It has come to my attention that a group of distinguished Nobel laureates have penned an open letter advocating against Robert F. Kennedy Jr.’s proposed appointment as the head of the Department of Health and Human Services in the U.S. This endeavor appears to be a bold leap beyond their own academic boundaries in an effort to constrain President-elect Donald Trump’s decision to put a pro-measles advocate at the helm of American healthcare.
Given that none out of these 77 Nobel laureates might have had the opportunity to witness the purported health perks of consuming raw milk or daring to savour what could be roadkill bear meat, their competence to engage in discourse regarding public health, relative to Kennedy’s, is put into question. One can only wish that these meticulously learned individuals possessing accolades in disciplines such as medicine, chemistry, economics, and physics devoted their time to further research rather than judging a man whose thinking may be partially clouded.
Their memorably critical reference to Kennedy’s unwavering belief that vaccine scientists deserve imprisonment befuddles them, but perhaps this reflects a radical alternate approach to traditional scientific understanding.
In their fervent letter, these eminent scholars state their concerns concisely, duly noting Kennedy’s lack of necessary credentials, relevant experience in crucial fields such as medicine, science, public health or administration, and most importantly, his openly antagonistic attitude towards certain vaccines instrumental in preventing diseases such as measles and polio.
They shed light on his critique of the well-established and beneficial course of drinking water fluoridation, and his championing of conspiracy theories that call into question the efficacy of widely accepted treatments for AIDS and other serious ailments. They underscore his somewhat abrasive demeanour towards respected agencies.
Albeit, when all these points are collectively weighed, it indeed does paint a questionable portrait. However, my vexation lies with the recurring theme of educated elites keen on presenting irrefutable facts to establish a narrative rooted in public interest.
In the words of Katie Miller, a representative of Trump’s transition team, ‘Americans are weary of the elites instructing them on their actions and dictating rules. Our healthcare system is direly compromised. Mr. Kennedy stands to execute President Trump’s agenda to rejuvenate the dependability of our healthcare and Make America Healthy Again.’
The ongoing battle against reality doesn’t cease to amaze, with the propounding narrative of a ‘sickness’ that warrants a ‘medicine’ prescribed by a ‘doctor’. This is ingrained in us to such an extent that it often dilutes the ideology of freedom.
This ideal freedom, which should technically allow one to cure a respiratory infection by unconventional means such as sticking potato peels in one’s ear and sipping a cocktail composed of horse dewormer and apple-cider vinegar, seems to be curtailed by an overbearing scientific community. Kennedy, on the other hand, seems to have adopted a number of unconventional medical theories, not tethered by the same chains of analytical evidence and hard facts.
Kennedy’s arguably erratic beliefs, such as his fear of Wi-Fi radiation causing brain damage by allowing opportunistic toxins to seep in, or seed oils being the ‘driving causes of the obesity epidemic’, often seem to fall on deaf ears when confronted by established scientific research…
Take for example the statement made by Christopher Gardner, a Stanford University professor of medicine, who recently shared with The New York Times, that decades of research have shown seed oil consumption is coupled with better health. Then who are we to trust? The man with advanced degrees, two decades of focus on potential health benefits of various diet components, or the septuagenarian falconer spinning unusual theories?
The choices we make seem to be influenced more by what we want to hear and less by what we need to know. Thus, we might choose to believe Kennedy who avows raw milk as his exclusive drink, flagging the Food and Drug Administration’s stern disapproval of raw milk as a ‘war on public health.’
However, figures like John Lucey, the director of the Center for Dairy Research at University of Wisconsin-Madison, refer to the consumption of raw milk as a ‘really bad idea.’ One could argue that neither the highest order academic nor a dairy expert, regardless of how elite, should have the power to dictate our dietary preferences, especially in the contemporary political climate.
It’s Trump’s presidency we now live in, and perhaps we do need a uniquely unorthodox figure like Kennedy to oversee health sectors and defy conventional wisdom. As reiterated by the laureates in their letter, ‘Kennedy’s proposed appointment places public health in jeopardy.’ Perhaps these scholars need to reconsider their stance on Kennedy’s alternative health perspective. Who knows, they might learn a thing or two about the ‘perks’ of such conditions as polio… perhaps.