By John Q. Hosedrinker 
Dr. Demetre Daskalakis, former Director of the CDC’s National Center for Immunization and Respiratory Diseases, resigned this week, citing concerns about Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr.’s rhetoric. Daskalakis alleged Kennedy’s statements regarding genetics, the H5N1 bird flu, and measles reflect eugenicist ideologies. Kennedy, a vaccine skeptic, has been criticized for potentially implementing policies that contradict scientific consensus and make vaccines harder to obtain. Daskalakis’ resignation letter accused Kennedy of prioritizing political agendas over the well-being of vulnerable populations, while the White House praised Kennedy as a valuable asset to the administration.
Read the original article here
Ex-CDC Official Sounds Alarm on Major RFK Jr. ‘Red Flag’
The alarm bells are ringing, and they’re being rung loudly by a former CDC official. The core of the concern revolves around the actions and statements of Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr., particularly as they relate to his views on public health and, more troublingly, what some perceive as an embrace of eugenicist ideologies. This is not just any critique; it comes from someone who once held a key leadership position within the very institution tasked with safeguarding the nation’s health.
Specifically, the former CDC official, Dr. Demetre Daskalakis, is quoted as saying that Secretary Kennedy’s remarks have created serious concern. His words highlight instances where Kennedy has seemingly expressed beliefs in “superior genetics,” using examples like comments about individuals within the administration and their purported health improvements. Such statements, according to Daskalakis, are directly indicative of eugenics, an idea that America needs to “wake up” to. The issue raised by Daskalakis, is that RFK Jr. has shared opinions about bird flu, and measles, and his views on these topics are not backed by science.
The scientist’s assessment also extends to the practical implications of Kennedy’s policies. The former CDC official, who resigned in protest of decisions made under the current administration, stated that Kennedy’s rhetoric is dangerous. This suggests a fundamental disagreement on the importance of scientific rigor and evidence-based decision-making, raising concerns about the future of public health under Kennedy’s leadership. It is not the goal here to discuss the possible effects of these decisions but it is clear that there is unease in the medical community.
One of the most alarming examples highlighted by Daskalakis is a statement reportedly made by Kennedy regarding the H5N1 bird flu outbreak. Kennedy is alleged to have suggested that all chickens should contract the flu, with only the “genetically superior” surviving and reproducing. This perspective, Daskalakis argues, is fundamentally flawed and contrary to scientific understanding. Further, the former CDC official noted that Kennedy has made statements regarding measles, specifically that only the strong will survive. This opinion goes against the belief that getting the infection makes one’s immune system stronger, when in fact, it makes the immune system weaker.
The controversy surrounding RFK Jr. is further compounded by his well-known skepticism of vaccines, and by the fact that it is reported that he is likely to ban the COVID-19 vaccine in coming months. This position, combined with his influence over HHS policies, has reportedly already made vaccinations more difficult and more expensive to obtain. This leads to the claim that there has been a ‘brain drain’ of top federal scientists that accelerated after the abrupt firing of the former CDC director. These scientists have stated that the administration is not listening to the experts, and are being influenced by other people.
Beyond the specific policy concerns, the former CDC official raises serious questions about Kennedy’s qualifications for the position. He claims that the Secretary’s lack of scientific expertise and apparent disregard for expert advice are deeply troubling. This isn’t just about disagreeing on policy; it’s about questioning the very foundations of the decision-making process within a critical agency like the HHS. This isn’t how it should work in the United States, as a qualified scientist should brief the secretary and advise what the appropriate actions should be.
The concerns are not exclusive to former CDC officials. There is clearly opposition amongst some within the medical community and in the larger public sphere. The issue is a perceived lack of qualifications, and the potential impact on public health policy and the integrity of scientific research.
The former CDC official’s warning is a call to action, urging a critical examination of the Secretary’s views and their implications. With the current administration already in place, it raises questions about what the government is going to do about the fact that the policies of the administration appear to not be based on science.