top of page
Writer's pictureChuck Radda

Matt Gaetz may be a punchline, but RFK is a lot more dangerous.

Since we're in a drought, I can't rain on the parade of all those innocents thrilled to see RFK tending to their personal health, but I do have some issues that transcend party politics. 


First off, Kennedy's position on vaccines is fuzzy. He has said, "I'm not going to take away anybody's vaccines, I've never been anti-vaccine," and "I'm going to make sure the scientific safety studies and efficacies are out there, and people can make individual assessments." This position is a problem in a country full of people getting their medical advice from X or Facebook or "a friend of mine said..." At the end of this medical chain, which does include over-pricing by drug companies, abuses of painkillers, and colossal insurance profits, are the people we trust (or I do)—the doctors and nurses, the medical professionals. I'm afraid a man with no medical background like Kennedy, who has espoused some baffling (one might say, crazy) theories, is going to turn people away from these experts, and many of those would-be patients will die. Kennedy raises safety concerns that have never been scientifically proven—have, in fact, been disproven and discredited. And face it, you can be anti-science in theory, but when you're ailing, you generally seek out someone with a degree in it.


Second, I don't know what RFK's feelings are about women's health issues. In a speech, Trump once said about him, "He's so into women's health, and you know, he's really unbelievable. He, it's such a passion." I don't have the translation for what Trump said—I never do—but Kennedy did say abortion should be banned if the fetus is viable. But that decision is often going to rest on religious grounds and may even change from one physician to the next. This vagueness is a problem in our politically charged and tribal society. We listen to the chief of our tribe, even if the chief makes no sense. That's true of both tribes, and it's especially perilous when we make medical decisions based on a slogan or an unproven fantasy.


(We are vulnerable. My pet peeve centers on a certain product for memory enhancement whose commercials are ubiquitous but which, according to all science, works no better than a placebo. The Mayo Clinic recommends physical activity to keep your body in shape, and crossword puzzles for your mind. Neither comes in a bottle.)


Trump claims Americans have been "crushed by the industrial food complex and drug companies who have engaged in deception, misinformation, and disinformation when it comes to Public Health." No argument from me, but if RFK's suggestions hamstring the medical professionals we count on, and if an anti-vaccine stance augments a rise in childhood mortality, then trusting medical decisions to the individual may not always be the best path. Furthermore, RFK's sweeping indictment of the medical profession has opened up many emergency room doctors and nurses to violence and assaults when professional advice contradicts what the patient heard "on the Internet."


RFK is a terrible choice. There are plenty of medical professionals at the highest levels in their fields who are also Republicans—who also voted for Donald Trump—whose medical opinions have evolved from years of study and experience with patients and illnesses, with medication and vaccines. They may be part of the so-called medical establishment, but when your pipes are leaking, don't you want someone who is part of the plumbing establishment to fix them?


No matter what our political affiliation might be, we shouldn't have to "settle" when it comes to our health.

28 views0 comments

留言


bottom of page