Casey Means' Inactive Medical License Comes Under Scrutiny
President Donald Trump's nominee for U.S. surgeon general has sparked scrutiny online as her Oregon medical license has been inactive since 2019.
While U.S. surgeons general are not required to have an active medical license while serving in the position, Casey Means' nomination has ignited a debate about transparency and professional qualifications for the role.
Nicole Shanahan, Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr.'s running mate in the 2024 presidential election, wrote on X, formerly Twitter, "I was promised that if I supported RFK Jr. in his Senate confirmation" that Means would not work under the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS).
She added, "I don't know if RFK very clearly lied to me, or what is going on."
Newsweek contacted HHS for comment via email outside regular working hours. Means, who was not immediately reachable via her social media accounts, was also contacted via an email to the department.
While most surgeons general have a medical or public health background, holding an active medical license is not a statutory or regulatory requirement for the position.
However, Means' nomination has raised questions about professional representation in the health and wellness industry. As medical influencers gain vast followings online, there is growing concern over how credentials are communicated—and whether audiences are being misled about an expert's active medical authority.
Means is a physician turned entrepreneur who earned her undergraduate and medical degrees at Stanford University. She trained in otolaryngology—ear, nose and throat surgery—before leaving clinical practice to focus on what she described as "root-cause resolution medicine" and systems-based approaches to health.
Means co-founded Levels in 2019, a company that promotes continuous glucose monitoring for nondiabetic users as a tool for metabolic optimization.
She has written extensively about the relationship between diet, lifestyle and metabolic health, and she often uses social media and public speaking engagements to advocate for personalized wellness strategies.
Means is a vocal supporter of Kennedy and his agenda to "Make America Healthy Again."
In February, she celebrated his confirmation as health secretary, writing on X, "@RobertKennedyJr has a vision for the future that aligns with what I want for my family, future children, and the world."
Calley Means, her brother, was also recently appointed as a White House adviser on the "Make America Healthy Again" campaign.
According to publicly available records from the Oregon Medical Board, Means' license was granted in 2014 and transitioned to an inactive status five years later, in July 2019.
An inactive license means she is no longer authorized to practice medicine or prescribe medication, although there is no indication of disciplinary action or revocation.
Her continued use of the "Dr." honorific and promotion of health interventions has prompted backlash from physicians who argue that it blurs the line between credentialed medical advice and wellness entrepreneurship.
Conservative commentator Laura Loomer wrote on X: "Casey Means, the new Trump nominee for US Surgeon General doesn't even have an active medical license in Oregon when she established her medical practice. How is the top doctor in the US supposed to give medical guidance and advice to the nation when she doesn't even have an active medical license in the state where she allegedly practiced medicine? Does Casey Means even have an active medical license in any state?? This is so embarrassing for the Trump administration."
She wrote in a separate post: "Surgeon General is a very interesting term. The Surgeon General is the nation's top doctor, responsible for providing medical advice and leadership on public health issues. It is worth noting that Casey Means doesn't have a surgical residency, and isn't a surgeon. The term Surgeon General is interesting given the fact that there is no requirement to be a Surgeon to be Surgeon General. Turns out you can be a social media influencer and become Surgeon General."
Dr. Mary Talley Bowden, the founder of Americans for Health Freedom, wrote on X: "Shouldn't the surgeon general have an active medical license?"
Nicole Shanahan, a lawyer and Robert F. Kennedy Jr.'s former running mate, wrote on X: "Yes, it's very strange. Doesn't make any sense. I was promised that if I supported RFK Jr. in his Senate confirmation that neither of these siblings would be working under HHS or in an appointment (and that people much more qualified would be). I don't know if RFK very clearly lied to me, or what is going on. It has been clear in recent conversations that he is reporting to someone regularly who is controlling his decisions (and it isn't President Trump). With regards to the siblings, there is something very artificial and aggressive about them, almost like they were bred and raised Manchurian assets."
Means must be confirmed by the Senate before she can assume the role of surgeon general.
Related Articles
Who is Casey Means? Trump Nominates Wellness Influencer as Surgeon GeneralRFK Jr. Gives Update on Autism Research Involving Medicare, Medicaid MembersWho Is Vinay Prasad? RFK Jr. Taps Pharma Critic to Lead FDA Vaccine ProgramRFK Jr Says Vaccine Contains 'Aborted Fetus Debris'
2025 NEWSWEEK DIGITAL LLC.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
4 hours ago
- Yahoo
Big Data Can Make America Healthier. How to Do It Right
Credit - Ezra Bailey—Getty Images Big data can help make Americans healthier, and the Trump Administration has stated—in its recently released Make America Healthy Again report and elsewhere—that building a national big-data platform is one of its primary goals. As scientists who use large data sets to study health, we're excited about its potential and the willingness of the federal government to invest in it, particularly since big data has been underutilized in the U.S. compared with other developed countries—and since the number of ways it can be used grows nearly daily. It's a huge opportunity. But there are lots of concerns when assembling sensitive health data and combining it with other sensitive data, like credit scores, tax records, employment, educational records, and more. Some of those concerns with the Administration's plans have already surfaced. The Administration's first goal of assembling big data to studying autism has left some worried that if used inappropriately, such data could lead to harm, rather than help, for those with autism. Others worry that big data could be used to perform and justify shoddy research that supports predetermined conclusions without adhering to rigorous scientific methods—a concern reinforced by the discovery that the Make America Healthy Again report cited non-existent sources to support its claims. So how can we reap the benefits of big data while minimizing its risks? Here are some guiding principles: The health care system already possesses health data on millions of Americans. Medical records are now almost always digitized, permitting doctors' notes, medical imaging, laboratory tests, insurance claims, and more to be linked (in theory) across doctors' offices, hospitals, nursing homes, and any other place people receive care. However, data collected about a patient in one setting often doesn't get connected to data from other settings—making it hard for researchers to get a full picture of what, exactly, is happening to each of us within the larger health care system. Read More: Gun Injuries of All Kinds Go Up During Hunting Season The federal government also has data on us that can be connected to health care data to answer important questions. For example, comprehensive and detailed data on Americans' occupations linked with health, insurance, and other data could help shed more light on relationships between our work and our health—helping to better answer curious questions like why taxi drivers are less likely to die from Alzheimer's disease or why female physicians don't outlive their male colleagues. The first step of making big data more helpful is to simply link the data—which, while possible, is difficult to accomplish without centralized effort. Once linkages have been made, data can be anonymized so that those studying sensitive questions aren't privy to confidential information about specific individuals. In addition to governmental data, many other sources of data can provide insights into our health. For example, smartwatches not only have data on how our hearts are beating (e.g., they can identify abnormal heart rhythms like atrial fibrillation), but they can also identify subtle changes in mobility that might be predictive of early neuromuscular diseases like Parkinson's disease. Meanwhile, grocery stores have data on the foods we eat, and with increasing interest in how diet affects our lives, these data could be linked to detailed measures of health. Read More: Could the Shingles Vaccine Help Prevent Dementia? Similarly, social-media platforms possess data that can offer insights into changes in our mental health, and through large-scale analysis of online photos could even identify, in real time, early visible markers of disease. These are moonshots, of course, and whether we want to use data in this way is an open question. But the potential to improve health could be large. Creating a way for scientists to link outside data to existing government and health data—while responsibly maintaining individual anonymity after the linkage—could open many novel research opportunities. Keeping all of these data sources organized, secure, and accessible to scientists is a tall order. Researchers who use big data often dedicate substantial resources to finding the data they need, organizing it, and ensuring its accuracy; the better the database is maintained, the easier it is for researchers to actually perform their analyses. The secure online platform where Medicare and other government health care data are currently accessed has been described by researchers as 'tedious and prone to system errors' and in need of major improvements. Meanwhile, security concerns have led the government to stop letting researchers store the data on their own secure servers, the easiest and most cost-effective way to actually work with the data. Access to Medicare data by researchers has become prohibitively expensive, costing about $30,000 a year or more for a single user to work on one project using the online platform. Read More: Why We Can't Rely on Science Alone to Make Public Health Decisions Proposals to drastically cut medical research funding have been reported, and if passed, these research funding cuts will come at the cost of discoveries to improve health that will never be made. High-quality research of any kind requires investment, whether it's in a biology lab under a microscope or working with data on powerful computers. A new data platform is only as valuable as researchers' ability to access it in a functional and cost-effective way. Any roadmap to designing a national data platform that links together health care and other sensitive data must consider the many valid concerns about collecting data in the U.S., including privacy concerns and how data will be used. The Pew Research Center finds that large majorities of Americans say they are concerned about how the government uses data collected about them (71%), while also admitting that they have little to no understanding of what the government even does with such data (77%). Here are some strategies—in addition to many of the cybersecurity and privacy safeguards already in place—to both protect the data and help earn the public trust: Mistrust and unease with government data collection is readily traceable to historical abuse of Americans' data (as well as recent allegations of improper access), so it's not surprising that many are wary of the Trump Administration's plans. Ensuring data cannot be weaponized by the government against individuals is perhaps the single biggest barrier to creating a useful database, but it can be done. Those currently using federal health care data must already undergo training and comply with very high data-security standards. Misuse of the data—such as even attempting to figure out the identity of an anonymous individual in the data—or failure to protect patient privacy can lead to criminal penalties. A platform of sensitive data without well-delineated restrictions on who can use it and what they can use it for is a recipe for problems. Other ongoing efforts by the Administration to compile data under the vague goal of 'increasing government efficiency' have been met with pushback and lawsuits from organizations concerned about data being used against members of the public. Current use of federal health data also requires researchers to provide the government detailed plans to justify the use of specific data. This allows the government to ensure that no more data than is needed to answer the specific question is provided to researchers. Read More: Why Do Taxi Drivers Have a Lower Risk of Alzheimer's? Researchers must also obtain ethical approval from an Institutional Review Board prior to accessing and analyzing data, a second checkpoint. These boards, which exist in light of egregious failures of medical research ethics in the 20th century, help ensure that analyses are designed to minimize risk to patients—even if it is only their data, and not their bodies, at risk. Transparency into who is using this sensitive data and what exactly they are doing with it can engender trust between researchers and the American public. Just like researchers already do for clinical trials, those accessing the data platform should specify their plans in advance, and those plans should be easily and publicly available. Transparency around which data were accessed and what computer code was used to analyze it not only promotes trust, but such data- and code-sharing practices among researchers make it easier to appraise the quality of the work, identify mistakes, and root out misconduct. We can only assume that Americans' unease with governmental data use stems from knowledge that, as with all powerful tools, linked data has the potential to be used in potentially harmful ways. But when in the hands of qualified scientists using rigorous scientific methods and privacy safeguards, a robust real-world data platform like this could lead to new discoveries about how all of us can lead healthier lives. Contact us at letters@
Time Magazine
4 hours ago
- Time Magazine
Big Data Can Make America Healthier. Here's How to Do It Right
Big data can help make Americans healthier, and the Trump Administration has stated—in its recently released Make America Healthy Again report and elsewhere—that building a national big-data platform is one of its primary goals. As scientists who use large data sets to study health, we're excited about its potential and the willingness of the federal government to invest in it, particularly since big data has been underutilized in the U.S. compared with other developed countries—and since the number of ways it can be used grows nearly daily. It's a huge opportunity. But there are lots of concerns when assembling sensitive health data and combining it with other sensitive data, like credit scores, tax records, employment, educational records, and more. Some of those concerns with the Administration's plans have already surfaced. The Administration's first goal of assembling big data to studying autism has left some worried that if used inappropriately, such data could lead to harm, rather than help, for those with autism. Others worry that big data could be used to perform and justify shoddy research that supports predetermined conclusions without adhering to rigorous scientific methods—a concern reinforced by the discovery that the Make America Healthy Again report cited non-existent sources to support its claims. So how can we reap the benefits of big data while minimizing its risks? Here are some guiding principles: 1. Link the highly siloed health care and government data we already have The health care system already possesses health data on millions of Americans. Medical records are now almost always digitized, permitting doctors' notes, medical imaging, laboratory tests, insurance claims, and more to be linked (in theory) across doctors' offices, hospitals, nursing homes, and any other place people receive care. However, data collected about a patient in one setting often doesn't get connected to data from other settings—making it hard for researchers to get a full picture of what, exactly, is happening to each of us within the larger health care system. The federal government also has data on us that can be connected to health care data to answer important questions. For example, comprehensive and detailed data on Americans' occupations linked with health, insurance, and other data could help shed more light on relationships between our work and our health—helping to better answer curious questions like why taxi drivers are less likely to die from Alzheimer's disease or why female physicians don't outlive their male colleagues. The first step of making big data more helpful is to simply link the data—which, while possible, is difficult to accomplish without centralized effort. Once linkages have been made, data can be anonymized so that those studying sensitive questions aren't privy to confidential information about specific individuals. 2. Create capacity for researchers to securely link to other valuable data In addition to governmental data, many other sources of data can provide insights into our health. For example, smartwatches not only have data on how our hearts are beating (e.g., they can identify abnormal heart rhythms like atrial fibrillation), but they can also identify subtle changes in mobility that might be predictive of early neuromuscular diseases like Parkinson's disease. Meanwhile, grocery stores have data on the foods we eat, and with increasing interest in how diet affects our lives, these data could be linked to detailed measures of health. Similarly, social-media platforms possess data that can offer insights into changes in our mental health, and through large-scale analysis of online photos could even identify, in real time, early visible markers of disease. These are moonshots, of course, and whether we want to use data in this way is an open question. But the potential to improve health could be large. Creating a way for scientists to link outside data to existing government and health data—while responsibly maintaining individual anonymity after the linkage—could open many novel research opportunities. 3. Invest in data-research infrastructure Keeping all of these data sources organized, secure, and accessible to scientists is a tall order. Researchers who use big data often dedicate substantial resources to finding the data they need, organizing it, and ensuring its accuracy; the better the database is maintained, the easier it is for researchers to actually perform their analyses. The secure online platform where Medicare and other government health care data are currently accessed has been described by researchers as 'tedious and prone to system errors' and in need of major improvements. Meanwhile, security concerns have led the government to stop letting researchers store the data on their own secure servers, the easiest and most cost-effective way to actually work with the data. Access to Medicare data by researchers has become prohibitively expensive, costing about $30,000 a year or more for a single user to work on one project using the online platform. Proposals to drastically cut medical research funding have been reported, and if passed, these research funding cuts will come at the cost of discoveries to improve health that will never be made. High-quality research of any kind requires investment, whether it's in a biology lab under a microscope or working with data on powerful computers. A new data platform is only as valuable as researchers' ability to access it in a functional and cost-effective way. Any roadmap to designing a national data platform that links together health care and other sensitive data must consider the many valid concerns about collecting data in the U.S., including privacy concerns and how data will be used. The Pew Research Center finds that large majorities of Americans say they are concerned about how the government uses data collected about them (71%), while also admitting that they have little to no understanding of what the government even does with such data (77%). Here are some strategies—in addition to many of the cybersecurity and privacy safeguards already in place—to both protect the data and help earn the public trust: 1. Strictly limit data access to vetted researchers Mistrust and unease with government data collection is readily traceable to historical abuse of Americans' data (as well as recent allegations of improper access), so it's not surprising that many are wary of the Trump Administration's plans. Ensuring data cannot be weaponized by the government against individuals is perhaps the single biggest barrier to creating a useful database, but it can be done. Those currently using federal health care data must already undergo training and comply with very high data-security standards. Misuse of the data—such as even attempting to figure out the identity of an anonymous individual in the data—or failure to protect patient privacy can lead to criminal penalties. A platform of sensitive data without well-delineated restrictions on who can use it and what they can use it for is a recipe for problems. Other ongoing efforts by the Administration to compile data under the vague goal of 'increasing government efficiency' have been met with pushback and lawsuits from organizations concerned about data being used against members of the public. 2. Require analytical plans and ethics-board approval up front Current use of federal health data also requires researchers to provide the government detailed plans to justify the use of specific data. This allows the government to ensure that no more data than is needed to answer the specific question is provided to researchers. Researchers must also obtain ethical approval from an Institutional Review Board prior to accessing and analyzing data, a second checkpoint. These boards, which exist in light of egregious failures of medical research ethics in the 20 th century, help ensure that analyses are designed to minimize risk to patients—even if it is only their data, and not their bodies, at risk. 3. Emphasize true transparency Transparency into who is using this sensitive data and what exactly they are doing with it can engender trust between researchers and the American public. Just like researchers already do for clinical trials, those accessing the data platform should specify their plans in advance, and those plans should be easily and publicly available. Transparency around which data were accessed and what computer code was used to analyze it not only promotes trust, but such data- and code-sharing practices among researchers make it easier to appraise the quality of the work, identify mistakes, and root out misconduct. We can only assume that Americans' unease with governmental data use stems from knowledge that, as with all powerful tools, linked data has the potential to be used in potentially harmful ways. But when in the hands of qualified scientists using rigorous scientific methods and privacy safeguards, a robust real-world data platform like this could lead to new discoveries about how all of us can lead healthier lives.
USA Today
5 hours ago
- USA Today
A new COVID-19 variant, vaccine changes: What to know in 2025
A new COVID-19 variant, vaccine changes: What to know in 2025 Show Caption Hide Caption RFK Jr. says COVID-19 vaccine no longer recommended for some The COVID-19 vaccine is no longer recommended for healthy children and pregnant women, HHS Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. says. Like it or not, COVID-19 is still a public health issue five years after the start of the pandemic flipped the nation, and the world, on its head. Changing vaccination guidelines, ever-evolving variants and strains, threats to health insurance and more mean COVID is still very much a regular conversation on the lips of lawmakers, regulators and the general public. More than 40,000 positive tests were reported by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention in May, and while hospitalizations and deaths are fortunately down significantly since the pandemic's peak, vulnerable people are still grappling with limiting their risk amid changing practices. Here is a brief recap of the status of COVID cases, variants and vaccines in the U.S. as of June 4, 2025. Where do COVID cases currently stand in the US? According to the most recent data on the CDC's COVID Data Tracker dashboard, there were 735 confirmed COVID-19 deaths in May 2025 as of May 24. In the four weeks leading up to May 24, 3% of 1,344,681 COVID tests administered nationwide were positive. New NB.1.8.1 COVID variant In January, a new COVID-19 variant known as NB.1.8.1 was first detected in China. As of mid-May, the variant had reached 10.7% of global reported COVID-19 cases, according to the World Health Organization (WHO). As of May 27, less than 20 cases of NB.1.8.1 had been reported in the U.S., a CDC spokesperson told USA TODAY. This figure is too low to be added to the CDC's COVID Data Tracker dashboard, the spokesperson added, though they did not clarify the threshold for adding new variants to the dashboard. New COVID variant in China: Here's what to know about NB.1.8.1 NB.1.8.1 is one of the latest variants of COVID-19, a "slightly upgraded version" of the LP.8.1 variant that is prominent right now, Subhash Verma, microbiology and immunology professor at the University of Nevada, Reno, previously told USA TODAY. For comparison, LP.8.1 made up 70% of reported COVID-19 cases in the U.S. between April 26 and May 10, as reported by the CDC. Verma said NB.1.8.1 may be able to be transferred more easily than LP.8.1. Additionally, he said that NB.1.8.1 is able to evade antibodies created by vaccines or past infections more easily than LP.8.1. The variant has similar symptoms to other strains, including fever or chills, cough, shortness of breath or difficulty breathing, sore throat, congestion or a runny nose, new loss of taste or smell, fatigue, muscle or body aches, headache, nausea or vomiting. Vaccine back-and-forth: Who can get it and will there be new boosters? Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. said on May 27 that the COVID-19 vaccine would no longer be included in the CDC's recommended immunization schedule for healthy children and pregnant women, a move that broke with previous expert guidance and bypassed the normal scientific review process. Under the changes, the only people who will be recommended for COVID-19 vaccines are those over 65 and people with existing health problems. This could make it harder for others who want the COVID-19 vaccine to get it, including health care workers and healthy people under 65 with a vulnerable family member or those who want to reduce their short-term risk of infection. RFK changes vaccine recommendations: Want a COVID vaccine? It could cost you $200. Insurance coverage typically follows federal recommendations, so anyone who is healthy and under 65 is likely to have to pay out of pocket to get the shot, which runs about $200, if they can get it. It's not clear what insurance companies will do about the new recommendations. RFK Jr. is a vaccine skeptic known for making false claims about vaccination and other medical practices. Under his leadership and the Trump administration, the FDA canceled the advisory meeting of independent experts who usually gather to formulate new flu shots annually and nixed a contract with Moderna to develop a bird flu vaccine amid the spread. He also pushed false claims about MMR vaccines as measles, previously eradicated in the U.S., began erupting in states across the country, causing the first death in a decade. It is not yet known how accessible the COVID-19 vaccine will be moving forward. Contributing: Karen Weintraub, Sudiksha Kochi, USA TODAY; Reuters
