Science has been for sale for a while.

This is an excellent article; an easy read and a devastating critique of not only the 77 Laureates but, by clear implication, anyone who argues against transparency, free speech, and other issues raised by RFK Jr. These Laureates are using appeals to authority in place of honest, fact-based arguments.

As has been pointed out by others, today's "Nobel Laureates" include many who are without integrity and who support the corrupt Establishment rather than honest scientific values and principles.

From the article:

The letter is striking in its lack of substantive engagement with the issues it purports to address. While it leverages the collective prestige of its signatories, it fails to provide a detailed or evidence-based critique of RFK Jr.’s positions. Instead, it relies on vague assertions, appeals to authority, and dismissive rhetoric, leaving its arguments hollow and unconvincing.

The letter broadly accuses RFK Jr. of being "anti-science" without addressing the specific concerns he has raised about public health policies, regulatory oversight, and vaccine safety. For instance, RFK Jr. has consistently highlighted the need for transparency in vaccine safety data, the ethical implications of informed consent, and the pervasive issue of regulatory capture within public health agencies. Yet the letter does not engage with these critiques or attempt to refute them with evidence. This omission suggests either a lack of understanding of his arguments or an unwillingness to confront them directly.

Moreover, the letter fails to provide concrete examples of harm caused by RFK Jr.’s advocacy or specific rebuttals to his claims. Instead, it relies on generalized statements about the importance of science and public health, offering no substantive analysis of how RFK Jr.’s policies would jeopardize these principles. This lack of analytical rigor is surprising and disappointing for a document signed by such a distinguished group of individuals.

The absence of constructive dialogue further underscores the letter’s lack of substance. Rather than proposing ways to address public concerns about vaccine safety or improve transparency within regulatory agencies, the letter dismisses RFK Jr.’s critiques outright. This approach undermines its credibility and reinforces the perception that the scientific establishment is unwilling to engage with dissenting viewpoints.

Additionally, the letter makes no effort to address the growing mistrust in public health institutions—a central theme of RFK Jr.’s advocacy. By failing to acknowledge this issue or propose solutions, the Laureates miss an opportunity to demonstrate leadership and offer a path forward. Instead, the letter reads as a defensive statement designed to protect the status quo, rather than a thoughtful response to the legitimate concerns raised by RFK Jr. and others.

The letter’s lack of substance diminishes its impact and raises serious questions about its intent. The letter falls short of defending science or public health without engaging with RFK Jr.’s critiques or offering constructive solutions. Instead, it appears as a superficial appeal to authority, lacking the depth and rigor one would expect from such an esteemed group of scientists. If these Laureates truly wish to uphold the values of science, they must engage with dissenting viewpoints and address public concerns with evidence, transparency, and integrity.