RFK Jr. Backtracks

A recent article from Huffington Post states:

Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. — an anti-vaccine conspiracy theorist ― appeared to strike a drastically different tone in a new Fox News op-ed published Sunday, in which he advocated for the MMR vaccine amid a growing measles outbreak in Texas.

The op-ed, titled “Measles Outbreak Is A Call To Action For All Of Us,” carried the subheadline: “MMR Vaccine Is Crucial To Avoiding Potentially Deadly Disease.”

In the piece, Kennedy said he is “deeply concerned” about the outbreak in the South Plains region that’s “claimed the life of a school-aged child, the first measles-related fatality” in America for more than a decade.

Kennedy wrote about the risks of measles “especially to unvaccinated individuals” and acknowledged the previous fatality rate of 1 in 1,205 cases before the introduction of the MMR (measles, mumps and rubella) vaccine in the 1960s.

Vaccines must be “readily accessible for all those who want them,” said the yearslong vaccine skeptic, adding that: “Vaccines not only protect individual children from measles, but also contribute to community immunity, protecting those who are unable to be vaccinated due to medical reasons.”

But Kennedy also said the decision to vaccinate remains “a personal one” and stopped short of urging people to receive them.

Principles Lost

This is a textbook example of someone abandoning their principles the moment it becomes inconvenient, simply to conform to the majority viewpoint. While I believe that vaccines should be available to anyone who wants them—even if that means knowingly putting themselves at risk—I refuse to support the idea that we must surrender to the pressure of public consensus. The ability to make informed choices about one’s own health is a cornerstone of personal freedom, yet we see that principle eroding in favor of collective conformity.

But doesn’t this stance directly contradict the principles we all believed RFK stood for? Wasn’t he the one fighting to remove toxins from our food, to eliminate harmful pollutants from our air and water, and to challenge the industries profiting from public harm? If we recognize that chemical exposure in our environment can have devastating long-term consequences, then why should we turn a blind eye when it comes to medical interventions that alter our biology? The logic is inconsistent. If we demand clean food, clean water, and clean air, should we not also demand clean medicine—free from coercion, deception, and unintended consequences?

Yes, people should have the right to inject themselves or their children with a hundred vaccines if they so choose. But at what point do we draw the line? At what point does the normalization of mass medical intervention cross into reckless disregard for bodily integrity? When does “choice” become submission to social and governmental pressure, driven by fear rather than informed consent?

A truly just society upholds freedom in its most fundamental sense—not just political freedom, but bodily autonomy. Without health sovereignty, can we truly consider ourselves free? If a person’s body is no longer their own, if they are coerced into medical procedures for the sake of public approval or government mandates, then they are not citizens of a free society—they are subjects of a system that dictates what they must do with their own flesh and blood.

To be free is not merely to live without external oppression; it is to exist in a state of true health and vitality, unshackled by chronic disease and artificial dependencies. A sick and weakened population, reliant on constant pharmaceutical intervention, is a population that is easy to control. Real freedom comes from understanding our bodies, nourishing our systems naturally, and rejecting the notion that we must rely on external forces to maintain our well-being.

RFK’s recent stance represents more than just political compromise—it is a betrayal of the very ideals that once set him apart. If we cannot even stand firm in defense of bodily autonomy, then what other rights are we willing to sacrifice in the name of social acceptance?

---

The Religiosity of Pro-Vaccine Advocates

The ardent pro-vaccine advocates have, over time, adopted a level of religiosity that borders on fanaticism. They do not merely view vaccines as a medical intervention—they see them as a sacred rite, an unquestionable pillar of modern civilization, and a moral obligation. To question their efficacy, safety, or necessity is treated as heresy, met not with rational debate but with scorn, ridicule, and excommunication from "polite" society. In this way, the vaccine movement has become less about science and more about dogma, enforced through social pressure and institutional authority.

Like all religious zealots, these advocates demand absolute obedience. Their scripture is the ever-expanding list of recommended injections, their priests are the public health officials and corporate-sponsored scientists who deliver proclamations from on high, and their heretics are those who dare to exercise bodily autonomy. To refuse vaccination is to commit a kind of secular sin—one that justifies punishment in the form of job loss, social ostracization, and public condemnation.

Yet, like all belief systems rooted in blind faith, the pro-vaccine orthodoxy demands total submission without scrutiny. It does not tolerate nuance, nor does it allow for individual health sovereignty. There is little to no room for questioning why chronic illness has skyrocketed despite the ever-growing number of injections. There is no patience for discussions about historical disease cycles, or the role of environmental toxins in weakening the bodily system. Instead, there is only one answer: more vaccines. If sickness persists or returns, it is not because the intervention is flawed—it is because there was not enough compliance.

This kind of religious fervor is particularly dangerous because it grants its adherents a sense of moral superiority. They do not merely view themselves as informed individuals making health choices—they see themselves as saviors of society, warriors against the ignorant and the selfish. In their worldview, the unvaccinated are not simply people with a different perspective; they are villains, enemies of the common good who deserve scorn and punishment, and even death.

But how can a society claim to be just and free when it demands absolute submission to a pharmaceutical dogma? True freedom requires the ability to make health choices without coercion, yet these zealots would have us believe that bodily autonomy is selfish, that questioning authority is dangerous, and that sacrificing individual sovereignty for the "greater good" is not only necessary but virtuous.

This is not science. This is not reason. This is not public health. This is religious fanaticism disguised as progress. And like all oppressive religions throughout history, it will demand more and more control until people finally wake up and refuse to kneel at its altar.

---

The Holistic View

A holistic view is the only truly rational and justifiable way to approach health, because it acknowledges the complexity of the human body, the environment, and the interconnected systems that sustain life. Unlike the narrow, reductionist mindset that dominates modern medicine—where isolated symptoms are attacked with pharmaceutical weapons—a holistic perspective seeks to understand the root causes of disease, the balance of the bodily system, and the role of nature in healing.

The problem with the prevailing medical paradigm is that it operates like a blindfolded mechanic, addressing each malfunctioning part in isolation without understanding how the entire system functions together. Got inflammation? Suppress it. Got a fever? Lower it. Got a chronic condition? Medicate it indefinitely. This approach does not heal; it merely silences the body’s warning signals, driving dysfunction deeper while giving the illusion of control.

A holistic view, by contrast, recognizes that the human body is not a passive vessel waiting for pharmaceutical salvation—it is a self-regulating, self-healing organism when given the proper support. Nutrition, sleep, stress management, movement, exposure to nature—these are not secondary considerations. They are the foundation of health itself. The idea that injecting a series of chemicals into the bloodstream, while ignoring environmental toxins, gut health, and lifestyle factors, will create true immunity is as misguided as believing one can dump pollutants into a river without consequence, then simply filter the water downstream.

Proponents of the vaccine-first, drug-dependent model scoff at this approach because it does not fit their profit-driven, compartmentalized worldview. They dismiss it as pseudoscience while blindly accepting a system that has led to skyrocketing rates of chronic illness, autoimmune disorders, and dependency on synthetic interventions just to maintain a baseline of functionality. And yet, when holistic methods restore health—when nutrient-dense foods reverse disease, when intermittent fasting stimulates cellular repair, when natural exposure to microbes strengthens the body—they have no explanation, because their worldview does not allow for it.

A true understanding of health requires stepping back and seeing the full picture. Disease does not occur in isolation; it arises from imbalances created by poor nutrition, toxic overload, chronic stress, and medical overreach. The answer is not in endlessly intervening with artificial solutions that ignore the body’s innate wisdom. The answer is in aligning with nature, understanding the causes of dysfunction, and restoring balance from within.

To reject a holistic perspective is to reject reality itself. The only way forward is to embrace the undeniable truth: health is not something that comes from a syringe or a pill—it is cultivated through the choices we make every single day.

---

The Real Issue

The real issue with this stance is that it entirely disregards the underlying causes of viral illnesses in the population. People are conditioned to believe that diseases appear out of nowhere and that vaccines are the only viable defense, but this is a shortsighted and flawed view that leads to a vicious cycle of future disease in a population. Vaccines do not address the root causes of illness; they merely suppress symptoms and interfere with the body’s natural immune responses. Worse yet, this suppression can have long-term consequences that are rarely discussed in mainstream discourse. The blind faith in vaccination ignores fundamental questions about why these illnesses manifest in the first place and how they can be prevented through genuine health and immunity, rather than artificial interventions.

Take measles, for instance—a disease that has been relentlessly used to stoke fear and push compliance. A fatality rate of 1 in 1,205 is not something that warrants mass hysteria, yet that is precisely what the media and public health authorities want people to succumb to. The inclusion of children in these fear campaigns is particularly insidious, as they are used as emotional leverage to shut down any dissenting voices. The message is clear: if you question vaccines, you are putting children at risk, which is a manipulative and dishonest way to silence debate.

As for RFK, his recent behavior has been nothing short of erratic. He has been flip-flopping on core issues like a fish out of water, making it increasingly difficult to take him seriously. Besides this, the very fact that he would even consider serving in a Trump administration speaks volumes about the instability of his principles. A man who claims to stand against corporate and government overreach should not be willing to align himself with an administration that epitomizes both. His willingness to compromise so easily is not a sign of strategic thinking—it is a sign of a lack of conviction.

At the end of the day, this is about more than just vaccines. It’s about integrity, consistency, and the ability to stand firm in the face of pressure. Giving in to the majority at the expense of truth is not leadership—it is cowardice.


Please share your thoughts below about RFK Jr.

Jeff Green