We identify as practicing general practitioners, with particular specializations and times of learning, but our commonality resides in our steadfast commitment to science and fact-based medical practice. We take immense pride in utilising the most contemporary, peer-reviewed medical studies to provide our patients, and wider communities, the knowledge they need to make informed decisions about their health. Moreover, we strive to share our expertise not only with the people we care for but also with the general masses and policymakers, ensuring they’re well-informed in promoting the health of Maine’s citizenry. In light of this, we can’t be in favor of Robert F. Kennedy Jr. assuming the position of secretary of health and human services due to numerous considerations.
Prima facie, the nominee’s assurance to ‘restore America’s health’, or mitigate the prevalence of chronic conditions in the nation, aligns with our sentiments, decidedly. We acknowledge the numerous benefits of improved dietary recommendations, readily accessible nourishing foods, and the encouragement of a healthy lifestyle in enhancing public health. However, the improvement of public health is multi-faceted and goes beyond these factors. The presupposition that public health can be enhaced merely through lifestyle and nutritional interventions, as Kennedy seemingly asserts, indicates a narrow perspective and an inadequate comprehension of the complexities of medical science.
It’s essential to acknowledge the reality that the nominee is considerably underprepared for this crucial role, responsible for overseeing numerous departments integral to maintaining America’s public health. Predominantly, our apprehension lies in the potential vulnerability of disease prevention under Kennedy’s leadership. Our deep-rooted concern stems from our commitment to safeguard the health and wellbeing of our patients.
Our clinical experience as doctors corroborates the empirical evidence, holding vaccinations as one of the most potent preventive measures known to medicine. Vaccinations have saved innumerable lives and substantially reduced instances of disability resulting from avoidable diseases over the decades. Countless patient encounters with diseases such as measles, chicken pox, mumps, pertussis (popularly known as whooping cough), meningitis and polio, the majority of which are preventable diseases, fortifies our belief in the power of vaccination.
However, Robert F. Kennedy Jr., the HHS nominee, is an outspoken critic of vaccines, constantly spreading misleading narratives. His advocacy against vaccines has led to decreased immunisation rates, substantially contributing to the measles outbreak in American Samoa in 2019, resulting in multiple fatalities. If such misinformation is spread across the nation, the repercussions could be catastrophic.
Nevertheless, Kennedy’s opposition to vaccines is merely one aspect of his dissent towards established medical practices. Alongside this, he propagates misleading theories about other important health topics- from the autism spectrum, the current pandemic treatments, to the fluoridation of water sources.
Wielding the power of secretary of health and human services, the nominee could potentially disseminate dangerous misinformation on a national scale. Such an act is not simply careless–it borders on recklessness. Therefore, as medical practitioners, we wholeheartedly object to Robert F. Kennedy Jr.’s nomination.
Our opposition springs not from personal disapproval but from our duty to the patients we serve and our communities. The repercussions of appointing a noted anti-vaccine advocate to an influential federal position could lead to terrifying public health crises, such as the resurgence of diseases including measles, chicken pox and pertussis, which could be effectively prevented by vaccinations.
We vehemently oppose policies that could harm our communities and those most vulnerable amongst us. Therefore, we cannot stand idle as the potential to inflict harm through policies that shun scientific research and evidence in favor of narrow-minded rhetoric looms large. With the health and well-being of the American people at stake, such a perilous nomination must be reconsidered.