Anti-Science Candidates: A Closer Look at Democratic Contenders
Written on
Chapter 1: Ignoring Scientific Consensus
In the current heated political atmosphere, it can be challenging to concentrate on a specific aspect of the U.S. presidential election. However, I aim to highlight candidates who disregard established scientific consensus. These individuals often reject logic and factual evidence for ideological reasons.
The refusal to acknowledge reality yields no benefits, yet this is a choice many politicians make. Among the Democratic candidates, two stand out in this regard.
Robert F. Kennedy Jr.
Kennedy is known for his anti-vaccine stance, which is not supported by medical science. His extreme opposition to vaccinations is alarming; he once described the act of vaccinating children as akin to a holocaust. He has consistently raised concerns about thimerosal, a mercury-based preservative in some vaccines, while endorsing the thoroughly discredited idea that vaccines lead to autism.
Despite an abundance of studies confirming the safety of thimerosal, Kennedy chooses to ignore them. He overlooks that the chemical was removed from vaccines for children in 2001 due to unfounded fears, and there was no corresponding decrease in autism rates.
In a 2005 television interview, Kennedy falsely claimed that American children received 24 vaccines containing thimerosal, leading to mercury exposure levels 400 times above what the FDA and EPA deem safe. Both statements were incorrect; thimerosal was not present in children's vaccines at that time, and the CDC recommended only eight vaccines.
In 2020, he spread misinformation about 5G technology, alleging it causes cancer and weakens the immune system. He also promoted unproven treatments for COVID-19, such as ivermectin and hydroxychloroquine, despite a lack of credible evidence.
In 2021, he earned the dubious title of being one of "The Disinformation Dozen" regarding vaccines, as designated by the Center for Countering Digital Hate. He continues to propagate false claims, such as blaming gun violence on psychiatric medications like Prozac, without any substantial evidence.
Summary: If Kennedy were to become president, it would spell disaster for public health, as he espouses dangerous, unfounded beliefs that could severely impact the well-being of U.S. citizens.
Marianne Williamson
I characterize Williamson as a "Kennedy-lite," sharing similar views but lacking the same intensity. At one point, she referred to vaccination mandates as "draconian" and "Orwellian," only to later retract her statement. Following her apology, she expressed mistrust towards both sides of the vaccination debate, leaving one to wonder what she considers "propaganda"—is it the information from the CDC that she questions?
In an MSNBC interview, she noted that childhood vaccinations were fewer in her youth, alongside a perceived decline in chronic illnesses among children. This insinuates a correlation without any scientific backing.
Williamson inaccurately stated on Facebook that vaccines are the only medical products exempt from the rigorous safety testing required for other drugs. In reality, vaccines undergo extensive testing in laboratories and clinical trials before they are approved for public use.
When questioned about her advisors on vaccine policy, she mentioned Jim Turner, a lawyer known for his anti-vaccine litigation history. This association further solidifies her anti-vaccine stance, despite her claims to the contrary. In her book, "A Return to Love," she posited that "sickness is an illusion," suggesting that diseases like cancer and AIDS stem from psychological disturbances. This perspective reflects a troubling blend of victim-blaming and mysticism.
At one point, she called clinical depression a "scam," later retracting that statement. She has also made unsubstantiated claims about antidepressants numbing individuals and has linked them to suicides without evidence.
Summary: Williamson’s beliefs are in stark contrast to scientific consensus. Despite her assertions to the contrary, her record clearly indicates a disregard for established science. It appears she may believe her spiritual insights surpass empirical evidence—a notion that is not suitable for a presidential candidate.
As of now, President Biden remains the only other Democratic candidate with a commendable track record on scientific matters.
Chapter 2: Republican Anti-Science Candidates
The first video, "The Democrats must find a new presidential candidate fast to ward off a second Trump term | DW News," examines the urgency for the Democratic Party to identify a viable presidential candidate to avoid losing to Trump again.
The second video, "Harris vs. Trump: Nate Silver's 2024 Election Forecast | Amanpour and Company," provides insights into the electoral dynamics between Vice President Harris and former President Trump as the 2024 election approaches.
In the subsequent article, we will explore the Republican candidates who similarly reject scientific evidence. Prepare yourself for a wave of ignorance that may be overwhelming.