Eric Feigl-Ding Calls for Robert F. Kennedy Jr. to be "Fired or Impeached and Removed"

Eric Feigl-Ding, a prominent public health advocate and epidemiologist, recently issued a stark call for Robert F. Kennedy Jr. to be "fired or impeached and removed" in a social media post. Shared on November 8, 2025, Feigl-Ding's direct demand signals a continued escalation in the ongoing public health debate surrounding Kennedy's influential, albeit controversial, stances on medical science and policy. The tweet, marked as the third point in a presumed larger argument, underscores deep-seated frustrations among public health experts.

Known for his vocal commentary on global health crises, Dr. Feigl-Ding has consistently challenged what he identifies as misinformation, particularly concerning vaccines and public health measures. His past critiques of Kennedy have frequently highlighted the latter's long-standing advocacy against established vaccination protocols and his promotion of various alternative health theories. This latest social media intervention aligns with Feigl-Ding's consistent efforts to counter narratives he deems detrimental to public health.

Robert F. Kennedy Jr. concluded an independent bid for the U.S. Presidency in 2024, ultimately not securing the nation's highest office. Despite his unsuccessful campaign, Kennedy remains a highly visible public figure, actively engaging in advocacy, media appearances, and environmental litigation. Given his current status outside of a formal governmental role, the call for him to be "fired or impeached" is widely interpreted as a rhetorical demand for his discrediting or removal from public influence, rather than a literal legal or political process.

Kennedy's public profile is largely defined by his skepticism towards government health agencies and pharmaceutical companies, often questioning the safety and efficacy of vaccines. These views have placed him at odds with the scientific consensus and organizations like the CDC and WHO. Dr. Feigl-Ding's persistent opposition reflects concerns among public health professionals that such influential voices can undermine public trust in science and potentially impact public health outcomes.

The heated exchange between a public health expert and a prominent activist highlights the deep divisions within public discourse concerning scientific authority and health policy. Feigl-Ding's explicit demand reflects a growing frustration among some professionals with the continued amplification of views they consider harmful or misinformed. Such calls often spark further debate about free speech, accountability, and the responsibilities of public figures in shaping critical health narratives.