I remember a kid in my grade school class who constantly got in trouble, disrupted class and failed to do his work. But he was actually quite smart. It made no sense to us at the time, why he was so scattered and incapable of focusing on the work at hand. Of course, we had no diagnoses at the time like ADHD or autism.
We had good students and bad students, and because they made teachers’ lives difficult, they were bad students. We all thought so because we didn’t know any better. I often wonder what became of him, whether he ever found help that enabled him to be the smart person he was without the troubled person he was known to be.
It wasn’t fair, but that’s what it was and nobody knew any differently back then. We know better today. At least we did.
We have been giving a lot of attention to RFK Jr recently, with good reason. He is poised to be put in charge of the federal institutions that regulate health and medicine. This is beyond problematic, as he has a long list of antiscience opinions. Part of the problem is that he lacks topic expertise (he is not a health care professional or scientist of any kind) but he does not seem to realize it. He is an activist with just enough information to feel confident about his pseudoscience and conspiracy theories.
It is also frustrating to watch many in the media try to sanewash his opinions, and don’t seem to appreciate the underlying problem. Such reports often takes the form of – well, he may be nutty, but he has a point regarding this issue. But actually he doesn’t have a point – being sort-of right from a certain angle but for an entirely wrong reason is simply not good enough when it comes to the health of our country. Process matters. If a researcher carried out a horrible study with flawed methodology throughout, but happened to come up with an answer somewhat in line with reality, the outcome would not matter. Science is about process.
Are Americans obese? Obviously, and to pretend obesity is a virtue, or at least not a vice, is lying to ourselves to eradicate a problem merely by declaring it no longer a problem. Robert F. Kennedy Jr., of the bear cub Kennedys, isn’t wrong about all his grievances with our food and medicine, even if he fails to grasp how problems arose and, thus, what can be done to fix them. The problem is that his failure of logic and science, from doubting the efficacy of the polio vaccine to claiming that more people have died from the vaccine than from polio, appeals to the broken minds of the disaffected.
The number of children with autism has ballooned over the last generation. So too has the number of vaccines developed. Ergo, the vaccines are causing autism. And all serial killers breathe air. Ergo, air causes people to become serial killers. If you don’t already appreciate that correlation does not imply causation, one of the most fundamental of the logical fallacies, then it’s highly likely that no one can dissuade you from believing in faeries and RFK Jr.
And when children die from previously eradicated diseases like measles, rubella, mumps, whooping cough, diphtheria and, yes, polio, you’ll come up with some new inane rationalization for why it wasn’t for the lack of vaccines that have been conclusively proven safe, provided you have the scientific or medical expertise to know, care and appreciate facts.
But even with problems that are obvious, such as obesity, and which we can all (well, most) agree need to be addressed, the solutions aren’t as simple as GMOs are poison.
He said the obesity epidemic is cause by “poisoned food” (because it’s always about toxins and poison, right?). He then goes further to say that GMOs are the problem – GMOs are “nutrient barren” while non-GMO produce used to be nutrient rich.
This is simply not true. If you make the wrong diagnosis it’s very unlikely that you will prescribe the correct treatment. GMO crops are not less nutritious than non-GMO crops. They are not “nutrient barren”. But RFK Jr likes his boogeymen. This is a question that has been studied and answered – GMO varieties are not less nutritious than their non-GMO counterparts. Genetic modification is a set of processes, it is not one outcome. Generally in order to get on the market you have to prove that a GMO variety is substantially equivalent to the non-GMO variety. In fact, the only time there would be a substantial nutritional difference is if the genetic modification enhanced the nutritional content of the crop (as with golden rice).
There’s much more that goes with this, nuance and variations demanding serious thought to understand and appreciate. But that requires thinking, and thinking makes people’s heads hurt. People do not like it when their heads hurt.
RFK Jr’s process is fatally flawed, and his conclusions are nonsensical and incoherent. Sure, if you squint you may see bits and pieces that are related to the actual answer, but even then he gets the diagnosis wrong. The problem is not with processed food (or ultraprocessed food, whatever that is) – it’s partly with the caloric density of these foods. But he wants to boil down these complex public health problems to identifiable villains – toxins and poisons that can be banned.
Yes, there are problems that have been ignored or obfuscated (think the food pyramid, crafted by lawyers for carb producers). Yes, the “elites” have failed us by allowing, if not enabling, these problems to exist and fester. But no, the ravings of a lunatic lacking any basis for his simplistic conspiratorial beliefs is not going to save us from Big Mac. Just because RFK Jr. isn’t necessarily wrong that these problems exist does not mean he knows their cause or knows their fix. And if he’s wrong, people will die who would not die today. The solution to bad science is good science, not a flaming nutjob guy who was too stoned on heroin to stay awake in college who enjoys the legacy credibility of his name and nothing more.
Discover more from Simple Justice
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
I think the author of the piece you quoted has a deep misunderstanding of what it means “to be put in charge of the federal institutions that regulate health and medicine.” I don’t think any of our prior Secretaries got to put much of a personal imprimatur on policy, including my fellow orthodoc, Tom Price. To the extent we recall their names, it’s as a party to a suit that SCOTUS decided.
I think we can stipulate to the fact that RFK is whacky, or at least some of his ideas are. That said, he has zero power to implement any whack on his own, and I think PE-Trump’s comment at his recent press conference (“I think he’s going to be much less radical than you would think. I think he’s got a very open mind. Or I wouldn’t have put him there. He’s going to be very much less radical….You’re not going to lose the polio vaccine. It’s not going to happen”) underline the limits RFK will face from his boss, to say nothing of his opponents.
What RFk will do, or what I hope he will do, is introduce some skepticism leading to data driven analysis. Stir the pot.
I should also point out that the author of the piece you quote just last month wrote paean to suppressing “misinformation.” To me, that’s a tell for bad faith argumentation (akin to stating with mock horror that Kyle Rittenhouse “crossed state lines”!) I would love to have an HSS leader who is in favor of examining controversial things and not suppressing any deviation from the “consensus science.”
The error in your reasoning is that past HHS secretaries were not activists dedicated to blowing it all up based on wildly baseless beliefs. You’re sanewashing the crazy because you rightfully want greater skepticism. As the author said, it’s not that RFK isn’t right about some issues, but that he’s dangerously batshit crazy about others and plans to do vast damage in the process.
And no, disagreeing with one argument made by the author is not a “tell” for bad faith argumentation, unless you’re desperately seeking an ad hominem excuse to dismiss a position you dispute.
I take your point. The idea that “Donald Trump will serve as the guardrails”—which I was implicitly arguing—does indeed sound absurd in hindsight. Your suggestion that I was operating in a ‘triumph of hope over experience’ mode is spot on. Touché.
Regarding the “disagreeing with one argument…” business, I think it’s lawyers who say, falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus. That’s not quite my position here. Rather, my argument is that being wrong about one thing—if that thing is your epistemology (!)—can discredit you more broadly. Dr. Novella’s approach to knowledge, as evidenced in his other writings, leans heavily toward the idea that there is a right answer, so shut up you skeptics. Maybe I’m the dogmatic pinhead here, but it seems to me that his RFK animus reflects a dogmatic, pinheaded rejection of those who embrace fringe opinions (some of which–h pylori, lab leak, heliocentrism, epigenetics, etc–eventually got mainstreamed by virtue of their truth).
Your posts on this blog remind me of one of my favorite jokes:
What do you call two orthopaedic surgeons looking at a 12 lead EKG?
A double blind study.
Glad to be of some (am)use(ment). if this were a Tues, I’d share a link to this paper: Orthopaedic surgeons: as strong as an ox and almost twice as clever? Multicentre prospective comparative study. BMJ. 2011 Dec 15;343:d7506.
From the abstract: Main outcome measures: Intelligence test score and dominant hand grip strength. Results: Orthopaedic surgeons had a statistically significantly greater mean grip strength (47.25 (SD 6.95) kg) than anaesthetists (43.83 (7.57) kg). The mean intelligence test score of orthopaedic surgeons was also statistically significantly greater at 105.19 (10.85) compared with 98.38 (14.45) for anaesthetists. Conclusions: Male orthopaedic surgeons have greater intelligence and grip strength than their male anaesthetic colleagues, who should find new ways to make fun of their orthopaedic friends.
I for one welcome our new raspy-voiced overlord and can’t wait to hear him drone on about raw milk during Senate hearings.
I wish there were a way to correct the reporters who refer to RFK, Jr. as a vaccine-skeptic. Rational skeptics are open to information and reasonable arguments; I don’t see any evidence that he is a skeptic by this definition. For example, Professor Stephen Bustin, one of the world’s leading authorities on identification and quantitation of nucleic acids, debunked pathologist John O’Leary’s work implying a link between autism and the measles virus. Has this caused RFK, Jr. to rethink his position?
Kennedy won’t be able to make policy unilaterally. But he will be able to ask tough questions that will start the process of separating data driven science from the woke political agenda that masquerades as science.
I worked in the World Trade Center when it was under construction in 1972. In 2001 I saw the towers crumble from my living room window facing the Hudson River in Jersey City. When the EPA announced that the air was safe to breathe, I knew better. Now my friend makes a good living representing the first responders who were sickened by the toxins I knew were in the rancid smoke. I learned in 2001 that the top priority of the public health authorities was getting people back to work as soon as possible to keep
the economy running, not the health of the public. So I was not surprised when the CDC pushed phony science to justify political policy during the COVID pandemic. I got all seven RNA COVID shots and I intend to get my eighth when it becomes available. But I am tired of happy talk about the risks and benefits. I am glad that RFK Jr. will be in a position to question the public health establishment.
“Kennedy won’t be able to make policy unilaterally.”
He may not be able to do everything he wants, but he can do a shitload of damage. I don’t know if you’re naive, stupid or nuts, but you’re dangerous wrong.
Yup. That’s why I come here to read and hit the tip jar – the joy of intelligent debate using precise language and without resorting to school yard name calling.
Or is it Tuesday again already? We old folks have such a hard time keeping track.
To be fair, the fault is mine. I probably should have trashed Skywalker’s comment as facially nonsensical, but I tend to err in favor of posting dumb comments in the expectation that readers will know they’re wrong and not be misled. As Ron said, even if a bit snarky, it’s just plain wrong.
MedPageToday reported, “‘I’m a junk food person,’ said Mejia, an ardent Trump supporter. ‘I started wondering where those extra pounds came from.’ After hearing Kennedy out, she concluded: ‘We cannot trust the health organizations we’ve trusted for years to tell us that our foods are safe.'” There are a number of problems with her line of thinking. One of them is to equate safety with calories. Another is to believe that Mr. Kennedy has a correct view of what is wrong with our food and our eating habits.
:Part of the problem is that he lacks topic expertise (he is not a health care professional or scientist of any kind) ”
The cuurrent HHS secretary is a lawyer and a professional politician with no obvious science or health care credentials. He may or may not be an acceptable administrator. His Wikipedia article is a howl as apparently he was born in a simple log cabin in the untamed wilds of Sacramento.
There’s a very obvious difference between what RFK says he intends to do that distinguishes him from the current HHS secretary. Do you really need someone to explain it to you using small words?
I hope that Mr. Kennedy gets some probing questions concerning the role of the nonprofit organization, Children’s Health Defense, in the 2019 measles outbreak in Samoa. There had been a serious error in 2018 (vaccine powder was mixed with an anaesthetic) , but according to at least one account CHD, with which Mr. Kennedy was closely associated, caused vaccine hesitancy.
His role was fairly well documented – he advocated for people not to get the MMR and had the ear of the governor. I don’t think it’s possible to apportion the blame to Mr. Kennedy versus the nurses who accidently killed two babies versus the actions the governor took in response to the accidents and to Mr. Kennedy in any sort of objective way.