President-elect Donald Trump’s nomination of Robert F. Kennedy Jr. to run the Department of Health and Human Services has rightfully raised alarm. We should take a moment to reflect on the most productive way to react to what he says and the concerns he has brought to the surface.
Kennedy has propped up his political career on a platform of health conspiracies, most notably vaccine skepticism. He is a proponent of drinking raw milk despite bacterial contamination risks, and he wants cities across the country to stop fluoridating the water supply, which has been shown to help prevent cavities in children and adults.
Advertisement
Some of Kennedy’s complaints are more mainstream, such as the ultra-processed nature of Americans’ diets. The long list of unpronounceable additives in our food is something that makes many of us uneasy.
Advertisement
We don’t know whether Kennedy’s nomination will advance in the Senate, though his lack of medical expertise and repudiation of scientific principles should be disqualifying. Still, his nomination is a test of public health leaders, who should draw on lessons from the COVID-19 pandemic in light of Kennedy’s ascent.
Opinion Get smart opinions on the topics North Texans care about. SIGN UP Or with: Google Facebook By signing up you agree to our Terms of Service and Privacy Policy
Even Kennedy’s most outlandish claims have found a captive audience among Americans who are skeptical of the medical establishment. The biggest error we could make right now is to dismiss them all as dupes and fail to make a distinction between people with good-faith concerns and those who reject scientific evidence to profit from their conspiracy theories.
Some Americans are still tender about pandemic-era mask mandates — measures whose effectiveness researchers found to be inconclusive — and school closures, which set many vulnerable children back academically. Public health officials must remain firm on the science that backs vaccination and other medical advancements while responding with humility to the questions of everyday Americans.
Advertisement
Economist Emily Oster, a Brown University professor who has gained prominence for helping people sort through pregnancy and parenting data, offered valuable insight in a recent New York Times essay: “In the end, advice for a range of topics is delivered with the same level of confidence and, seemingly, the same level of urgency. The problem is that when people find one piece of guidance is overstated, they may begin to distrust everything.”
For example, drinking raw milk is risky, but relatively few people become ill. However, skipping measles and polio vaccines, which have repeatedly been shown to be safe, leaves children vulnerable to contagious and potentially lethal diseases.
Of course, there’s a difference between public health experts breaking down the science and inviting members of fringe groups to give health advice, as the Dallas City Council did in 2023 during a discussion about whether to continue fluoridating the water supply. Entertaining questions shouldn’t mean entertaining conspiracies.
Advertisement
Thankfully, decades of scientific research prevailed, and Dallas still fluoridates its water. Don’t dismiss the questions, but abide by the science.
Advertisement
We welcome your thoughts in a letter to the editor. See the guidelines and submit your letter here. If you have problems with the form, you can submit via email at letters@dallasnews.com