This article is something of a farce, isn't it? Given the revelations about fake papers, fake authors etc, taking the report at face value, as this article does, is a category error.

Given all that, any "key takeaways" will necessarily be meta, examinations of RFKJ's biases, and who would win or lose economically from following the guidance in this report. A takeaway might highlight differences from real science. Another might be who would be harmed medically by its guidance.