RFK and the Silencing of Debate

The same year that Copernicus published his book asserting that the sun and not the earth was the center of the solar system, a Belgian doctor named Andreas Vesalius published an illustrated anatomy textbook, On the Fabric of the Human Body, that would result in a paradigm shift in medicine as impactful as Copernicus’ was in cosmology. It was 1543, and the doctors of the time still held sacred the teachings of the ancient Roman physician Galen. 

Galen himself had revolutionized the medical practice of his time, publishing more than 125 books detailing his knowledge based on his experience treating gladiators. What he lacked, however, was a complete understanding of human anatomy. Although Galen had completed numerous animal dissections, the Romans forbade human dissection.

The practice was still frowned upon in Vesalius’ time. What need was there to dissect human corpses when Galen described them in such perfect detail? When evidence from dissection clearly differed from what Galen described, it was the corpse before them and not Galen’s descriptions that were declared to be flawed. Vesalius proved the need for these dissections was great indeed: via his own study of human bodies, Vesalius discovered over 200 mistakes in Galen’s supposedly flawless texts.  

Rather than correct their errant teachings, the doctors of Vesalius’ time rejected his work. They preferred to cling to medical dogma despite what was right in front of their eyes: contrary evidence that could be easily attained through simple dissection. Even Vesalius’ own mentor, Sylvius, published a book denouncing him as a “madman.” Although Vesalius’ work would eventually come to be recognized as among the top ten most important events in medical science, he did not live to see his work vindicated.

As Robert F. Kennedy Jr. undergoes the rigors of his Senate confirmation hearing, the parallels are undeniable. Headlines abound to discredit RFK, an outsider lacking the medical expertise to weigh in on topics like vaccine safety. Despite having repeatedly iterated that he is not anti-vax, RFK’s opponents insist on characterizing him as such. 

Conspiracy theorists will say that this is propaganda designed to keep the powerful in power and suppress the truth about vaccines that are making our children sick. Pragmatists like Calley Means will insist that we follow the money; RFK’s call for further testing of the CDC vaccine schedule will almost certainly take its toll on Big Pharma’s bottom line. While both of these scenarios are possibilities, it is also plausible that something else is at play here, something even more basic to our humanity than our greed: the instinct to enforce social conformity. 

The history of medicine could be written in terms of thinkers who refused to accept “settled science,” who dared to question and investigate, even when their communities insisted that they weren’t qualified to ask questions. Nearly every single one of medicine’s top ten developments faced scrutiny, mockery, and disbelief. The doctors, chemists, and laymen who made these discoveries were unilaterally forced to defend not only their discoveries but their personal character against scathing criticism from friends, colleagues, and the medical and scientific communities of their day. 

While new treatments and methods should be rigorously tested and investigated, their discoverers should not be demonized. Will we ever learn that silencing dissent over so-called “settled science” never serves science—or humanity—well? 

Questioning Medical Dogma

As Vesalius’ discoveries in human anatomy were transforming medical practice in Europe, a French barber-surgeon named Ambroise Paré was experimenting with new surgical methods on French battlefields. In Paré’s day, there were no anesthetics. A surgeon’s skill was judged by his speed. Surgeons would amputate limbs that could not be saved and cauterize them with a hot iron as swiftly as possible. Soldiers often survived amputation only to die of shock from the sheer pain of the hot iron. Paré theorized that delicate silk threads might be used to tie off blood vessels. 

It would be years before Paré’s discovery could be published and widely disseminated. Parisian surgeons discouraged other doctors and barber-surgeons from attempting Paré’s novel methods and fought publication of his book on legal grounds. He was not a doctor, and his book offered practical tips in plain language rather than repeating the accepted methods of the day. Though he would never receive a medical degree, Paré would go on to be named “First Surgeon of the King” in 1562. 

In the early 1600s, English doctor William Harvey published On the Motion of the Heart and Blood, detailing his discovery of the circulatory nature of blood pumped by the human heart. He, too, was ridiculed as “crack brained” and would only be vindicated four years after his death with the invention of the microscope by Marcello Malpighi in 1661. Though Harvey could not explain how, he had posited that blood must flow from the arteries to the veins to make its way back to the heart. The microscope allowed doctors to see these tiny blood vessels, which would come to be named capillaries, connecting the arteries and veins. 

In 1677, self-taught Dutch scientists Antonie van Leeuwenhoek constructed microscopes as a hobby in the back room of his dry goods store. He wrote to the Royal Society of England detailing his discovery of millions of tiny animals made visible only through the lenses of his microscopes. Years would pass before the Society would accept his discovery. When Leeuwenhoek was finally accepted as a member, his neighbors denounced him for wasting time on silly hobbies while sickness plagued the community. It would be 200 years before his discovery would uncover the cause of the bubonic plague. 

The history of medical discoveries continues much in this same vein. Discoveries are sheer madness—until they aren’t. William Morton was openly mocked at his demonstration of the first painless surgery using ether gas. Surgeon Philip Semmelweis was demoted for insisting that his trainee doctors wash their hands to prevent the spread of childbed fever. When lowly chemist Louis Pasteur observed microbes as the cause of disease in silkworms and suggested that they might likewise be the cause of human disease, the doctors of his day called Pasteur a “quack.” Joseph Lister insisted on sterilizing bandages, a practice that the Munich hospital declared a “waste of money”—until their patient death rates went from four in five to one in 200.  Discoveries are sheer madness—until they aren’t. Tweet This

Cautious Adoption

It goes the other way, too. António Egas Moniz received the Nobel Prize for the lobotomy in 1949, a procedure that rose in popularity almost as quickly as it was discovered to be barbaric—not simply ineffective but actively harmful. I believe we are on the verge of a similar reversal in popularity of gender transition surgeries as more detransitioners come forward sharing their stories of mangled bodies, stolen fertility, and coerced consent. 

But this is precisely the point: when adopting “revolutionary” medicine, when we fail to do so cautiously, we proceed at our own peril. This was the case with the x-ray. When Wilhem Conrad Röntgen received the Nobel Prize for the x-ray in 1901, thinkers like Thomas Edison urged caution regarding the widespread implementation of their use. In the early days, x-rays were used even for amusement in carnival funhouses. This lack of caution led to many needlessly suffering radiation burns. 

When the Nobel Prize was awarded in 1945 for penicillin, doctors believed for at least a decade that they were seeing the advent of a cure for all diseases. Now we know that antibiotics have a more complicated story: in addition to saving lives, their overuse produces resistant strains that limit their effectiveness; and when they eliminate pathogens, they also indiscriminately kill the good bacteria our bodies need to function properly. 

Reasonable Doubt

Despite media insistence that vaccine safety is “settled science,” public doubt persists. Mark Zuckerberg’s recent admissions to the public prove that voices have been suppressed. When RFK calls for caution and further safety testing of the CDC schedule of vaccines, he is called a madman and a danger to public health. Why should it be controversial when President Trump announces that particular vaccines should be eliminated “if they’re dangerous for the children”? 

If vaccine proponents are so certain about the safety of the products, what do they have to fear from further scrutiny? However satisfied proponents might be with the conclusions of previous studies, these haven’t been enough to satisfy naysayers nor to sway public opinion. In fact, a new study by the Annenberg Public Policy Center shows that American support for compulsory childhood vaccinations is dwindling, and opposition is growing. Sidelining and demonizing opposing opinion is unlikely to facilitate trust or ensure compliance. 

It would be foolish to abolish vaccines or claim they do no good. As the history of medicine shows us, it is likewise foolish to assume that the full CDC schedule of vaccines can be adopted and any number of future vaccines safely added. Safety in medicine should never be assumed but always rigorously tested. Without such testing, we cannot claim that there is evidence for the safety of the CDC schedule in its entirety. 

Double-blind placebo-controlled trials have not yet been conducted to assess the safety of the full schedule because such studies are ethically complex. The general consensus is that it is unethical to randomly assign some children to receive protection from disease via vaccines and to withhold that protection from others.  

These ethical difficulties do not excuse the medical and scientific communities from establishing the safety of the full CDC schedule of vaccines. If it isn’t ethical to properly study the safety of the schedule, how can it be ethical to require an entire generation of children (as states like California do) to treatments that are untested in their full implementation and, therefore, the safety of which cannot be conclusively evaluated? 

Can we not agree that Americans should have the right to ask these questions and advocate for these studies without being vilified? 

A Path Forward: Scientifically Assessing the Full CDC Schedule

Rather than relying on ethically fraught double-blind, placebo-controlled trials or imperfect population studies, a more rigorous and ethically sound approach to assessing the full CDC vaccine schedule would involve large-scale, prospective, longitudinal cohort studies. These studies would follow children from birth, documenting their health outcomes while accounting for natural variation in vaccine uptake. By using advanced statistical methods to control for confounding factors like genetics, socioeconomic status, and environmental exposures, researchers could identify potential patterns of risk and benefit without withholding vaccines from any group.

Additionally, expanding the Vaccine Safety Datalink (VSD) to systematically compare different vaccine schedules would provide real-world evidence from electronic health records, reducing bias and improving long-term safety assessments. 

Biomarker research and immune profiling could further enhance our understanding of individual vaccine responses, paving the way for more personalized recommendations. Adaptive trial designs that compare different vaccination schedules could also offer critical insights into optimizing immunization timing and spacing.

These scientifically rigorous methods would allow us to address public concerns about vaccine safety while upholding ethical standards. If the current schedule is as safe and effective as claimed, further research should only confirm its benefits. If risks exist, identifying them now could prevent unnecessary harm. In either case, prioritizing transparency and robust science over blind adherence to medical consensus will foster trust and ensure that public health policies are based on the best available evidence.

From Compliance to Agency

Throughout history, those who challenge the medical status quo face not only the justifiable scrutiny of their ideas but the demonization of their character. RFK Jr. is no exception. His position on vaccines is not about denying science but about restoring the fundamental right of individuals and families to make informed medical decisions for themselves. 

If vaccines are as safe and effective as claimed, what harm is there in further testing? The real threat is to the pharmaceutical industry, which currently enjoys immunity from liability under the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act and benefits from a CDC schedule that guarantees mass compliance. Mass compliance generates massive profit. Physicians, patients, and society as a whole stand to gain from a medical paradigm that prioritizes transparency, better science, and restored trust.

No medical treatment should ever be compulsory. The claim that “the risk is worth the benefit” is a personal calculation—one that, in every other area of medicine, belongs to the patient and their family. Vaccine mandates shift that decision by taking power away from individuals, forcing one group to accept risks for the sake of another. A truly just society does not sacrifice individual rights for collective security. Instead, it upholds the freedom upon which all medical ethics—and our nation—is built.

Rather than dismissing RFK Jr., we should listen. We should move forward with rigorous testing of the full CDC vaccine schedule. Reliable data will either confirm the schedule’s safety, which would provide welcome reassurance, or it will prevent another generation of children from being subjected to medical interventions their families have not consented to. Either way, history teaches us that medical progress requires questioning assumptions not silencing dissent. Can we not, at last, give sound logic the benefit of the doubt?

[Photo Credit: Shutterstock]