
The MAHA Takeover Is Complete
The surgeon general, America's doctor, is the public face of medicine in the United States. The job is more educational than it is technical. Vivek Murthy, who was appointed as surgeon general during both the Obama and Biden administrations, went on Sesame Street to stress the importance of vaccinations and put out a guidebook to hosting dinner parties as a cure for loneliness.
In many ways, Casey Means is the perfect person for that job. Donald Trump's new nominee for surgeon general, announced yesterday, is a Stanford-trained doctor who is well-spoken and telegenic. Most important, she clearly knows how to draw attention to health issues. Good Energy, the book she published last year with her brother, Calley (who, by the way, is a special adviser in the Trump administration), is Amazon's No. 1 best seller in its 'nutrition' and 'aging' categories. She regularly posts on Instagram, where she has more than 700,000 followers.
In many other ways, however, Means is far from perfect. A leading voice in Robert F. Kennedy Jr.'s 'Make America Healthy Again' movement, she has a habit of trafficking in pseudoscience and at times can be hyperbolic, to put it lightly. Means has said that America's diet-related health issues could lead to a 'genocidal-level health collapse' and that 'all of us are a little bit dead while we are alive' because of what she calls 'metabolic dysfunction.' She has also written about taking part in full-moon ceremonies and about how talking to trees helped her find love—though she admitted that the rituals were 'out there.' And Means (who didn't respond to a request for comment) has used her platform to promote 'mitochondrial health' gummies, algae-laden 'energy bits,' and vitamins she described as her 'immunity stack.'
Means was not Trump's top choice for surgeon general. His first nominee, Janette Nesheiwat, was pulled out of contention yesterday amid allegations that she had misrepresented her medical training. Presuming the Senate confirms Means as the next surgeon general, she will be another one of RFK Jr.'s ideological compatriots who have joined him in the Trump administration. National Institutes of Health Director Jay Bhattacharya and FDA Commissioner Marty Makary are both also skeptics of the public-health establishment. Earlier this week, Vinay Prasad, another prominent medical contrarian, assumed a top job at the FDA. Now the 'MAHA' takeover of the federal health agencies is all but complete. Earlier today, Trump told reporters that he tapped Means 'because Bobby thought she was fantastic.'
Means fits right in with the Trump administration's approach to health. She dropped out of her medical residency, citing her frustrations with the myopic focus of modern medicine. By her telling in Good Energy, she left her program in ear, nose, and throat surgery because 'not once' was she taught what caused the inflammation in her patients' sinuses. In the third chapter of her book, titled 'Trust Yourself, Not Your Doctor,' Means writes that you should not trust physicians, because the medical establishment makes more money when you are sick and does not understand how to treat the root causes of chronic disease.
Alleviating chronic disease is also a passion of Kennedy's, and the similarities between them run deep. Like the health secretary, Means believes that you should avoid seed oils and ultraprocessed foods. She is prone to musings about the crisis of American health care that leans more Goop than C. Everett Koop. She has proclaimed that Americans have 'totally lost respect for the miraculousness of life.' She has said that the birth-control pill disrespects life because it is 'shutting down the hormones in the female body that create this cyclical life-giving nature of women.' One of the latest editions of her weekly email newsletter was dedicated to the children's movie Moana, which she called 'a forgotten blueprint for how we lead, heal, and regenerate.' (For the record, Koop, America's surgeon general during Ronald Reagan's presidency, never implied that he's done mushrooms to find love.)
Tucker Carlson, Joe Rogan, and Andrew Huberman have all hosted Means on their podcasts. Means's rise is, in many ways, emblematic of modern internet wellness culture writ large: If you're articulate and confident and can convincingly recite what seems like academic evidence, you can become famous—and perhaps even be named surgeon general. Her most dangerous inclination is to toe the line of her new boss, Kennedy, on the issue of vaccines. On Rogan's show in October, she questioned whether the barrage of shots kids receive as infants might cause autism. And on Carlson's podcast, she argued that perhaps certain shots given to infants should be given later in life to avoid overexposure to neurotoxins. There is no scientific evidence to back up those claims.
But at the same time, much of Means's philosophy toward health doesn't seem that objectionable. Whereas the books that RFK Jr. has written are crammed full of conspiracy theories, hers focuses on how America's ills can be treated with whole foods, exercise, and good sleep. It even includes a recipe guide. (Her fennel-and-apple salad with lemon-dijon dressing and smoked salmon is delicious, I must admit.) If her book is any indication, her first move as surgeon general will be to urge parents to cut down on their kids' sugar consumption. 'If the surgeon general, the dean of Stanford Medical School, and the head of the NIH gave a press conference on the steps of Congress tomorrow saying we should have an urgent national effort to cut sugar consumption among children, I believe sugar consumption would go down,' she wrote.
If Means sticks to these issues—encouraging Americans to eat organic, go on a walk, and get some shut-eye—she could be a force for positive change in American health care. If she urges women to forgo birth control, plugs unproven supplements, or uses her bully pulpit to question the safety of childhood vaccines, she will go down as one of the most dangerous surgeon generals in modern history. In this way, she is much like Kennedy and the rest of the MAHA universe. Their big-picture concerns sound reasonable and are resonating with lots of people. America does have a chronic-disease problem; food companies are selling junk that makes us sick; the public-health establishment hasn't gotten everything right. But for every reasonable idea they proffer, there is a pseudoscientific belief that strains their credibility.
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles

11 minutes ago
Republicans urge Donald Trump and Elon Musk to end their feud
WASHINGTON -- As the Republican Party braces for aftershocks from President Donald Trump's spectacular clash with Elon Musk, lawmakers and conservative figures are urging détente, fearful of the potential consequences from a prolonged feud. At a minimum, the explosion of animosity between the two powerful men could complicate the path forward for Republicans' massive tax and border spending legislation that has been promoted by Trump but assailed by Musk. 'I hope it doesn't distract us from getting the job done that we need to,' said Rep. Dan Newhouse, a Republican from Washington state. "I think that it will boil over and they'll mend fences' Sen. Ted Cruz, a Texas Republican, was similarly optimistic. 'I hope that both of them come back together because when the two of them are working together, we'll get a lot more done for America than when they're at cross purposes,' he told Fox News host Sean Hannity on Thursday night. Sen. Mike Lee, a Republican from Utah, sounded almost pained on social media as Trump and Musk volleyed insults at each other, sharing a photo composite of the two men and writing, "But … I really like both of them.' 'Who else really wants @elonmusk and @realDonaldTrump to reconcile?' Lee posted, later adding: 'Repost if you agree that the world is a better place with the Trump-Musk bromance fully intact.' So far, the feud between Trump and Musk is probably best described as a moving target, with plenty of opportunities for escalation or detente. One person familiar with the president's thinking said Musk wants to speak with Trump, but that the president doesn't want to do it – or at least do it on Friday. The person requested anonymity to disclose private matters. In a series of conversations with television anchors Friday morning, Trump showed no interest in burying the hatchet. Asked on ABC News about reports of a potential call between him and Musk, the president responded: 'You mean the man who has lost his mind?' Trump added in the ABC interview that he was 'not particularly' interested in talking to Musk at the moment. Still, others remained hopeful that it all would blow over. 'I grew up playing hockey and there wasn't a single day that we played hockey or basketball or football or baseball, whatever we were playing, where we didn't fight. And then we'd fight, then we'd become friends again,' Hannity said on his show Thursday night. Acknowledging that it 'got personal very quick,' Hannity nonetheless added that the rift was 'just a major policy difference.' House Speaker Mike Johnson projected confidence that the dispute would not affect prospects for the tax and border bill. 'Members are not shaken at all,' the Louisiana Republican said. 'We're going to pass this legislation on our deadline.' He added that he hopes Musk and Trump reconcile, saying 'I believe in redemption' and 'it's good for the party and the country if all that's worked out.' But he also had something of a warning for the billionaire entrepreneur. 'I'll tell you what, do not doubt and do not second-guess and don't ever challenge the president of the United States, Donald Trump,' Johnson said. "He is the leader of the party. He's the most consequential political figure of this generation and probably the modern era.'
Yahoo
12 minutes ago
- Yahoo
RFK Jr.'s policies will make America's maternal mortality rates worse
The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists rightly criticized Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr.'s announcement at the end of last month that his department will no longer recommend the Covid vaccine for pregnant women. Covid was the leading cause of maternal mortality in 2021, and the ACOG correctly pointed out that the vaccine is safe and that it provides needed protection for expectant mothers and their unborn children. The decision by Kennedy's agency to delete the recommendation that pregnant women be vaccinated against a virus that was recently the leading cause of maternal death should prompt us to ask: Where are pregnant women in Kennedy's 'Make America Healthy Again' plan? As a maternal health physician, public health expert and equity leader, I'm as unhappy as ACOG is with the specific decision the HHS has made to stop recommending the Covid vaccine for my pregnant patients. Contracting Covid during pregnancy increases the risk of complications, including death. But I'm even more outraged and alarmed by something else HHS has done on Kennedy's watch: omit maternal mortality review committees (MMRCs) and perinatal quality collaboratives (PQCs) from the new structure of HHS. Maternal mortality review committees show us what is killing mothers and how we can stop it. Perinatal quality collaboratives give us the tools to act. They help hospitals and providers implement lifesaving solutions. These programs are not bureaucratic add-ons, but the main reason our nation has made progress in reducing maternal deaths. And yet, in a new proposed budget, programs run by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, such as the pregnancy risk assessment monitoring system, maternal mortality review committees and perinatal quality collaboratives are conspicuously missing. Together, these programs have led to measurable improvements in maternal outcomes across the country. From 2021 to 2023, the U.S. saw statistically significant decreases in maternal mortality. That's not a coincidence — it's the result of a national, coordinated strategy rooted in evidence and accountability. The removal of this infrastructure is more than a policy shift — it's a dismantling of the very system that allowed us to fight back against a maternal health crisis. And the stakes are especially high for Black women and rural mothers, who face the greatest disparities in maternal outcomes. Without MMRCs, we lose the ability to track those disparities. Without PQCs, we lose the mechanism to fix them. In smaller hospitals, especially, quality improvement isn't a given — it's something PQCs make possible by helping teams implement patient safety bundles that might otherwise remain unused. Forty-six states and six U.S. territories have MMRCs supported by a CDC grant. This funding provides support to perform case reviews of maternal deaths, while the CDC provides the infrastructure, including a database that allows the results of such reviews to be aggregated. Data from MMRCs in 38 states in 2020, for example, showed that the leading cause of pregnancy-related deaths was mental health conditions, inclusive of suicide and accidental overdose, and 84% of those deaths were deemed preventable. Those findings gave rise to federal programs such as the maternal mental health hotline which, I'm thankful, will continue to be supported in the proposed HHS budget. The CDC also provides funding to support 36 state-based PQCs. This is an example of how the programs work together: In Louisiana, our maternal mortality review identified obstetric hemorrhage as our leading cause of pregnancy-related deaths in 2018. As a result, the Louisiana Perinatal Quality Collaborative (LaPQC) through the reducing maternal morbidity initiative and the safe births initiative worked to implement the AIM obstetric hemorrhage patient safety bundle. As a result, Louisiana mothers experiencing hemorrhage saw a 39% decrease in severe maternal morbidity (SMM), with a 58% decrease among Black women. These aren't anecdotes. They are blueprints for saving lives. Like the decision to stop recommending the Covid vaccine, if the decision to remove these programs from the budget stands, we will reverse course. The U.S. already has the highest maternal mortality rate among high-income countries. Removing these programs is likely to make the national crisis worse. We cannot allow that. My message to policymakers is simple: You can't 'Make America Healthy Again' if you ignore the risks of pregnancy and childbirth. Reinvest in the programs that are working. Fund the programs that show us why mothers are dying and what to do to keep more mothers alive. Preserve the public health infrastructure that has already started to move the needle in the right direction. If we as a country fail to act, then more mothers will die — and the tragic part is, we'll know we had the tools to prevent it. This article was originally published on
Yahoo
12 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Jeffries declines to embrace Musk amid the billionaire's feud with Trump
House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries (D-N.Y.) is keeping his distance from Elon Musk even after the billionaire's extraordinary public rebuke of President Trump and the GOP's domestic agenda. Asked Friday if Musk's bitter break from Trump presents Democrats with an opportunity to form a strange-bedfellows alliance with the tech titan, Jeffries shifted the conversation immediately to the Democrats' efforts to kill Trump's 'big, beautiful bill.' 'The opportunity that exists right now is to kill the GOP tax scam,' Jeffries told reporters in the Capitol. 'It's legislation that we have been strongly opposed to, and uniformly opposed to, from the very beginning. … It rips health care away from millions of people. It snatches food out of the mouths of hungry children. And it rewards billionaires and [GOP] donors in ways that are fiscally irresponsible.' Pressed on whether Musk should be 'welcomed back' to the Democratic Party after the high-profile split from Trump, Jeffries punted again. 'Same answer,' he said. Jeffries's cautious remarks demonstrate the limits of the old adage that the enemy of one's enemy is one's friend. They also highlight the potential difficulties Democrats would face if they embraced a polarizing and nationally unpopular figure in Musk — one they've spent most of the last year bashing for heavy spending on Trump's campaign and, more recently, for his role in heading Trump's efforts to gut the federal government. Still, some Democrats say Musk's influence is significant enough that Democrats should make the effort to try to court him to their side amid the Trump feud. Rep. Ro Khanna (D-Calif.), who represents parts of Silicon Valley, is leading the charge. 'If Biden had a big supporter criticize him, Trump would have hugged him the next day,' Khanna posted Thursday on social platform X, which is owned by Musk. 'When we refused to meet with @RobertKennedyJr, Trump embraced him & won. We can be the party of sanctimonious lectures, or the party of FDR that knows how to win & build a progressive majority,' referring to former President Franklin D. Roosevelt. Jeffries isn't going nearly so far. But he has welcomed Musk's attacks on Trump's 'big, beautiful bill' and the Republicans who voted for it. And he aligned Democrats with Musk's sentiments that the package piles too much money onto the federal debt, a figure the Congressional Budget Office estimated to be $2.4 trillion. 'To the extent that Elon Musk has made the same point that everyone who has voted for this bill up until this moment should be ashamed of themselves, we agree,' Jeffries said. 'And to the extent that Elon Musk has made the point that the bill is a 'disgusting abomination,' we agree. And to the extent that Elon Musk has made the observation about the GOP tax scam — that it is reckless and irresponsible to explode the deficit by more than $3 trillion, and that potentially could set our country on a path toward bankruptcy — we agree.' 'These are arguments that Democrats have been making now for months.' Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.