RFK Jr. as Health Secretary. Why not?

Don't forget his anti Vax anti science views

Remember that this is a policy that Trump agrees to implement since the beginning ("make America healthy again"). So, whether RFK is designated or not, the policy will  be implemented anyway no matter if it affects people's economy. For example, Trump has just applied 25% of tariffs on steel and aluminium even though it affects the American economy. Trump doesn't care.

And from what I know, RFK aims to dismantle the corruption in those departments basically, he said he's not going against the vaccines and other medication as long as they have strong scientific basis.

Although he can find problems with regulating the pesticides used in agriculture because most farmers supported Trump's campaign. We will see what Trump decides about it.

But his children got all the vaccines that a child should get. I think people are misinterpreting his words because he's not an expert in the matter.

My impression is that he's only against the covid vaccines. I am against it too because people were forced to get it and as RFk said, there was little information about it. Now we know that some vaccines cause some rare illnesses in the heart and the brain, there are papers about it.

His case against the COVID vaccines was and remains overblown, but I'm going to set that aside since that is likely to overtake this conversation if we get into it.

Two years ago, he advised all parents not to vaccinate their children.

RFK Jr. says a lot of things, but I'm still unclear on many of the details. What does "dismantl[ing] the corruption in those departments" entail? That can take a lot of forms and, given what we've seen, will almost certainly be accompanied by a mass firing of talent from the various agencies he'll oversee and an overhaul of their regulatory apparatus. How exactly can he do all that while ensuring that these agencies continue to function? And if he's not planning to do all that, what is he going to do?

What is a "strong scientific basis" and by what standard would he establish that? He clearly doesn't believe many existing vaccines and medications meet whatever standard he has in mind, as he has made very clear over the last several years, so it's very plausible that he just removes those vaccines and medications from circulation until they meet that unknown standard, which he will also have to codify and implement broadly within the FDA. That means a lot of work on existing infrastructure while handling everything that's already coming into an overwhelmed and understaffed FDA.

Two years ago, he advised all parents not to vaccinate their children.

It really doesn't matter what RFK thinks. If Trump is pro-vaccine, then vaccines won't change.

The corruption is on the lobby of the health and food companies so I guess he's going to regulate that. We're going to see how powerful these big companies are, I heard they are part of the deep state and are in everyplace there is a politician. This is important because the health deparment deals with more money than any other federal agency.

Well, from what I heard in his presentation in the Congress, he seems to accept the vaccines. He may still think that vaccines are not good but he is now almost the secretary of health department so he can't act based on his opinions. He just wants to inform correctly about vaccines so that people can take a well-informed decision. Getting a vaccine shouldn't be forced

even more now that we know the covid vaccine had a lot of serious side effects.

I heard there was a covid vaccine for children but it was very risky for them so I agree with him.

That's not enough detail for me, and the lack of detail is the problem here. What is he going to require of them? How is he going to enforce it? How is he going to change the regulatory apparatus at his agency? You can talk about how corrupt these companies are and the so-called "deep state," but I'm not interested in a breakdown of all the problems with corporations and politicians generally. They exist, as do their harms. We're talking about putting RFK Jr. in a position to address them, so I'm interested in the solutions and changes he would use to address them, both of which we've heard scant little about.

I'm unclear. What words did he say precisely that showcase his willingness to "accept the vaccines"? I saw a lot of hedging and a lot of statements about reaching some unknown, arbitrary threshold for what suffices as a "strong scientific basis" for believing in the safety and efficacy of vaccines. That doesn't sound like acceptance and it certainly doesn't sound like support. It sounds like a basis for challenging existing vaccines on the market. It's fine if you don't like mandatory vaccines, but that doesn't mean it would be better to place someone in charge who has a clear and demonstrated bias against vaccines and their current standards.

As for the idea that he's suddenly going to shift his perspective because he's going to be in a powerful role, I beg to differ. He has every reason to portray himself that way when he's interviewing for the position in front of Congress, which makes any statements he makes in front of them inherently more likely to either bend or eschew the truth entirely just to get their stamp of approval. He lacks that reason the moment he assumes the role, especially as Trump has made clear that he likes and supports what RFK Jr. has previously espoused.

Dude, you should ask this to RFK Jr. How could I know? From what I understand, he has to outline firstly the goals of his term. Once he's designated as health secretary, he should present a thorough plan to achieve his proposals. Though I don't know how that works, I can be wrong.

I found an interview with him in 2017 and in the last question he says he's totally for the vaccine. Link to interview

I understand his concern, there is a lot of corruption in the health industry so he's very careful of what scientists say about the medication  they produce. We shouldn't trust them because scientists are at the end humans as all of us, they can make mistakes or even worse get corrupted. So we should question them at every moment we find something obscure on their work.

Besides, the reason why he opposes to children vaccines is because he found some cases of serious side effects. Eventhough they were few cases, almost nothing compared to all the vaccinated population, he is very concerned about this minority.

I think there is no reason to deny him the job. There are lots of critics on him but at the end it's just part of the political game. There is nothing to be afraid of.

There's a good argument that Trump blindly follows the advice of advisors. He did not seem to question Fauci much in 2020.

However, most people agree a 2025 Trump is quite a bit different in this area.

An additional benefit of having RFK as an advisor is that if and when RFK says something medical is safe, he will be far more trusted than someone in the pocket of big pharma. That opinion will seem very genuine, even if Trump rejects his opinion.

Did I mention RFK was a Democrat for most of his life? (along with Trump)

Many of those ideas (the old Democrat ideas, not the new garbage) still remain. There was a time when the Democrat brand meant against government abuse, against the CIA, against fraud, against big lobbies, against War. Most of the people making up hypotheticals during the hearings were massive beneficiaries from big lobby money.

I find it very unlikely people will think RFK is "biased" when he says a drug is safe over the "pronouncement" of a massive beneficiary of big lobby subsidies. It's why RFK seems popular with the anti-lobby crowd.

Quite the opposite, for better or worse. His opinion won't be purchased by the ones making and selling the drugs.

or that the funding he received for his campaign doesn't sway his views at all, is absurd

Big business will always have a dramatically outsized influence on government,

a) I don't think the price we will pay will be worth it,

and if simply placing RFK into this position will make people think that their influence is reduced..

Well, I was unaware he was being paid money to support the same big lobbies he regularly hauls into court for malfeasance. That would indeed be quite the hat-trick.

Unlikely if the alphabet agencies those big lobbies launder influence through like the FDA are dismantled. When regulatory power returns to the states, it will be far harder to purchase influence without getting caught, even in New York and California.

What price would be acceptable? 70 more years of the same? That's an unsustainable solution.

The people have figured out the game by now that all ultra-wealthy lobby actions reduce popular influence. Trump got more support with RFK, not less.

That masks that influence. I'm sure people will love believing that the health industry is free of that influence, just too bad it won't be.

I guess we will find out when those agencies are rendered useless to the lobbies and the money is returned to the states either through block grants, or more efficient and accountable local taxation over federal waste. Lord knows the propaganda machine is in full force explaining how the world will end if we return to the time where things ran....a lot better actually without all the centralized planning.

Democrats could work across the aisle and help shape this dismantling in a practical (and popular) way, but there are not enough uncompromised leaders ATM in their Congress.