and literature."

Today the Foundation holds about $560 million in assets and awardees receive "a gold medal (18 carats and 196 grams of gold), a diploma, and a $1.2 million check." As a result, Warner notes, we no longer associate Nobel with death,  destruction, and misery but with peace, progress, and science. "If you think about it," Warner concluded, "establishing the Nobel Prize might be the most expensive cure for a guilty conscience in human history!"

Nobel Prize — few women, even fewer Black awardees

Women and black individuals are greatly underrepresented as Nobel Prize recipients. Of the 976 individuals who have received an award, 66 awards went to women (Marie Curie received two) and 17 went to blacks.

Peace Prize for warmongers

Press TV pointed out the hypocrisy associated with the Peace Prize awarding it to people who have been accused of promoting war and committing atrocities against ordinary citizens. (Peace prize awardees were not included as signatories on the letters.) The award has little to do with peace, appearing to be politically driven. New York-based writer Arwa Mahdawi summarized the skepticism surrounding the prize:

The Nobel Peace Prize is a farce; it has been for a long time. Really, it’s time we stopped pretending otherwise and put an end to the pomp and pretense altogether. Indeed, it’s amazing anyone can still say the words ‘Nobel Peace Prize’ with a straight face considering its recipients constitute a who’s who of hawks, hypocrites, and war criminals.

The Nobel Peace Prize was even awarded to arch-terrorist Yasser Arafat, who claimed to turn away from terrorism in English while giving speeches in Arabic promoting terrorism and continuing to order and finance terror.

^{Some key questions}

• What motivated the laureates in economics and physics—who typically lack significant ties to pharmaceutical companies or government health agencies—to sign the letter?
  • Were they aware of the conflicts of interest among their peers?
• Should the Senate weigh the opinions of Nobel laureates more heavily due to their awards?

Related articles:

• House pandemic subcommittee report 'basically said all the conspiracy theorists were correct' — Joe Rogan
• The COVID years: a recap of fearmongering, lockdowns, and the fallout from pandemic policies
• Attorney Aaron Siri takes on former FDA commissioner: Setting the record straight on RFK Jr and vaccines
• Dr. Fauci 'wrong' so many times: Was personal gain behind his COVID-19 response?
• The CDC and Pharma: Did their decades-long partnership shape the COVID-19 response?
• ‍New lawsuit challenges FDA guidelines regulating homeopathy as unconstitutional
• ‍Chart shows 'CDC Child and Adolescent Vaccine Schedule is the most horrifying example of regulatory capture in history'
• FDA under the influence – 6 things you should know about pharma and the FDA‍

Note: Representative image of laureates AI generated.