Trump Health Policy Confusion
Terry H. Schwadron
Dec. 19, 2024
As Robert F. Kennedy Jr. starts making his Senate rounds to seek support for confirmation to Donald Trump’s lead health job, we’re hearing equivocation about just how strong some of his views are.
Normally, of course, we would look with favor on an incoming Secretary of Health and Human Services who is open to better general health practices. But Kennedy’s views have been so weighted with anti-vaccine fervor as to leave gaping expectations over the future of vaccine research and ongoing child immunization programs, the role of the Center for Disease Control, promised dilution of regulation for things like raw milk at a time of rising contamination from Asian bird flu.
It remains unclear just how much support Kennedy can build in the Senate for confirmation. A few Republicans, including Mitch McConnell have offered open skepticism, but then Democrat John Fetterman of Pennsylvania says he likes Kennedy’s promotion of better general health practices. The most telling votes may come from staunch anti-abortion Republicans, who dislike Kennedy’s support for abortion rights, or senators upset over adding another Cabinet member with a history of sexual assault complaints.
Adding to a confused picture of RFK confirmation have been contradictory statements about his own positions about vaccines, which is interesting only because he has campaigned for years about the dangers of vaccines of all sorts, not just against Covid, but to protect against childhood diseases. A few days ago, his lawyer filed suit to challenge the 50-plus year approvals for the polio vaccine and demand that the FDA revoke it.
Then, Sen. Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., a polio survivor whose vote RFK needs, lambasted him, and boss Donald Trump indicated that polio vaccines were okay by him. On Monday, Kennedy’s flip-flopped, telling reporters he was “all for” the polio vaccine.
It makes one wonder how many other positions are up for grabs to gain confirmation votes, or why, indeed, RFK is a good choice for HHS Secretary.
Settling the Contradictions
Apparently, Trump — the guy who ponied up billions for Covid vaccines only to ignore having done so — is going to have to settle any number of such contradictory health claims among his appointees. Whether the issue is aggressive of public health strategies, availability of abortion drugs or general health care access, his list of appointees struggle to come up with a uniform message.
The New York Times outlined the debate with the Trump circle as good eating versus reliance on drugs over obesity, for example. There are other debates arising from various Kennedy statements over the years that de-link HIV and AIDS and that suggest mental health problems are associated with chemicals in foods, and that fluoridated drinking water is linked to cancer, IQ loss, neurodevelopment disorders and thyroid diseases.
In naming former Florida Rep. Dave Weldon, a medical doctor, to head the CDC, Trump said Weldon would be “instrumental in ‘Making America Healthy Again,’ focusing on fixing the previous administration’s ‘past errors’ . . . (including_) censorship, data manipulation, and misinformation.” Trump added that Weldon’s “CDC will play a big role in helping to ensure Americans have the tools and resources they need to understand the underlying causes of diseases, and the solutions to cure these diseases.”
Of course, that message conflicts with anti-vax thinking that puts Weldon and RFK in the forefront, along with Stanford University professor Jay Bhattacharya at the National Institutes of Health. Bhattacharya remains a Covid vaccine opponent and promoted that enough people get Covid to create a “herd” immunity.
Together, they want to redirect money away from vaccine research into support for other more natural health approaches.
Trump himself has let his own views dangle aimlessly about the possible explanations about a rise in autism case reports despite loads of scientific studies that detail the lack of any link to childhood vaccines for measles, mumps and rubella. That connectivity between vaccine reliance and autism has been an RFK campaign mainstay.
It is easy to see this pattern affecting everything from cancer prevention and treatments to new prescription approvals to techniques for controlling costs of Medicare and Medicaid. The hit-and-miss formulation of health views is inadequate to the tasks at hand, and the volatility of those positions depending on the confirmation vote count is, well, nuts.
Public health officials have warned that such an effort will bring back defeated childhood diseases and leave the public open to contagions, as with the current Asian bird flu that is spreading among dairy farms into other areas. When do we get to the public protection aspects of what these job appointments are supposed to be all about?
The Reasoning Gap
What is meant medically in these debates can be unclear. Clean living may be a good idea on its own, however hard to achieve or enforce, but the ability of a society to face up to airborne contagions might be quite a different problem unsolved by vaccine avoidance.
If Trump wants a preventive approach to health, presumably he might continue to support adding fluoride to drinking water to stop cavities and encourage overall dental health, for example. But the anti-vax, naturalist approach says fluoridation must stop, and that we should watch and see what happens. Dentists and hygienists are clear about what will happen: cavities that add to dental problems and more cost.
We all can understand that experts can differ on medical treatments big and small, and that treatments can be adjusted over time.
Meanwhile, voices like Senators Ed Markey, D-Mass., and Bernie Sanders, I-Vt, say these arguments over “settled science” mask the real job facing HHS — getting more people covered for health care at more affordable prices.
The issue here is whether one group of politically motivated senators will decide that a lawyer untrained in science, and politically tinged medical personnel with a distinct point of view know enough to be confirmed. Are we confirming based on industry recognition of expertise, on experience in vaccine science and data collection and analysis, or on political loyalty alone?
##