Why did Trump pick RFK Jr. to head HHS? Maybe it's because they both like to deal in debunked conspiracy theories and are unfit for the jobs they have sought

Trump and RFK Jr.

 

Donald Trump has picked Robert F. Kennedy Jr. (RFK Jr.) to serve as secretary of Health and Human Services (HHS). And if Kennedy is confirmed, he likely will have doubters watching his actions closely. That might be because Kennedy, according to his bio at Wikipedia, has little if any experience in biomedical science, research, public health, medicine, or any scholastic endeavors in fields you might expect his new position to require. At least one Congressional leader has flatly said Kennedy is the wrong person for the job.

So, why did Trump choose Kennedy and his extremely thin resume? That is not clear at the moment, although both men have histories of spreading misinformation about vaccines, the implementations of masks, and other measures that mitigate the damage viral threats can cause to the human population. Kennedy has spent years touting debunked theories that vaccines cause autism, and that likely has not won him many friends in the scientific community. How did Kennedy, who clearly is not a man of science, take over leadership of the No. 1 health agency in the world?

Meredith McGraw and Chelsea Cirruzzo, of Politico, provide insight into another of Donald Trump's bizarre, unqualified picks to hold a high-level government position. It's to the point that some political observers have written that it appears Trump is making nominations for their "shock value," almost daring Senate Republicans to defy him in the confirmation process. Perhaps RFK Jr. will wind up being a pawn in Trump's political games, which indicate Trump is not serious about running an effective government. Perhaps that should be our biggest concern of all. From the Politico report:

President-elect Donald Trump has nominated former presidential candidate and anti-vaccine activist Robert F. Kennedy Jr. to lead the Department of Health and Human Services.

The pick, which will roil many public health experts, comes after Trump promised to let Kennedy “go wild” with health and food policy in his administration after Kennedy dropped his own presidential bid to endorse the now-president-elect. It’s also a sign of the opening Trump sees after he scored a decisive electoral victory and Republicans won a comfortable majority in the Senate.

“For too long, Americans have been crushed by the industrial food complex and drug companies who have engaged in deception, misinformation, and disinformation when it comes to Public Health,” Trump posted on X. “The Safety and Health of all Americans is the most important role of any Administration, and HHS will play a big role in helping ensure that everybody will be protected from harmful chemicals, pollutants, pesticides, pharmaceutical products, and food additives that have contributed to the overwhelming Health Crisis in this Country.” (This comes from a president-elect whose diet seems to be built around the three major food groups -- Big Macs, pizza, and Coca-Cola.).

Kennedy, 70, thanked Trump for choosing him Thursday night.

“I look forward to working with the more than 80,000 employees at HHS to free the agencies from the smothering cloud of corporate capture so they can pursue their mission to make Americans once again the healthiest people on Earth,” he posted on X. “Together we will clean up corruption, stop the revolving door between industry and government, and return our health agencies to their rich tradition of gold-standard, evidence-based science. I will provide Americans with transparency and access to all the data so they can make informed choices for themselves and their families.”

Is it a sure bet that Kennedy will wind up leading HHS? No, it is not, as McGraw and Cirruzzo report:

Kennedy may still face a steep slope to confirmation after his years of touting debunked claims that vaccines cause autism, writing a book accusing former National Institutes of Health official Anthony Fauci of conspiring with tech mogul Bill Gates and drug makers to sell Covid-19 vaccines and said regulatory officials are industry puppets who should be removed.

Sen. John Cornyn (R-Texas) said Kennedy will be treated like all other nominees.

“I don’t have any preconceived notion about it,” Cornyn said.

When asked if vaccine positions might make confirmation difficult: “I’m sure it will come up.”

House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries said it’s up to the Senate to confirm or reject Kennedy but was skeptical that he was the right choice.

“Is RFK Jr. the best qualified person in the United States of America to lead us forward as we grapple with an enormous amount of health challenges in this country? The answer is clearly he is not,” Jeffries said.

In recent weeks, Kennedy has hit the media circuit to say he isn’t taking vaccines away from anyone.

“I’m going to make sure scientific safety studies and efficacy are out there, and people can make individual assessments about whether that product is going to be good for them,” he told MSNBC the day after Trump’s win.

He also claimed the Trump administration would recommend against fluoride in drinking water, which is added to prevent cavities. Kennedy has said it’s “almost certainly” causing a loss of IQ in children, as some studies have found. The National Institutes of Health (NIH), over which Kennedy could soon be presiding, has compiled a report on the issue that appears to view Kennedy's conclusions as suspect:

Since 1945, the use of fluoride has been a successful public-health initiative for reducing dental cavities and improving general oral health of adults and children. There is a concern, however, that some pregnant women and children may be getting more fluoride than they need because they now get fluoride from many sources including treated public water, water-added foods and beverages, teas, toothpaste, floss, and mouthwash, and the combined total intake of fluoride may exceed safe amounts.

Therefore, the National Toxicology Program (NTP) conducted a systematic review of the published scientific literature on the association between fluoride exposure and neurodevelopment and cognition. The NTP released their findings in a State of the Science Monograph (available below under Documents). A corresponding meta-analysis on children’s IQ has been accepted by a scientific journal for publication later in 2024. . . . 

The NTP monograph concluded that higher levels of fluoride exposure, such as drinking water containing more than 1.5 milligrams of fluoride per liter, are associated with lower IQ in children. The NTP review was designed to evaluate total fluoride exposure from all sources and was not designed to evaluate the health effects of fluoridated drinking water alone. It is important to note, however, that there were insufficient data to determine if the low fluoride level of 0.7 mg/L currently recommended for U.S. community water supplies has a negative effect on children’s IQ.

The NTP uses 4 confidence levels - high, moderate, low, or very low - to characterize the strength of scientific evidence that associates a particular health outcome with an exposure. After evaluating studies published through October 2023, the NTP Monograph concluded there is moderate confidence in the scientific evidence that showed an association between higher levels of fluoride and lower IQ in children.

The determination about lower IQs in children was based primarily on epidemiology studies in non-U.S. countries such as Canada, China, India, Iran, Pakistan, and Mexico where some pregnant women, infants, and children received total fluoride exposure amounts higher than 1.5 mg fluoride/L of drinking water. The U.S. Public Health Service currently recommends 0.7 mg/L, and the World Health Organization has set a safe limit for fluoride in drinking water of 1.5 mg/L. The NTP found no evidence that fluoride exposure had adverse effects on adult cognition.

Many substances are healthy and beneficial when taken in small doses but may cause harm at high doses. More research is needed to better understand if there are health risks associated with low fluoride exposures. This NTP monograph may provide important information to regulatory agencies that set standards for the safe use of fluoride. It does not, and was not intended to, assess the benefits of fluoride.