In an event in New York during October, Donald Trump made a declaration to enthusiastic supporters, pledging that were he to be elected, Robert F. Kennedy Jr. would be given a broad mandate in the areas of health, food, and medicinal policy. This promise was greeted with great cheer from his listeners, many of whom envisioned an overhaul in the health sector and a revolution in medical services. However, what lies ahead may not meet their high expectations. Even those who should know better have expressed implicit approval. There’s a prevailing view that American health care has reached a dangerous reliance on medications to treat every discomfort, rather than addressing underlying issues related to environment, culture, and behavior.
In the eventuality of his confirmation, we won’t merely receive the small fraction of Kennedy’s propositions that are rational – about 3%; we may also need to grapple with the vast majority – around 97% – that are irrational. It’s not just that Kennedy is misinformed; it’s that he plays an active role in spreading misinformation. This signals a significant issue with his character. Appointing him to steer health policy for this nation is akin to hiring a pyromaniac to lead a firefighting outfit.
Measles stands as one of the communicable diseases with the highest transmission rate among humans. Historically, it claimed the lives of approximately 500 American lives annually. In Samoa, the year 2019 witnessed an alarming rise in measles cases originating from a mistake and a fabricated story. In 2018, two nurses in Samoa erroneously coupled components for a measles, mumps and rubella (MMR) vaccine, causing fatalities in two infants. The pair later pleaded guilty to charges of involuntary manslaughter.
Consequently, lies were spread, instigated by RFK Jr., who has maintained the unfounded myth that the MMR vaccine results in autism, peanut allergies, among other disorders. A film around that time had compelled Samoans to resist getting their children vaccinated. Following the tragic fatalities of the two babies, RFK Jr. made a visit to Samoa in 2019, interacting with local skeptics of vaccination and suggesting that the MMR vaccine contained a mutant strain which caused the then increasing epidemic.
Soon after, an estimated 3% of Samoa’s population came down with the infection. Among infants aged 6 to 11 months, the infection rate was a startling 20%. The death toll exceeded 150. While anti-vaccine rhetoric has become a characteristic aspect of Kennedy’s career, it merely scratches the surface of his penchant for eccentric ideas.
Kennedy has publicly committed to halting FDA’s ‘war’ on raw milk. Recently, unpasteurized milk and cheese have been implicated in various outbreaks of foodborne illnesses, including Salmonella and E. coli. Moreover, he has speculated the potential threats of Wi-Fi such as cancer and ‘leaky brain’, and suggested an association between school shootings and antidepressant medication. This tendency to imagine pervasive, covert forces controlling things is a predominant trait.
As the secretary of Health and Human Services, the jurisdiction of RFK Jr. would span over agencies including FDA, CDC, NIH, Public Health Service Commissioned Corps, and Indian Health Service. Kennedy’s personal choices, such as frying his fries in beef fat and drinking raw milk, are entirely his own. However, no rational person should take his health recommendations to heart, much less grant him a controlling role over governmental bodies that regulate our food and medicines.
He envisions himself as a chivalrous knight on a mission, but ironically, his proposed ‘treatments’ involve annulling some of the significant scientific advancements ever made. These include pasteurization, vaccination, and scientific methodology to discover truth. Such propositions should be carefully reconsidered before appointing him to a position of such influence and importance.
Individuals cheering at the rally for better health services and medicine may be in for a bitter surprise, considering his questionable stance on major health policies. It’s important to note that these supporters were hoping for a better health-care system that fosters wellness with fewer inductions of medication and a stronger focus on holistic elements. Regrettably, Kennedy’s appointment may not be the panacea they anticipated.
To confront the country’s deep-seated health care problems, tackling significant aspects such as environmental factors, cultural practices, and behavioral issues indeed require attention. Yet, Kennedy’s strategies seem to veer alarmingly off this path. Is it really prudent to risk 97% of his unconventional policies for that 3% that admittedly make sense?
American health care’s fate in Kennedy’s hands presents more than the threat of his misinformation. Questions arise on his intent and conduct. It might not be palatable to imagine the potential outcomes if someone predisposed to misinformation had the reins of our health policy. Equating it to the analogy of an arsonist leading a fire department may be closer to truth than we would like to admit.
Along with pushing misconceptions about measles vaccines and their alleged link to autism and allergies, Kennedy’s chain of peculiarities includes a charged stand against the FDA’s stance on raw milk, Wi-Fi’s potential health risks, and a direct correlation between antidepressants and violent school events. This consistent pattern of unconventional beliefs underscores a deeper issue that cannot be ignored.
In his capacity as Secretary of Health and Human Services, Kennedy would be empowered to supervise vital organizations such as the FDA, CDC, NIH, and others. Is it wise to sanction such authoritative power to someone advocating health strategies that contradict established scientific research?
While one might admire his self-titled chivalry in fighting against perceived injustices, it’s critical to analyze the consequences of proposed ‘remedies’. Some of the world’s greatest scientific and medical achievements like pasteurization and vaccines may stand to be undone by his unconventional methods.
Ultimately, a thorough consideration is necessary before providing someone with such controversial views a powerful platform. The potential ramifications of entrusting our food and medication regulations to someone wielding such beliefs could reverberate through generations to come.