Public Health Leaders Are Quietly Hopeful Yet Extremely Fearful About RFK Jr.
Public health officials recognize potential in certain aspects of Robert F. Kennedy Jr.’s strategies for preventing chronic disease, yet express concern and dismay regarding his vaccine conspiracy theories.
TroibNews 
The public health community is currently grappling with a complex dilemma: While they recognize Robert F. Kennedy Jr.’s emphasis on the fundamental causes of chronic disease as a long-awaited approach essential for improving America's status as the least healthy wealthy nation, they are also wary of the potential repercussions, particularly an increase in infectious disease risks that vaccines help mitigate.
Numerous researchers and public health officials who engaged with PMG view Kennedy as a potential catalyst for improving the diet and exercise habits of Americans and decreasing exposure to harmful chemicals. However, they also perceive him as a spreader of dangerous vaccine misinformation, which might severely undermine public health efforts. This has led to differing opinions on whether to attempt to influence Kennedy’s direction or to oppose him stiffly.
“This is a really, really sticky situation,” stated Katelyn Jetelina, an epidemiologist focused on fostering public trust in reliable health information since the pandemic. “How do we push one part of public health forward without letting the other areas slip backwards? That’s going to be the question over the next four years.”
Certain public health experts are inclined to collaborate with Kennedy, especially regarding the reframing of health policy priorities. “It’s a reframing that’s long been needed,” remarked Sandra Albrecht, an epidemiology professor at Columbia University, acknowledging that public health officials “will need to work with the administration” despite Kennedy's problematic history.
Conversely, skepticism remains. Jetelina noted that many of her colleagues believe that “Kennedy can do more damage than good.”
Initially, Kennedy must persuade senators—some of whom are weighing the pros and cons of his nomination—to confirm him as Secretary of Health and Human Services. Trump nominated Kennedy last month after pledging to allow him significant latitude in health policy. Kennedy supported Trump's campaign in August when he withdrew from his independent presidential run and endorsed Trump.
On the topic of chronic disease, which Kennedy links to environmental and food toxins, public health officials acknowledge he may be onto something. Heart diseases, cancer, diabetes, depression, and other chronic conditions are the leading causes of mortality and disability in the U.S., where life expectancy stands at 77.5 years—the lowest among affluent nations.
Some chronic disease researchers express cautious enthusiasm for aspects of Kennedy’s agenda, particularly his intent to examine nutritional and environmental elements contributing to the rise of conditions such as diabetes and depression. However, they remain conflicted. Collaborating with Kennedy could lend him credibility to question life-saving vaccines and broadly undermine public health expertise. Concerns linger that their optimism toward his initiatives on chronic disease may be misplaced.
Albrecht expressed skepticism about Kennedy's capacity to implement substantial changes in the food system swiftly, pointing to the entrenched support for the food industry in Congress and the complexities of Washington’s health bureaucracy. Some doubt that Republicans would fulfill Kennedy's calls for more robust regulations.
Furthermore, public health leaders are apprehensive that the erosion of trust in medical authorities seen during COVID-19 may worsen under Kennedy—who authored a bestseller suggesting the pandemic was a conspiracy by pharmaceutical companies—potentially creating new vulnerabilities for contagious diseases.
Determining where to direct their focus—and how much to risk in repositioning public health priorities—will likely be a pivotal challenge for health experts as they look toward another four years of Trump.
America has reached—or is very close to—an era where individuals with chronic conditions outnumber those without, according to numerous estimates. Obesity rates continue to rise, with predictions indicating that most Americans will meet the criteria within the next five years. Projections suggest that new cancer cases will exceed 2 million for the first time in 2024, alongside increasing diagnoses of diabetes, depression, and asthma.
The consequences of this rising incidence—including associated costs, disabilities, and suffering—have left researchers, doctors, policymakers, and patients alarmed and searching for explanations. Many believe that some of Kennedy’s assertions regarding food manufacturing, ultraprocessed foods, and environmental pollution may have merit.
“Our diets are significant factors in noncommunicable diseases or chronic diseases,” remarked Jessica Fanzo, a climate professor and director of the Food for Humanity Initiative at Columbia University. “If it were me, I, too, would ambitiously want to go after the food system.”
Traditionally, Democrats have supported stronger government oversight compared to Republicans concerning pollution, food additives, and the practices of agriculture and pharmaceutical companies.
Additionally, the funding dedicated to chronic disease research could face challenges without Kennedy. Last year, House Republicans attempted to significantly cut funding for the National Institutes of Health, the government’s disease research agency, but Senate Democrats and President Biden managed to maintain the budget at its current level.
Should Republicans gain full control of Washington next year, they will still need Democratic support in the Senate to pass funding bills, yet they will possess greater leverage to push for cuts than previously available.
“We are very fearful that investment in research in chronic diseases and prevention will be cut,” expressed Dr. Elbert Huang, director of the Center for Chronic Disease Research and Policy at the University of Chicago.
For some public health advocates, their evaluation of Kennedy is significantly influenced by the potential consequences of an alternative nominee. A more traditional small-government conservative could seek to curtail research budgets across the board, disregard stronger oversight initiatives, and ignore plans to address chronic diseases—all while undermining the medical establishment.
Kennedy’s unfounded assertions regarding vaccines—claiming that the measles, mumps, and rubella vaccine causes autism and that the COVID vaccine is the deadliest in history—render him unpalatable to many in the public health field.
Some have actively campaigned against his confirmation. Protect Our Care, a health advocacy organization aligned with Democrats, has established a Stop RFK War Room, running advertisements this week urging constituents to push their senators to reject Kennedy’s nomination based on his vaccine stance.
The Committee to Protect Health Care, comprising a network of doctors, has also made its opposition clear. “We have to deal with the person in front of us and what he represents,” stated Dr. Rob Davidson, the committee’s executive director. “There’s a clear and present danger in front of us.”
Those concerns extend to the senators whose votes Kennedy must secure. Recently, outgoing Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell made a pointed comment regarding Kennedy, saying, “Efforts to undermine public confidence in proven cures are not just uninformed—they’re dangerous.”
McConnell, a polio survivor, was responding to a New York Times piece detailing how a Kennedy adviser called for the FDA to revoke the polio vaccine's approval. Kennedy himself has cast doubt on this vaccine, suggesting its risks may outweigh its benefits.
Kennedy can afford to lose only three Republican votes and still become HHS secretary if Democratic senators maintain a united front against him.
In addressing his past anti-vaccine activism, Kennedy has attempted to present a more measured approach, claiming he merely seeks to study vaccine safety and does not intend to eliminate anyone’s access to vaccines. Trump has stated he is open to reevaluating vaccination protocols based on his nominee’s findings, but he has consistently referred to the polio vaccine as a miraculous lifesaving treatment.
Even if Kennedy honors the government’s vaccine approval processes, he mentioned his intention to shift the health bureaucracy's focus toward chronic disease while halting infectious disease research for several years.
Researchers argue that this approach is illogical, as progress in the treatment of chronic and infectious diseases is interconnected. Innovations in infectious disease research, particularly vaccine development, have saved countless lives and are considered one of the most significant achievements in public health over the last century. “That’s not an approach I think any public health researcher would get on board with,” Albrecht said regarding Kennedy's plan to suspend funding for infectious disease research.
Public health experts who have signaled a willingness to work with Kennedy harbor a range of other concerns: They fear that political divides will inhibit consensus on common issues, that conspiratorial advisers might lead him away from scientific evidence, and that changing deeply entrenched health and agricultural structures will prove challenging.
Many researchers doubt that new funding for research is likely while Republicans hold power—regardless of how earnestly Kennedy discusses the necessity of understanding the escalating rates of chronic diseases.
Others are skeptical about Kennedy's qualifications to effectively navigate the bureaucracy to realize his goals, a sentiment echoed by lobbyists urging clients to refrain from obstructing Kennedy’s initiatives.
“You have these big, grand ideas,” Jetelina, who has collaborated with federal agencies, pointed out. “Once you start opening that hood, it’s a whole lot more complex and complicated than you think.”
Trump has suggested that Kennedy’s role will not be as disruptive as many anticipate, maintaining that his nominee is not “going to upset any system” or “looking to reinvent the wheel totally.” “I think he’s going to be much less radical than you would think,” Trump remarked during a press conference at his Mar-a-Lago resort on Monday. “He’s going to have an open mind, or I wouldn’t have put him there.”
Aarav Patel for TROIB News
Numerous researchers and public health officials who engaged with PMG view Kennedy as a potential catalyst for improving the diet and exercise habits of Americans and decreasing exposure to harmful chemicals. However, they also perceive him as a spreader of dangerous vaccine misinformation, which might severely undermine public health efforts. This has led to differing opinions on whether to attempt to influence Kennedy’s direction or to oppose him stiffly.
“This is a really, really sticky situation,” stated Katelyn Jetelina, an epidemiologist focused on fostering public trust in reliable health information since the pandemic. “How do we push one part of public health forward without letting the other areas slip backwards? That’s going to be the question over the next four years.”
Certain public health experts are inclined to collaborate with Kennedy, especially regarding the reframing of health policy priorities. “It’s a reframing that’s long been needed,” remarked Sandra Albrecht, an epidemiology professor at Columbia University, acknowledging that public health officials “will need to work with the administration” despite Kennedy's problematic history.
Conversely, skepticism remains. Jetelina noted that many of her colleagues believe that “Kennedy can do more damage than good.”
Initially, Kennedy must persuade senators—some of whom are weighing the pros and cons of his nomination—to confirm him as Secretary of Health and Human Services. Trump nominated Kennedy last month after pledging to allow him significant latitude in health policy. Kennedy supported Trump's campaign in August when he withdrew from his independent presidential run and endorsed Trump.
On the topic of chronic disease, which Kennedy links to environmental and food toxins, public health officials acknowledge he may be onto something. Heart diseases, cancer, diabetes, depression, and other chronic conditions are the leading causes of mortality and disability in the U.S., where life expectancy stands at 77.5 years—the lowest among affluent nations.
Some chronic disease researchers express cautious enthusiasm for aspects of Kennedy’s agenda, particularly his intent to examine nutritional and environmental elements contributing to the rise of conditions such as diabetes and depression. However, they remain conflicted. Collaborating with Kennedy could lend him credibility to question life-saving vaccines and broadly undermine public health expertise. Concerns linger that their optimism toward his initiatives on chronic disease may be misplaced.
Albrecht expressed skepticism about Kennedy's capacity to implement substantial changes in the food system swiftly, pointing to the entrenched support for the food industry in Congress and the complexities of Washington’s health bureaucracy. Some doubt that Republicans would fulfill Kennedy's calls for more robust regulations.
Furthermore, public health leaders are apprehensive that the erosion of trust in medical authorities seen during COVID-19 may worsen under Kennedy—who authored a bestseller suggesting the pandemic was a conspiracy by pharmaceutical companies—potentially creating new vulnerabilities for contagious diseases.
Determining where to direct their focus—and how much to risk in repositioning public health priorities—will likely be a pivotal challenge for health experts as they look toward another four years of Trump.
America has reached—or is very close to—an era where individuals with chronic conditions outnumber those without, according to numerous estimates. Obesity rates continue to rise, with predictions indicating that most Americans will meet the criteria within the next five years. Projections suggest that new cancer cases will exceed 2 million for the first time in 2024, alongside increasing diagnoses of diabetes, depression, and asthma.
The consequences of this rising incidence—including associated costs, disabilities, and suffering—have left researchers, doctors, policymakers, and patients alarmed and searching for explanations. Many believe that some of Kennedy’s assertions regarding food manufacturing, ultraprocessed foods, and environmental pollution may have merit.
“Our diets are significant factors in noncommunicable diseases or chronic diseases,” remarked Jessica Fanzo, a climate professor and director of the Food for Humanity Initiative at Columbia University. “If it were me, I, too, would ambitiously want to go after the food system.”
Traditionally, Democrats have supported stronger government oversight compared to Republicans concerning pollution, food additives, and the practices of agriculture and pharmaceutical companies.
Additionally, the funding dedicated to chronic disease research could face challenges without Kennedy. Last year, House Republicans attempted to significantly cut funding for the National Institutes of Health, the government’s disease research agency, but Senate Democrats and President Biden managed to maintain the budget at its current level.
Should Republicans gain full control of Washington next year, they will still need Democratic support in the Senate to pass funding bills, yet they will possess greater leverage to push for cuts than previously available.
“We are very fearful that investment in research in chronic diseases and prevention will be cut,” expressed Dr. Elbert Huang, director of the Center for Chronic Disease Research and Policy at the University of Chicago.
For some public health advocates, their evaluation of Kennedy is significantly influenced by the potential consequences of an alternative nominee. A more traditional small-government conservative could seek to curtail research budgets across the board, disregard stronger oversight initiatives, and ignore plans to address chronic diseases—all while undermining the medical establishment.
Kennedy’s unfounded assertions regarding vaccines—claiming that the measles, mumps, and rubella vaccine causes autism and that the COVID vaccine is the deadliest in history—render him unpalatable to many in the public health field.
Some have actively campaigned against his confirmation. Protect Our Care, a health advocacy organization aligned with Democrats, has established a Stop RFK War Room, running advertisements this week urging constituents to push their senators to reject Kennedy’s nomination based on his vaccine stance.
The Committee to Protect Health Care, comprising a network of doctors, has also made its opposition clear. “We have to deal with the person in front of us and what he represents,” stated Dr. Rob Davidson, the committee’s executive director. “There’s a clear and present danger in front of us.”
Those concerns extend to the senators whose votes Kennedy must secure. Recently, outgoing Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell made a pointed comment regarding Kennedy, saying, “Efforts to undermine public confidence in proven cures are not just uninformed—they’re dangerous.”
McConnell, a polio survivor, was responding to a New York Times piece detailing how a Kennedy adviser called for the FDA to revoke the polio vaccine's approval. Kennedy himself has cast doubt on this vaccine, suggesting its risks may outweigh its benefits.
Kennedy can afford to lose only three Republican votes and still become HHS secretary if Democratic senators maintain a united front against him.
In addressing his past anti-vaccine activism, Kennedy has attempted to present a more measured approach, claiming he merely seeks to study vaccine safety and does not intend to eliminate anyone’s access to vaccines. Trump has stated he is open to reevaluating vaccination protocols based on his nominee’s findings, but he has consistently referred to the polio vaccine as a miraculous lifesaving treatment.
Even if Kennedy honors the government’s vaccine approval processes, he mentioned his intention to shift the health bureaucracy's focus toward chronic disease while halting infectious disease research for several years.
Researchers argue that this approach is illogical, as progress in the treatment of chronic and infectious diseases is interconnected. Innovations in infectious disease research, particularly vaccine development, have saved countless lives and are considered one of the most significant achievements in public health over the last century. “That’s not an approach I think any public health researcher would get on board with,” Albrecht said regarding Kennedy's plan to suspend funding for infectious disease research.
Public health experts who have signaled a willingness to work with Kennedy harbor a range of other concerns: They fear that political divides will inhibit consensus on common issues, that conspiratorial advisers might lead him away from scientific evidence, and that changing deeply entrenched health and agricultural structures will prove challenging.
Many researchers doubt that new funding for research is likely while Republicans hold power—regardless of how earnestly Kennedy discusses the necessity of understanding the escalating rates of chronic diseases.
Others are skeptical about Kennedy's qualifications to effectively navigate the bureaucracy to realize his goals, a sentiment echoed by lobbyists urging clients to refrain from obstructing Kennedy’s initiatives.
“You have these big, grand ideas,” Jetelina, who has collaborated with federal agencies, pointed out. “Once you start opening that hood, it’s a whole lot more complex and complicated than you think.”
Trump has suggested that Kennedy’s role will not be as disruptive as many anticipate, maintaining that his nominee is not “going to upset any system” or “looking to reinvent the wheel totally.” “I think he’s going to be much less radical than you would think,” Trump remarked during a press conference at his Mar-a-Lago resort on Monday. “He’s going to have an open mind, or I wouldn’t have put him there.”
Aarav Patel for TROIB News
