Abcarian: Another Big Lie: RFK Jr. wants to make America healthy again
What do you think would happen, I asked my daughter, a nurse practitioner who works in addiction medicine, if Narcan, the drug that reverses opiate overdoses, were suddenly to disappear from pharmacy shelves?
'More people would die of overdoses,' she replied. Pretty simple.
Now, maybe you are the sort of person who thinks it's OK for people to die from overdose because they shouldn't be taking drugs like fentanyl in the first place. If you are that callous, I don't have much to say to you.
Read more: Abcarian: The government's pronatalism warps family values
But if you consider addiction a disease, as most medical experts do, then you would certainly be in favor of anything that helps preserve lives, and helps avoid the grief of those whose loved ones have died accidentally from a drug overdose.
And if you had spent, say, 14 years as a heroin addict, you would surely push as hard as you could to make Narcan, the trade name of naloxone, as widely available as possible, especially at a moment when fentanyl continues to kill Americans in depressingly high numbers.
That, at any rate, is what I would expect from Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr., the aforementioned heroin addict. However, a leaked version of President Trump's budget proposes cutting the department's $56-million program that distributes naloxone kits and trains people on how to use them.
Read more: RFK Jr. said his agency will find the cause of autism. These researchers have actually been looking
The leaked document is a preliminary plan, and Kennedy has not specifically addressed the proposed cut. In fact, in late April at a drug summit in Nashville, he spoke about his addiction and acknowledged that solving the addiction crisis requires strategies including maintenance treatments using suboxone and methadone, which lessen drug cravings; fentanyl detectors to prevent unwitting ingestion of the drug; and Narcan, which has saved countless lives.
But in the face of numerous news reports about the proposed cuts, Kennedy has not offered full-throated, public support for the naloxone program. Maybe he simply doesn't have time, busy as he's been overseeing what the Washington Post described as 'a sweeping purge of the agencies that oversee government health programs.'
In his quest to 'make America healthy again,' Kennedy — with Elon Musk's Department of Government Efficiency — has slashed 20,000 of the agency's 82,000 employees for an estimated annual savings of $1.8 billion. Here are some of the Health and Human Services programs that have vanished amid the cost-cutting frenzy:
The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's lead poisoning prevention staff was sacked. 'They played a key role in addressing lead contamination in applesauce pouches,' reported the Post.
Read more: Covered California pushes for better healthcare as federal spending cuts loom
The black lung screening program for coal miners was briefly killed off before an outcry led to a temporary reinstatement.
Programs on smoking cessation, diabetes prevention and cancer screenings have all been canceled.
The Food and Drug Administration lost senior veterinarians who worked to keep milk and pet food safe during the bird flu outbreak.
Scientists at the U.S. labs that track sexually transmitted diseases, such as drug-resistant gonorrhea and viral hepatitis, were laid off.
The list goes on. But the most worrisome development in all this bloodletting is how Kennedy's antipathy toward vaccines is playing out.
Read more: Abcarian: Kennedy's hypocritical approach to public health puts us all at risk
For years, he has promoted conspiracy theories and undermined public confidence in vaccines.
Last month, he announced that in September, he will reveal the cause of autism, which has eluded actual experts for decades.
Chillingly, he has reportedly hired David Geier, who has no medical license, no scientific training and has been described as a 'vaccine cynic and fraudster,' to conduct a study on whether vaccines and autism are linked. This is insanity masquerading as science.
The question has been studied, you might say, almost to death. The scientific consensus is clear — vaccines do not cause autism.
But can you imagine the damage Kennedy's war on vaccines is going to do to the health of American children? These days, it takes very little to shake the public's faith in vaccines.
Read more: Hiltzik: RFK Jr.'s views on autism show that anti-science myths are rampant at the agency he leads
After all, the misconception about vaccines and autism took flight after a single, fraudulent 1998 study involving only 12 children. The study was retracted, and its author Andrew Wakefield, guilty of ethical breaches and scientific misconduct, lost his medical license over it.
And yet the lie lives on.
Just last week, Kennedy told American parents to 'do your own research' on vaccines as if the average American mother is capable of running a double-blind study at her kitchen table in her abundant downtime.
'It seems the goal of this administration is to prove that vaccines cause autism, even though they don't,' Autism Science Foundation president Alison Singer told the Post. 'They are starting with the conclusion and looking to prove it. That's not how science is done.'
We are at a sad moment in American history for so many reasons. But putting a charlatan like Kennedy in charge of the nation's health is like hiring an arsonist as your fire chief. It's not going to end well.
Bluesky: @rabcarian.bsky.social Threads: @rabcarian
If it's in the news right now, the L.A. Times' Opinion section covers it. Sign up for our weekly opinion newsletter.
This story originally appeared in Los Angeles Times.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
Obama says Republicans are putting millions of Americans' healthcare at risk
Barack Obama has warned that Congress is putting millions of Americans at risk of losing healthcare coverage, in a rare intervention from the former president as the Republican party advances legislation that would gut major provisions of the Affordable Care Act. 'Congressional Republicans are trying to weaken the Affordable Care Act and put millions of people at risk of losing their health care,' Obama posted on social media. 'Call your Senators and tell them we can't let that happen.' The Republican bill, passed by the House last month and now in the Senate, would strip healthcare coverage from 10.7 million Americans over the next decade – the biggest reduction since the party's failed attempt to repeal Obamacare in 2017. Unlike that effort, Republicans are not branding this as repealing the act, but have instead buried the cuts in legislation to extend Trump's tax breaks. About 7.6 million people would lose Medicaid coverage and 3.1 million would lose marketplace insurance plans, according to estimates from the Congressional Budget Office. The changes would cut more than $800bn over 10 years to help fund the tax cuts. Related: Republican senator criticized for mock apology after saying 'we all are going to die' The legislation would force states to verify Medicaid eligibility every six months instead of annually; implement work requirements demanding 80 hours of monthly employment; and shorten enrollment periods, all which could overburden the system. Most Medicaid recipients already work, with just 8% of healthy working-age adults unemployed and not in education or providing care, according to KFF research. The work requirements alone would account for a third of coverage losses. The developments even have some Republicans bothered, including the Missouri senator Josh Hawley, who in mid-May called the cuts 'morally wrong and politically suicidal' in an opinion piece for the New York Times. The bill would also restore federal payments to insurers that reduce costs for low-income customers – but only if they refuse to cover abortions, causing problems for the insurance industry in the 12 states plus Washington where abortion coverage is mandatory. AHIP, the largest insurer trading group, told Politico there would be 'immediate instability' if the changes proceed, particularly combined with expiring pandemic-era premium subsidies that help 4 million people afford coverage. The healthcare cuts are driven by Republicans' determination to extend Trump's expiring tax cuts. Enrollment in Medicaid, the children's health insurance program and the ACA marketplaces has grown from about 85 million Americans in 2017 to more than 100 million today, with annual spending rising from roughly $550bn to over $900bn annually. Republicans insist they are targeting fraud and waste, though fraud detection units would receive no new funding under the bill. Trump told NBC: 'They're looking at fraud, waste and abuse. And nobody minds that.'
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
New White House budget plan eyes dramatic cuts to cancer research
While much of the focus on Capitol Hill lately has been on the Republicans' megabill, the White House quietly unveiled some details of its budget plan for the next fiscal year late on Friday afternoon. If you didn't hear about it, that's because you probably weren't intended to. As Democratic Sen. Patty Murray of Washington, the vice chair of the Senate Appropriations Committee, said in a written statement, 'It's telling that President Trump has chosen to release his budget on a Friday night with no fanfare whatsoever.' As The New York Times reported, the Trump administration's plan would impose steep spending cuts across a 'vast array of education, health, housing and labor programs,' though there was one element of this that stood out for me. From the Times' article: [A]s part of a reorientation that slashed federal health spending, the president proposed chopping funding at the National Cancer Institute by more than $2.7 billion, nearly a 40 percent decrease, drawing a sharp rebuke from cancer research supporters late Friday. ... The cut to cancer research is part of a roughly $18 billion reduction at the National Institutes of Health.' 'For the past 50 years, every significant medical breakthrough, especially in the treatment of cancer, has been linked to sustained federal investment in research' by the institute, the American Cancer Society Action Network said in a statement. 'This commitment has contributed to the remarkable statistic of over 18 million cancer survivors currently living in the U.S. today.' What's more, as Murray's office noted in an analysis of the White House blueprint, Donald Trump and his team also intend to take regressive steps on cancer by eliminating the Title X program, which helps millions of Americans afford cancer screenings. Both as vice president and again as president, Joe Biden emphasized cancer research more than any modern American political leader. The Democrat's White House made his cancer 'moonshot' a leading administration priority. His Republican successor clearly has a different approach in mind. The release of Trump's budget comes roughly a month after the administration laid off employees at the NIH's cancer research institute. A month before that, The Washington Post published a striking report on potentially breakthrough research at the National Institutes of Health, where scientists have 'demonstrated a promising step toward using a person's own immune cells to fight gastrointestinal cancers.' The day the scientists' paper was published, the Trump administration imposed devastating layoffs at the NIH. The Post's report added, 'Two patients' treatments using the experimental therapy had to be delayed because NIH's capacity to make personalized cell therapies has been slowed by the firing of highly skilled staff and by purchasing slowdowns. Those occurred even before major layoffs took place.' A few weeks before that, The New York Times reported that the Trump administration also terminated funding for research at Columbia University, where scientists were 'examining the use of artificial intelligence to detect early signs of breast cancer.' Two weeks before that, the Times also reported on researchers at the Veterans Affairs hospital in Pittsburgh who'd spent months preparing for a clinical trial of a new drug to treat advanced cancers of the mouth, throat and voice box. They were all set to start enrolling patients when their clinical trials were halted — because of a hiring freeze imposed by Trump, Elon Musk and the DOGE initiative. American voters last fall might not have realized that a Republican victory in 2024 would mean sweeping cuts to cancer research, but here we are. This post updates our related earlier coverage. This article was originally published on
Boston Globe
an hour ago
- Boston Globe
RFK Jr. has ordered a review of baby formula. Here's what you should know.
About three-quarters of U.S. infants consume formula during the first six months of life, with about 40% receiving it as their only source of nutrition, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Advertisement Formula has been widely used in the U.S. for roughly six decades, feeding generations of infants who have flourished, said Dr. Steven Abrams, a University of Texas infant nutrition expert. Get Starting Point A guide through the most important stories of the morning, delivered Monday through Friday. Enter Email Sign Up The broader scientific community has been calling for a reevaluation of infant formula for years and is 'fully supportive of this idea of a comprehensive look,' he said. Current formula products in the U.S. continue to be safe and nourishing, he said. 'But there's been a lot of science and we want the FDA rules to align with the most recent science from around the world,' he said. Here's what you need to know about Operation Stork Speed: What is infant formula and why do so many babies consume it? Infant formula is a manufactured product, usually made from cow's milk or soy, that is intended to mimic human breast milk for kids up age 12 months. It may be the sole source of nutrition or supplement breastfeeding. Advertisement FDA regulations require that infant formulas contain 30 specific nutrients, with minimum levels for all and maximum levels for 10 of them. The ingredients vary, but all formulas must have a balance of calories from protein, carbohydrates and fat that mirrors what's found in human milk. Federal guidelines recommend that babies be exclusively breastfed for the first six months of life and that parents continue breastfeeding for the first year or more while adding new foods to the child's diet. Parents use formula when a mother cannot or chooses not to breastfeed for a wide range of reasons, including medical conditions, work conflicts, to allow other family members to help with feedings and other situations. Why is the government reviewing baby formula now? Kennedy announced the review of infant formula in March as part of his 'Make America Healthy Again' agenda for the U.S. food supply. The FDA's review will include increased testing for heavy metals and other contaminants as well as a review of nutrients, the agencies said. U.S. health officials will hold a two-hour roundtable discussion of infant formula on Wednesday. What issues will that cover? The FDA is asking for new scientific data and information about whether required ingredients in infant formula should be added, removed or changed. The deadline for comments is Sept. 11. Scientists say a review is long overdue regarding the most recent data on the composition of human milk and how babies digest and absorb nutrients in breastmilk and formula. In addition, they want the FDA to consider how U.S. formulas compare with those made elsewhere, said Bridget Young, who studies infant nutrition at the University of Rochester. Advertisement 'How do our regulations differ?' she said. 'Maybe it's time for them to relook at their regulations and consider potential international harmonization.' More international alignment might have eased the U.S. infant formula crisis in 2022, when contamination shut down an Abbott factory, leading to monthslong shortages for American parents, Young said. What about specific ingredients? In recent years, some parents have sought out infant formula made in Europe with the belief that products made overseas are healthier options, experts said. Formula regulations in the U.S. and Europe, including requirements for nutrients and testing, differ somewhat, but are generally similar, Abrams said. 'The differences between the U.S. and Europe should not be considered as 'higher' or 'better' or 'greater' in one vs. the other,' he said. Still, iron, for instance, is included at higher levels in U.S. formulas than in those in Europe — and Abrams suggested that U.S. officials may consider lowering iron targets. Other components have been added to formula in recent years. They include docosahexaenoic acid, or DHA, an essential omega-3 fatty acid, and human milk oligosaccharides, complex sugars that are found breast milk but not in cow's milk. Although they may be beneficial, they are not required. 'These have been added to some formulas, but not to other formulas, so we want to take a look,' Abrams explained. Many parents have raised concerns over formula ingredients such as added sugars and seed oils, which are also being targeted by Kennedy as hazards in the wider food supply. Recent research suggests that added sugars such as glucose and corn syrup solids in infant formula may be linked to weight gain in children. Young said that most experts agree that lactose, the primary type of sugar found in breast milk, is preferred. Advertisement Infant formulas in the U.S. do contain seed oils, Young said. But that's because there are a finite number of vegetable oils that provide the essential saturated and unsaturated fats that babies require. 'They need to provide the variety of fatty acids that you see in breast milk,' she said. What are the next steps? Done properly, the FDA's infant formula review would take 'at least a year,' Abrams said. And it will require broad input from multiple government agencies, formula manufacturers and consumers. 'No shortcuts are possible and no one review, white paper or even committee report will suffice to do it right,' he said.
