[dead]
Do you want the government to do anything, good, bad whatever?
You gotta pay your bribe and the folks doing it will likely be cronies.
Maybe you're not from the US, or maybe you are haven't been paying attention, but during the entire election the party that won told us this is exactly what they were going to do.
Where are you getting that impression? Sincerely curious, it seems to me most either don't offer an opinion or are in favor. Even in this comment section (or any other similar one on HN recently) you see people more or less saying this is a correct response to some covid conspiracy theory they're into. I would love for the right to turn on trump but I frankly haven't been seeing it, over this or any other issue.
That doesn’t mean I understand wtf is going on in RFK Jr.’s mind.
Trump is the autocrat of the bunch. I understand his thinking. He is just the enormous parasite all the other little parasites are feeding off of, but that doesn’t explain anything. I need more information on … actually I don’t. The entire party is corrupt. There’s no way to know their rationale other than “scrambling for power” I guess.
This decision follows identification and documentation of personnel issues involving contract staff that compromised the facility’s safety culture, prompting this research pause.
https://arstechnica.com/health/2025/04/rfk-jr-s-anti-vaccine...
The author of the article, Beth Mole, has a PhD in microbiology and her writing is generally detailed and pretty good. I hope he doesn't really not believe in germ theory, but if that's the case, it explains a lot of the decisions he's making.
As I see it he's talked about looking for environmental causes. This seems the opposite of genetic. Or do you see a different perspective?
RFK Jr.’s statements on autism go beyond a generic interest in environmental causes. He has repeatedly promoted the thoroughly debunked theory that vaccines, especially those containing thimerosal, cause autism. This began with his 2005 Rolling Stone/Salon article Deadly Immunity, which was retracted due to factual inaccuracies. The CDC, WHO, and countless peer reviewed studies have confirmed no link between vaccines and autism.
He also made a widely criticized comment during a January 2024 town hall, saying:
“Kids with autism are never going to write a symphony, they’re never going to win the 100-yard dash at the Olympics, they’re never going to pay taxes.” (Source: People Magazine, April 2024)
That kind of blanket characterization isn’t just false, it’s dehumanizing. Plenty of autistic individuals work, pay taxes, and thrive. I’d say a sizable minority of posters on HN are somewhere on the spectrum.
His statements on autism are part of a pattern: RFK Jr. has pushed for a national autism registry and appointed controversial figures like David Geier, who has faced sanctions for unethical autism “treatments” and also pushed vaccine-autism claims.
So it’s not just a different research focus, it’s a history of promoting discredited and harmful views while stigmatizing autistic people.
That’s not constructive, and it’s not in line with Hacker News’s guidelines for honest, good faith discussion, which is in line with your previous behavior on HN.
Eugenics today isn’t just about forced sterilization or selective breeding. Eugenics is a policy or ideology that seeks to reduce or eliminate traits deemed undesirable typically through systemic surveillance, control, or intervention based on a belief that certain lives or characteristics are less valuable or worthy.
That includes portraying a group as a burden, building systems to track them, and promoting ways to suppress or eliminate the trait.
RFK Jr.’s actions match this because:
He publicly described autistic people as non-functional and burdensome. In January 2024, he said:
“These are kids who will never pay taxes, never hold a job, never go out on a date.”
This isn’t a one-off gaffe, it was part of a broader argument for policy action. That kind of language has always been the first step in eugenic thinking: define a group as a drain on society.
He proposed a national autism registry.
His HHS floated plans to aggregate autism diagnosis, medical history, and behavioral data into a federal database. The Autistic Self Advocacy Network and other disability rights groups condemned it as “deplorable” and eugenic because historically, surveillance of marginalized populations has paved the way for coercive or exclusionary policies.
He appointed David Geier to autism research leadership. Geier is not just “controversial”, he lost his medical license for administering Lupron (a hormone-blocking drug) to autistic children. That treatment was rightly deemed unethical and dangerous. RFK Jr. giving him influence signals approval of the idea that autism is something to be chemically suppressed.
This is a pattern.
First define a group as broken.
Then, build infrastructure to monitor them.
Finally, promote discredited interventions aimed at erasing the trait.
That fits the actual operational definition of eugenics in 2025. Whether or not RFK Jr. uses the word is irrelevant.
And no, this is not misrepresenting him. Everything above is sourced directly from his public statements, government proposals, and appointments.
When you respond by waving it all away as “not relevant” or “just looking into causes,” without actually refuting a single point, you’re not having a real conversation. You’re dodging. That’s what makes your posts frustrating, and arguably against the spirit of this site. Thoughtful, evidence driven discussion, not rhetorical evasion.
I find all your gate keeping comments ironic given your own post history - which at a glance seems largely argumentative. Anyway, they're inaccurate - People can not have the same opinion as you and be genuine.
If you produced credible points, I'd respond. So far I just see politics. Sorry if that's not what you want to hear.
You claimed the quotes I cited are cherry-picked or out of context, but didn’t explain how. That’s just hand-waving. If there’s something inaccurate about them, point it out. Otherwise, saying “it’s all subjective” is just the typical maga evasion bs.
And finally you said if I made credible points, you’d respond… after ignoring multiple sourced, factual examples already given. You sound like a Markov chain Fox News talking point generator.
That kind of posture, where nothing is ever quite good enough to warrant engagement, is exactly the sort of bad-faith behavior we expect from conservative trolls.
If you disagree, fine. But engage with the content, not just the framing.
I heard what I wanted to hear, a confirmation you’re posting to troll and spread misinformation, not actually engage.
That the guy talked about autism as causing suffering and people to miss out (I'm paraphrasing obviously), and thus understanding / curing it is worth doing, doesn't sound like with eugenics to me. That's what I would expect of anyone looking to work in health frankly. Considering his background this makes sense. You can listen to him talk - at length - about the groups of people who came to him for representation regarding autism and health impacts. Autism is broad, and you don't get to gate keep it.
Look at another way. Although there are many high functioning autists (I might guess both of us), there are people who are debilitatingly handicapped. Many non-autistic and autistic people do want to understand more about autism. Since it isn't fully understood what (if anything) causes it. I don't think you need to make it political.
Pushing the knowledge field forward is what science does. It does so not caring about biases (like what seems in your thread to be political). By the way, I'm not maga/conservative, nor a fox news watcher, 1920s textbook reader, or even american. You can throw mud all you like, so far none of it sticks and I think reduces your credibility. Better would be to just make meritocratic arguments.
(All of it? Well, yeah, can't argue with that.)