Introduction The intersection of health, policy, and personal belief can lead to complex and alarming scenarios. The current Secretary of Health and Human Services demonstrates a dramatic shift in health administration, featuring individuals whose views may differ vastly from traditional medical frameworks. This article explores the implications of such changes and current issues in healthcare, from vaccine skepticism to rising ADHD diagnoses and innovative breakthroughs in medicine.
Part the First: When Science Becomes a Matter of Belief, Things Go Sideways. The current Secretary of Health and Human Services is making notable strides according to his direction. This outcome is not unexpected; he was appointed by the President to “go wild on health,” and he is fulfilling that mandate. While some question the appropriateness of having Robert F. Kennedy Jr. (RFK Jr.) in this role — considering most previous secretaries have been established politicians like Elliot Richardson and Kathleen Sibelius — the prevailing issue lies in a disturbing ignorance regarding medical knowledge.
The groundwork for RFK Jr.’s rise has been painstakingly laid out by his followers, as illustrated by Dr. Rachael Bedard in her recent essay for The New York Times: I went to an Anti-Vaccine Conference. Medicine is in Trouble:
Peter Hildebrand held back tears while recounting the tragic loss of his daughter, Daisy, who died at the age of 8 during a measles outbreak in West Texas. “She was very loving,” he shared with the audience.
On the second day of the annual Children’s Health Defense conference in Austin, Texas — an organization once led by RFK Jr. — Mr. Hildebrand spoke on a panel entitled “Breaking the Mainstream Media Measles Narrative.” The event attracted around 1,000 attendees.
Mr. Hildebrand expressed his distrust of Daisy’s hospital doctor, alleging that discussions about measles took place only when he was not present. “He would be political about it whenever I wasn’t around,” he claimed.
The panel comprised members from the Hildebrand community, along with two leaders from Children’s Health Defense and three current or former physicians. One of them, Andrew Wakefield, is notorious for losing his medical license after incorrectly linking the MMR vaccine to autism. Another, Pierre Kory, has gained infamy as a proponent of ivermectin as a treatment for Covid-19.
After reviewing Daisy’s medical records, Dr. Kory asserted that she died not from measles, but from pneumonia contracted in the hospital, which he argued was mismanaged by her medical team. This interpretation resonated with Mr. Hildebrand, who expressed his reluctance to ever take his children to a hospital again and defended his right to refuse vaccinations. The panelists concurred that national coverage had misrepresented the Hildebrand’s story.
During the peak of the Covid-19 pandemic, discussions about the distinctions between dying with COVID-19 and dying from it were rampant. This display of misunderstanding reflects a deeper malaise, especially regarding how belief shapes one’s understanding of disease. Daisy Hildebrand’s heartbreaking story exemplifies a phenomenon known as “testimony.” Growing up in an evangelical environment, I recognized that testimony involves “sharing one’s journey towards finding truth and purpose.” It serves as a mechanism for emotional release, community building, and a sense of mission.
This insight reshaped my perception of the role that Children’s Health Defense plays for individuals like Mr. Hildebrand. It elucidates why such organizations attract and empower their followers, even leading them to radicalize over time.
What Children’s Health Defense offers is context and purpose to the suffering experienced by families like the Hildebrands. This trend is concerning, as the shift from a community-oriented healing approach to a more impersonal, expert-led medical culture contributes to the growing skepticism towards healthcare. Similarly, the arrogance within the scientific community risks undermining American science itself.
Unless the breakthroughs in modern medicine, which have been remarkable, are paired with compassionate care that has been lost in the transition, we are destined to continue down this troubling path. Organizations like Children’s Health Defense will persist in proffering solace while soliciting donations. Coupled with advances in artificial intelligence and the transformative changes occurring at the NIH, CDC, and FDA, we can anticipate a future that may not bode well for medicine, yet could reveal a path toward more widespread access to modern healthcare solutions.
Part the Second: AI That Works. I have previously discussed AlphaFold. The principle that the amino acid sequence in biological contexts dictates protein structures has been known since 1961, thanks to Christian Anfinsen’s research at the NIH. The journey to accurately predicting these structures has been lengthy, but in just five years, AlphaFold has transformed protein structure and function studies, and I anticipate even more groundbreaking developments in the next five years.
What accounts for this success? It involves a blend of remarkable intelligence, advanced technology, and carefully curated training datasets of thousands of proteins accrued since the foundational work of Max Perutz and John Kendrew. The availability of 200 million predicted protein structures sparks my nostalgia for past research endeavors. Understanding the evolutionary progression of multi-protein complexes responsible for multicellular life is now within reach, offering exciting prospects for further exploration. The resolution of secondary complications related to human diseases is sure to follow.
Part the Third: What’s Up with ADHD? The rise in ADHD diagnoses prompts a crucial question: what does this trend signify? Is it a case of overdiagnosis driven by improved classification and testing? The issue remains complex. Daily interactions with highly driven young adults amplify the urgency of this discussion, and a recent Nature article sheds light on the matter:
Globally, we are witnessing unprecedented rates of attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) diagnoses. In the United States, a government study revealed that over 11% of children have received an ADHD diagnosis at some point, a stark increase from about 8% in 2003.
Top U.S. health officials caution that diagnoses have spiraled beyond control. In May, the Make America Healthy Again Commission — led by Secretary RFK Jr. — labeled ADHD a “crisis of overdiagnosis and overtreatment,” asserting that long-term benefits of ADHD medications remain questionable.
Despite concerns about overdiagnosis, there seems to be a consensus that many individuals with ADHD are simply receiving timely diagnoses and support, something that was often lacking in previous years. Clinicians highlight that this is particularly true for women and girls, whose symptoms were frequently overlooked. Although there are apprehensions regarding overdiagnosis, many professionals express greater concern about those who remain undiagnosed and untreated.
As awareness and diagnoses of ADHD rise, public debate surrounding how it should be understood and how best to support individuals is intensifying. The neurodiversity movement challenges the perception of ADHD as merely a disorder to be treated, advocating instead for understanding and accommodating differences in schools and workplaces.
The question of whether medications yield long-term benefits for children is certainly relevant, even raised by the Secretary of Health and Human Services himself. Nonetheless, the undeniable reality is that numerous children and adults rely on prescribed medications to navigate ADHD and other neurodivergent conditions.
Obtaining accurate statistics on this issue is challenging, yet many medical students utilize ADHD and anxiety medications. One aspect that troubles me is “test anxiety.” My traditional but supportive retort is, “Who doesn’t experience test anxiety?” It puzzles me how someone unable to handle exam day pressure can become a competent physician, though that may be merely my perspective. What I do realize is that accommodations will likely not be available during genuine medical emergencies.
Moreover, I have observed that sleep deprivation in children (and perhaps adults) manifests behaviors akin to ADHD symptoms. Just a thought regarding modern life.
Part the Fourth: What if RFK Jr. reacted to his cousin’s terminal cancer as JFK did following his baby’s death? This question arises from Susan D’Agostino’s piece in STAT. A recent New Yorker essay by Tatiana Schlossberg has attracted significant attention, notably addressing her cousin, Secretary RFK Jr., for policies that may jeopardize health outcomes both domestically and abroad.
Tatiana Schlossberg, granddaughter of President John F. Kennedy, disclosed her terminal cancer diagnosis in a New Yorker essay released on her grandfather’s assassination anniversary. She called upon her cousin, Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr., to reconsider his policies and budget cuts affecting public health.
The Kennedy family has long understood the implications of medical failures. In August 1963, Jacqueline Kennedy gave birth to a son nearly six weeks early. Patrick Bouvier Kennedy weighed slightly over four pounds, and signs of trouble were evident immediately. He was rushed to Boston Children’s Hospital, where medical staff attempted to save him using a hyperbaric chamber. Tragically, Patrick passed away less than two days after birth due to what was later identified as neonatal respiratory distress syndrome.
In reaction to his son’s death, President Kennedy allocated over $265 million (equivalent to more than $2 billion today) for research into newborn health. This funding kickstarted various scientific endeavors aimed at understanding and mitigating the causes of infant mortality linked to respiratory distress.
Although progress was slow, breakthroughs came nearly two decades later when pediatrician Tetsuro Fujiwara and his team in Japan successfully tested surfactant replacement therapy on premature infants, utilizing surfactant from bovine lungs. Remarkably, babies who had struggled to breathe began to do so independently within hours. Eight out of ten infants survived; the other two passed away from unrelated conditions. This led to clinical trials worldwide, and by the 1990s, surfactant replacement therapy became standard practice.
Today, surfactant therapy is common, effectively reducing deaths due to respiratory distress syndrome. Although this was a relatively straightforward scientific challenge, it was resolved thanks to fundamental biomedical research. However, the current Secretary of Health and Human Services seems resistant to necessary reforms while promoting radical health policies. The opportunity costs associated with neglected research may remain unnoticed but are undoubtedly vast. Who can say whether breakthrough treatments for conditions such as acute myeloid leukemia (AML) are just on the horizon? The truth is, no one can predict that, certainly not Tatiana Schlossberg’s cousin.
Part the Fifth: Happy Thanksgiving to Our American Readers! For those interested in the upcoming college football rivalry weekend, I recommend enjoying six minutes of laughter with the incomparable Matt Mitchell from Alabama. Having grown up in this culture, it may take repeated viewings to fully grasp the intricacies of this performance. A quick perusal of the comments provides additional insights.
See you next week!
