In a Congressional hearing on Wednesday, Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) directly confronted anti-vaccine Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. on his rejection of germ theory—the unquestionable scientific idea that specific pathogenic microbes cause specific diseases. After Kennedy defended his fringe view, Senator Bill Cassidy fact-checked and debunked Kennedy’s denialist arguments in real time.
The exchanges mark a rare instance in which Kennedy’s dismissal of germ theory has been raised in such a high-profile public setting, in this case, a hearing of the Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions. Kennedy, who has no background in science, medicine, or public health, is well known as an ardent anti-vaccine activist and peddler of conspiracy theories. But his startling rejection of a cornerstone theory in biomedical science has mostly been underreported.
As Ars Technica reported last year, Kennedy wrote about his germ theory denialism explicitly in his 2021 book The Real Anthony Fauci. In it, Kennedy maligns germ theory as a tool of pharmaceutical companies, scientists, and doctors to promote the use of modern medicines. Instead of accepting germ theory, Kennedy promotes a concept akin to the discarded terrain theory, in which diseases stem not from germs, but from imbalances in the body’s inner “terrain.” Those imbalances are claimed to be caused by poor nutrition and exposure to environmental toxins and stressors. (In his book, Kennedy erroneously labels this as “miasma theory,” but that is a different theory that suggests diseases derive from breathing bad air, vapors, or mists from decaying or corrupting matter. The idea was supplanted by germ theory, while terrain theory was never widely accepted.)
…
This is all an attempt by the rich to reduce numbers of poor people. They need more people dying, so they’re going to pull out all the safety features we’ve built into our society to prolong life.
Less “reduce the number,” and more “make the poor more tractable.” The rich still need human carpet to walk on, they just need it to be uneducated, fecund, and desperate to get under their feet.
Also divided. A divided proletariat (class of wage earners) can make less of a fist against the elite.
This contradicts their insistence that children should have children to stop population decline
Right-wing politics has always been an incoherent ragbag of momentarily convenient positions, insincerely held.
Not really. What they want is for the older generation that has greater disability and likely hood to be drawing on services or retirement accounts to die off. Getting younger people to pop out more worker bees is how they keep the tax revenue flowing into social security etc and never have to pay out if they can kill off the infirm/ unprofitable.
Average life expectancy is dropping in the us while retirement age has increased by a decade. The two numbers are only something like 5 years separated now, maybe 7. Idk Im not looking it up right now.
To reduce the number of non-working poor people. Or “useless eaters” as the psychotic, billionaire class calls them.
More projection, I see
Which is short sighted as a healthy populace is what lead to the US economic growth in industry prior to it being redefined as being based entirely on stock market gambling vibes. A strong and healthy populace was a big part of the post WWII boom.
Short-sightedness is like their chief feature
That’s not what Putin told him. You gotta do what the boss says.
Is that why they’re trying to restrict birth control and sex education while saying people need to have more kids, so there will be fewer poor people?
They’re trying to increase the number of white babies born, and reduce the numbers of _everyone else. _
They need people to produce more babies to fuel the wars that they keep starting to keep the population in check.
Checkmate, liberal! /s