Did the snakes end up in RFK’s freezer?
I think it’s absolutely safe to bet cash that RFK Jr. at least hoped to eat the snakes.
You just know he thought about it.
Yeah. No doubt there’s some specialized term in abnormal psychology for an obsession with animals—ingesting them, tinkering with their bodies, etc.
Whatever it is: he’s got it.
So you’re saying the guy with worms on his brain has worms on his brain?
While Zoophilia generally refers to sexual obsession with animals, can we really say that RFK’s obsession isn’t sexual?
I do not think we can really say that.
(In a world that has produced dozens of books on Junior’s father and uncle, surely there will wind up being at least ONE dozen on his own peculiar history and makeup…)
It’s called Renfield Syndrome.
I know you’re kidding, but I propose we name it “RFK is Fucking Loonie Syndrome.”
Yes, with embedded profanity. FTW!
“Renfield” and “Fucking Loonie” both seem wholly appropriate for this guy.
Just a reminder of his qualifications:
Yes, the only reason we know there’s a dead worm in RFK Jr.'s brain is that HE revealed it. (As a means of making sure his soon-to-be ex-wife got no alimony.)
Whadda guy.
Yep, and he provided zero evidence that it was true. He made it all up. Same with his claim that he was poisoned from eating too much tuna (several times a week, I think?) and would be unable to earn money.
Brain damaged from too much drug use seems way more plausible. They are not mutually exclusive, of course.
I’m just going with self-serving pathological liar, combined with a family name that gives him a degree of gravitas.
If you thought Kennedy was done sabotaging the scientific and medical community and harming American’s health care, you were mistaken. This administration simply cannot allow anyone with scientific or medical expertise to be in charge of anything related to medicine or science.
Clinical laboratories, including hospital laboratories, are regulated by the Centers for Medicaid Services which is a division of Health and Human Services. Clinical labs do a lot of complex testing which underpins medical decisions that can have life-or-death implications. As such, they operate under very strict regulations as far as quality control, accreditation, documentation and personnel qualifications. In particular, a laboratory director of a high-complexity clinical lab must have an MD or a PhD in a laboratory science, be board-certified, have a number of years of experience and perform continuing education requirements. It goes without saying that this is to ensure that such labs are run by people who know what they are doing and who can maintain the quality of the testing and compliance with regulations.
CMS is now proposing that laboratory directors don’t really need any qualifications. As long as you have an MD or a PhD, no other experience needed, except a few CE credits on what laboratories do. The PhD doesn’t even need to be a science degree, as long as you took a few science courses in there somewhere.
This is absolutely appalling. Laboratory director of a high-complexity lab that provides data to make life-or-death decisions is not an entry-level job. But CMS is now claiming it’s basically an administrative position that does mostly paperwork and so anybody fresh out of grad school can do it. Various professional groups are up in arms about this proposed rule. It may seem a bit obscure, but putting unqualified people in charge of the laboratories that support the nation’s health care is an idiotic idea. But it does denigrate expertise and training, which is what HHS is all about these days. 
I’m not sure how far to go in providing links to disprove this dangerous self-satisfied nonsense.