I’ve been eagerly waiting for Robert F. Kennedy Jr.’s confirmation hearings to begin. If he’s approved as the secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services, he will oversee around 80,000 employees and key health agencies like the CDC and FDA.
However, there’s a concern: Kennedy lacks formal training in healthcare or public health. While he has many opinions, they could significantly influence our nation’s health policies in the coming years. We should reflect on the vital role of science in public health and the risks of mixing these issues with politics.
Public health has been around for centuries, primarily aiming to prevent illness. Early health professionals discovered that basic practices like sanitation, hand washing, and vaccinations could lower disease spread. These approaches are still fundamental in keeping our communities healthy today.
Public health is crucial, especially in the U.S., where healthcare costs are high and insurance can be hard to navigate. Effective public health measures have significantly reduced diseases like polio, measles, and smallpox, which once caused widespread death and disability. For instance, polio killed or paralyzed half a million people annually at its worst. Even smallpox, which claimed an estimated 300 million lives last century, is no longer a threat thanks to vaccination efforts.
But as vaccination rates decline in some areas, we’ve seen resurgence in diseases like measles and mumps. Kennedy once claimed that “no vaccine is safe or effective,” a statement that could have severe consequences if he assumes a leadership role. We know that ignoring science in decision-making can lead to disaster.
The recent COVID-19 pandemic highlighted this very issue. The virus claimed 7 million lives globally and over a million in the U.S. Much of the fallout was due to low vaccination rates, worsened by heated political debates over masks and vaccine efficacy. Evidence suggests that politicizing public health leads to more illness and death.
History shows us the power of leadership in health crises. Ronald Reagan, during his presidency, stayed silent on the AIDS epidemic for nearly four years. This unwillingness to acknowledge the issue, possibly to appease his political base, resulted in missed opportunities for prevention and support. In contrast, George H.W. Bush made significant strides in the fight against HIV/AIDS by prioritizing health measures.
We also learned from public health battles against smoking-related diseases. For years, politicians hesitated to confront tobacco companies, leading to unnecessary illness and death. Only when the public health community implemented comprehensive strategies—like warning labels and smoking bans—did we see progress. Smoking rates in the U.S. have since plummeted from 42.6% in 1965 to just 11.6% today.
Kennedy has expressed a desire to improve health in the U.S., highlighting issues like high sugar intake and artificial additives. While he has strong views on nutrition, there’s little discussion on his plans for health policy or access to healthcare. After the U.S. withdrew from the World Health Organization under Trump, how will Kennedy ensure that our health agencies have the necessary data and support to function effectively?
The Universal Declaration of Human Rights emphasizes that healthcare is a fundamental right for all people. It should never be politicized or influenced by any specific agenda. Our health systems must work solely for the benefit of every individual.
We deserve assurance in our health leaders. Living in constant anxiety about health crises or the qualifications of those making crucial decisions is not sustainable. We can and must do better for our collective wellbeing.
