By Leana S. Wen / Special to The Washington Post
There are many reasons to strenuously oppose President-elect Donald Trump’s nomination of vaccine skeptic Robert F. Kennedy Jr. to head the Department of Health and Human Services. But this one matters most: his willful disregard for the scientific process.
HHS is a huge bureaucracy with more than 80,000 employees and 13 agencies, including the Food and Drug Administration, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and National Institutes of Health. It would be ideal if Kennedy had government experience but not essential. President Joe Biden’s first CDC director, Rochelle Walensky, didn’t have government experience, either. And it would be ideal if he were a doctor or health administrator, but plenty of past secretaries, including the current one, Xavier Becerra, were not either.
Kennedy’s views on how to “Make America Healthy Again” aren’t altogether problematic. Plenty of HHS secretaries have come with their own priorities, and MAHA’s premise of focusing on chronic disease prevention is one that nearly every medical professional would agree with. It’s not even disqualifying that he has contrarian views and questions matters that are widely understood as scientific dogma. On some issues — such as water fluoridation policy — he may be right to challenge conventional wisdom.
The reason Kennedy is uniquely unfit compared with past nominees is that his approach to scientific inquiry is as an activist, not a scientist.
The clearest example of this is his repeated assertions that childhood immunizations are harmful. Kennedy is one of the most prominent promoters of disinformation that vaccines cause autism, despite dozens of rigorously conducted medical studies that have debunked the claim. In July, he stated on a podcast that “there’s no vaccine that is, you know, safe and effective” and suggested that vaccines might kill more people than they save. In fact, a 2024 Lancet study estimates that vaccines against 14 common pathogens have saved 154 million lives globally over the past five decades and cut infant mortality by 40 percent.
Kennedy maintains he is not an anti-vaxxer, but he urges people to “resist” childhood immunization guidelines. “I see somebody on a hiking trail carrying a little baby, and I say to him, ‘Better not get them vaccinated,’” he said in 2021.
These statements are outrageous enough. The deeper problem is that, in the face of overwhelming evidence, he is unwilling to change his views. Instead, he doubles down on his advocacy and asserts opinions as facts.
He is either unable to understand the scientific process that forms the basis of modern medicine or he purposefully ignores the research when conclusions don’t support his preconceived notions. Either explanation is disqualifying for someone overseeing the nation’s health and science.
The downstream effects of a Secretary Kennedy would be unimaginably far-reaching. Who would want to lead agencies such as the CDC and FDA knowing they would report to someone who might ask them to suppress data that doesn’t comport with his world view? Who would want to work at NIH, where Kennedy has said that he would fire as a many as 600 employees on Day 1? How can the public trust the food and medicines they are consuming are safe, if the basis for these decisions is not the scientific method?
And what happens if the United States faces another novel pathogen? Kennedy has said he would stop all infectious diseases research for eight years. This is absurd and dangerous. Many of the most impactful medical advancements have come from combating infectious diseases. In 1900, more than 30 percent of all deaths occurred in children younger than 5. The three leading causes of death in America were pneumonia, tuberculosis and gastrointestinal infections. It’s thanks to antibiotics, sanitation and, yes, vaccines that far fewer Americans are succumbing to infectious diseases.
It won’t stay that way without continued investment. Take the growing threat of the H5N1 avian flu virus. Cases are increasing among farmworkers. There is new evidence that infections may be far more widespread. Just last week, a Canadian teen who contracted bird flu was reported to be in critical condition.
Now is the time to ramp up testing and research into vaccines and treatments, not to shut it down. If Kennedy were in charge of the avian flu response, would he allow his agencies to approve and distribute the vaccines that are already developed? Would he withhold antiviral treatments in favor of unproven “alternative” therapies, just like those he promoted during the covid-19 pandemic? Would he continue his advocacy for raw milk, even though it threatens to serve as a vector for H5N1 spread?
Who knows? And that’s exactly the danger. There are many other people capable of carrying out Trump’s MAHA agenda who do not pose such a threat to the health and survival of Americans.
Leana S. Wen, a Washington Post contributing columnistis an emergency physician, clinical associate professor at George Washington University and author of “Lifelines: A Doctor’s Journey in the Fight for Public Health.”
Talk to us
> Give us your news tips.
> Send us a letter to the editor.
> More Herald contact information.
