Robert F Kennedy Jr

Subterms

    More stories

    • 163 Shares139 Views

      in US Politics

      RFK Jr to remove all members of CDC panel advising on US vaccines

      by

      The health secretary, Robert F Kennedy Jr, is getting rid of all members sitting on a key US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention panel of vaccine experts and reconstituting the committee, he said on Monday.Kennedy is retiring and replacing all 17 members of the CDC’s advisory committee for immunization practices, he wrote in piece published in the Wall Street Journal.“Without removing the current members, the current Trump administration would not have been able to appoint a majority of new members until 2028,” Kennedy wrote.More details soon … More

    • 200 Shares139 Views

      in US Politics

      RFK Jr’s report calls farmers the ‘backbone’ of the US – but Trump’s cuts hurt them

      by

      Independent and organic farmers say chaos created by the Trump administration’s cuts has hurt their businesses, even as the US health secretary, Robert F Kennedy Jr, praises small farms and regenerative agriculture.The split-screen for small and organic farms – which one farmer described as the administration “talking out of both sides of their mouth” – comes on the heels of the release of the “Maha” report. The White House document mentions farms, farmers and farming 21 times, and argues conventional agriculture has led to more ultra-processed foods.“Reading that report, it’s like a small-scale organic farmer’s dream,” said Seth Kroeck as he slammed the door on his 1993 F350 truck. Kroeck owns the organic Crystal Spring Farm, 331 acres (135 hectares) in Brunswick, Maine. “But then at the same time, [secretary of agriculture] Brooke Rollins’s name is on this – she’s proposing to cut two-thirds of the agriculture budget.”Kroeck had just finished planting 2,500 brussels sprouts and one-10th of an acre of specialty peppers. He still needed to fix a flat on a piece of farm equipment that day. He said small-scale farmers have promoted local, organic and whole foods for decades.While Kroeck is presumably the kind of farmer Kennedy would laud, all he finds is frustration with the administration, and actions that will “undoubtedly” make food more expensive.“We’re dealing with two personalities with our government,” said Kroeck.As conventional farmers decry the Maha report’s criticism of agricultural chemicals such as atrazine and glyphosate (the active ingredient in RoundUp), some organic and independent farmers have found that the meager government support they depend on has been upended by an administration that claims it wants to support them.“Farmers are the backbone of America – and the most innovative and productive in the world,” the report, led by Kennedy, argued. “We continue to feed the world as the largest food exporter. The greatest step the United States can take to reverse childhood chronic disease is to put whole foods produced by American farmers and ranchers at the center of healthcare.”But by March, the administration had already cut a total of $1bn in programs that supported small farms that grow locally produced fruits and vegetables. For instance, they cut a program that helped tribal food banks provide healthy food and ended a $660m program that brought fresh local foods to school cafeterias. In just one example of impact, the cut quickly ended fruit and vegetable snacks in New York City schools.“This is a huge deal for small farmers,” Ellee Igoe told the New Lede publication in March. Igoe is a co-owner of Solidarity Farm in southern California. “We’re growing healthy food and providing it to local communities. And they are cancelling contracts without real reason. Out here, it feels like it is very politically motivated.”In just one example of direct impact to Kroeck, the Trump administration fired most of the staffers at Kroeck’s local Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) office, an arm of the US Department of Agriculture that provides technical assistance to farmers, including on-site visits. The staff shrank from six to one – only the director remains.“In my book, she’s a superwoman, but how long is that going to last?” said Kroeck. “And what farmer is going to want to take on new contracts when it’s going to take her months and months and months just to return a call?”Kroeck also criticized the Maha report for including apparently invented scientific references.“The citations in the report seem to be made up by ChatGPT – this is crazy,” said Kroeck, who said he’s not a cheerleader for occupants of ivory towers, but “we do have to have some standards”.Groups such as the Organic Trade Association have largely echoed Kroeck’s sentiments, noting that this is what the organic movement has been saying all along and they need money.“We’ve long known that health begins on the farm and encourage the administration to invest in meaningful policies that expand access to organic for consumers,” said co-CEO Matthew Dillon in a statement to the Guardian.While some organic farmers say their relationship with the government has always been tenuous, small farmers say chaos has only worsened that relationship. Coastal wild blueberry farmer Nicolas Lindholm said at least a portion of the funding he was expecting for the year – to mulch his blueberries with wood chips – was “dead in the water”.“My wife and I have an organic wild blueberry farm here on the coast of Maine,” said Lindholm.“Over the past five months, we had applied for three different funding programs – all different – and finalized them through December and into January – and as of February all three of them were basically frozen.” Like many farmers, Lindholm’s needs were time-sensitive: blueberries can only be mulched every two years because of their growing cycle.In addition to direct cuts by the administration, congressional Republicans proposed cuts to food programs that indirectly benefit farmers. House Republicans passed a bill proposing $300bn in cuts to food stamps, or the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (Snap), to fund tax cuts. They have also proposed cuts to a food program that helps new mothers and babies buy fruits and vegetables.The panic within conventional agriculture communities has also been pronounced – with pointed criticism of the report coming before it was even published. Corn and soybeans dominate American cash crops, accounting for $131.9bn in receipts in 2023, versus just $54.8bn in all fruits, vegetables and nuts combined.“It’s no secret you were involved in pesticide litigation before you became secretary,” said Cindy Hyde-Smith, a Republican senator for Mississippi, to Kennedy, leading into a question about the need for glyphosate (the active ingredient in RoundUp), and asking whether Kennedy could be impartial.Kennedy, who went on to pledge he would not put “a single farmer” out of business, said: “There’s nobody that has a greater commitment to the American farmer than we do – the Maha movement collapses if we can’t partner with the American farmer.” More

    • 88 Shares119 Views

      in US Politics

      Has RFK Jr misdiagnosed America? – podcast

      by

      Archive: AP, ABC News, CBS News, Face the Nation, Fox News, PBS Newshour
      Read Alaina Demopoulos’s feature on Maha moms
      Subscribe to the Guardian’s new narrative series Missing in the Amazon
      Send your questions and feedback to politicsweeklyamerica@theguardian.com
      Help support the Guardian. Go to theguardian.com/politcspodus More

    • 163 Shares129 Views

      in US Politics

      Woman’s life-saving treatment delayed by Trump cuts to NIH: ‘Cancer shouldn’t be political’

      by

      A 43-year-old woman and mother of two with advanced cancer says she is experiencing life-or-death delays in treatment because of the Trump administration’s cuts to the National Institutes of Health (NIH).Natalie Phelps, who has stage 4 colorectal cancer, has spoken publicly, raising the alarm about a setback in care for herself and others who are part of clinical trials run by the agency. Her story has made it into congressional hearings and spurred a spat between a Democratic senator and the US health secretary, Robert F Kennedy Jr. Behind the scenes, she and others are advocating to get her treatment started sooner.So far, Phelps has been told that her treatment, which should have started around mid-June, will not begin until after mid-July.“I’ve done everything I can do,” Phelps, who lives in Washington state, told the Guardian. “There’s nothing else I can do. I’m really just out of options. There’s very limited treatments approved for colorectal cancer.”Phelps is one of many Americans whose lives have been disrupted or altered by the ongoing cuts to government services made by the Trump administration’s so-called “department of government efficiency”, or Doge. Some NIH scientists have lost their jobs, and others have seen their grants ended. Researchers told the Associated Press that cuts to the agency and its programs would end treatment for cancer patients and delay cures and treatment discoveries.View image in fullscreenPhelps was diagnosed in 2020, soon after giving birth to her second child, and after her symptoms were dismissed by doctors for months. Since then, she’s gone through 48 rounds of chemotherapy. She had an 18-hour surgery to remove her primary tumor, plus two follow-up liver surgeries. She’s had radiation therapy to her brain, leg and pelvis.Dr Steven Rosenberg’s cell-based immunotherapy trial at the NIH offered hope. The treatment uses a person’s own cells to fight cancer and has seen some promise for patients with colon, rectal and GI cancers. This was deemed an exciting step by the medical community because the process had previously worked on blood cancers, but not solid cancers, the Washington Post reported.But these promising developments are coming alongside cuts to federal agencies, including ones that have affected these trials, Rosenberg has publicly confirmed. The trial itself was not cut, but it is experiencing delays because of staff reductions, Rosenberg has said.Phelps passed the initial medical steps to enter the trial in March, then flew to Bethesda, Maryland, at the end of April this year. There, they drew her blood to use to engineer T-cells for her treatment, which she previously was told takes about four weeks. Instead, she was told it would now take eight weeks, which the doctors said was because of funding cuts imposed by Doge.“That got me motivated enough to start to really panic, because my cancer between March and April really exploded and progressed to my lymph nodes and my bones,” she said. “My oncologist was very anxious about the difference between four and eight weeks could make, waiting for those treatment products.”One month can make a huge difference in late-stage cancer treatment, but the delay also brought up major decisions for Phelps. She wouldn’t be able to do chemo for a month before the treatment began. With a delay, she could maybe do chemo for a bit, then stop a month before.Then there was the size of her tumors – which would become the subject of the spat in a congressional hearing. She needed a tumor of at least one centimeter in size to start the trial, or an exemption – her disease was spreading in the number of tumors, not in one large tumor. The tumor would help scientists track how the treatment was working.View image in fullscreenIf she underwent chemo before doing a final scan needed to start the trial, tumors could shrink, affecting her eligibility. But if she waited for two months and did nothing, the disease could keep spreading. Her oncologist thought maybe the trial would have to be placed on the back burner, given the extended timeline.Phelps posted on social media, explaining her predicament. After seeing her videos, friends suggested she reach out to her members of Congress, who could intervene with the agency and help her get treated sooner.The office of Patty Murray, a Washington Democratic senator, got involved. On 14 May, Murray questioned Kennedy during a Senate health, education, labor and pensions committee hearing, sharing Phelps’ story and asking how many staff have been cut from the NIH’s clinical center. Kennedy said to reach out to his office for specifics on Phelps and claimed no cuts had been made to clinical trials. “I don’t think that should happen to anybody,” he said.Later in the hearing, though, Kennedy said his office had looked into the case and claimed that Phelps was “medically ineligible” for the trial, so her case had nothing to do with staff reductions. “That was a canard,” he told the committee, and he told Murray: “You don’t care. You don’t care about Natalie.” The exchange became a Fox News headline.It was a “spurious statement” to say she was medically ineligible, Phelps said – she was waiting for one final scan to see if her tumor was one centimeter, but had met all other criteria. She had a scan the day after the hearing, which showed her tumor had now grown large enough to qualify.“It’s been so much extra stress. The night after the hearing, I threw up all night. I barely made it to my scan because I was so stressed out,” she said. “It’s been very intense emotionally and an extreme added stress that nobody needs. Cancer just shouldn’t be political.”In a Senate appropriations hearing the next week, Kennedy again argued with Murray, saying it was “untrue” that Phelps’ care was delayed. In statements after the second exchange, Murray said her staff has been in “constant touch” with career staff at the NIH and the FDA to get help on Phelps’ case.“I still have no answer about how many NIH clinical staff have been fired,” Murray’s 20 May statement says. “I still have no answer why Natalie was told by her NIH doctor that her care was being delayed due to staffing cuts. For weeks, my staff has been demanding answers about agency staffing cuts.”In a statement, a spokesperson for the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) said cancer research is a “high priority” for the NIH and HHS.“Ongoing investments reflect our dedication to addressing both urgent and long-term health challenges,” the agency said. “There have been no cuts to clinical trials.”In another statement sent after publication, the agency said the claim that patients were seeing treatment delays because of reductions in force was “false”.“No clinical trials have been cut. No personnel involved in direct patient care were affected by the RIF,” the agency said.“Clinical trials continue to be conducted in accordance with established protocols and patient safety standards. NIH investigators are responsible for ensuring trials are appropriately staffed, that patient enrollment aligns with trial capacity, and that participants are fully informed of timelines and potential risks of experimental treatments. We do not comment on individual patient cases in accordance with the Privacy Act and to protect patient confidentiality.”But Rosenberg, the doctor leading the trial Phelps is in, confirmed to the Washington Post in April that two patients were delayed care because of staff cuts and “purchasing slowdowns”, and these delays were confirmed before big layoffs hit the agency.Rosenberg didn’t respond to requests for comment this week. He previously told the Cancer Letter, an oncology publication, that Phelps was, at the time of the hearing, not eligible because of her tumors’ size, but was scheduled for additional scans to see if they had grown. He confirmed that, if determined eligible, her case would be delayed by a month because of reductions in force.Phelps wasn’t alone, he told the publication – nearly all of the trial patients were seeing a delay of about a month, which he attributed to a “loss of technicians” as part of reductions in force done by the Trump administration. It isn’t just delays, either.“We’ve had to drop the number of pa­tients we treat by about half. We’re just having to turn away more patients,” Rosenberg said.Phelps is still waiting to hear when she can start treatment. As of last Thursday, she was told she had a spot in the queue and the agency was seeing if her treatment could be moved up. On Tuesday, she was told it would now be 21 July. The NIH told her the agency tried to hire back staff, but it hasn’t worked out.“I have nothing to lose at this point. I’m pleading for my life. I’m begging for help,” she said. More

    • 138 Shares199 Views

      in US Politics

      RFK Jr’s ‘Maha’ report found to contain citations to nonexistent studies

      by

      Robert F Kennedy Jr’s flagship health commission report contains citations to studies that do not exist, according to an investigation by the US publication Notus.The report exposes glaring scientific failures from a health secretary who earlier this week threatened to ban government scientists from publishing in leading medical journals.The 73-page “Make America healthy again” report – which was commissioned by the Trump administration to examine the causes of chronic illness, and which Kennedy promoted it as “gold-standard” science backed by more than 500 citations – includes references to seven studies that appear to be entirely invented, and others that the researchers say have been mischaracterized.Two supposed studies on ADHD medication advertising simply do not exist in the journals where they are claimed to be published. Virginia Commonwealth University confirmed to Notus that researcher Robert L Findling, listed as an author of one paper, never wrote such an article, while another citation leads only to the Kennedy report itself when searched online.Harold J Farber, a pediatric specialist supposedly behind research on asthma overprescribing, told Notus he never wrote the cited paper and had never worked with the other listed authors.The US Department of Health and Human Services has not immediately responded to a Guardian request for comment.The citation failures come as Kennedy, a noted skeptic of vaccines, criticized medical publishing this week, branding top journals the Lancet, New England Journal of Medicine and Jama as “corrupt” and alleging they were controlled by pharmaceutical companies. He outlined plans for creating government-run journals instead.Beyond the phantom studies in Kennedy’s report, Notus found it systematically misrepresented existing research.For example, one paper was claimed to show that talking therapy was as effective as psychiatric medication, but the statistician Joanne McKenzie said this was impossible, as “we did not include psychotherapy” in the review.The sleep researcher Mariana G Figueiro also said her study was mischaracterized, with the report incorrectly stating it involved children rather than college students, and citing the wrong journal entirely.The Trump administration asked Kennedy for the report in order to look at chronic illness causes, from pesticides to mobile phone radiation. Kennedy called it a “milestone” that provides “evidence-based foundation” for sweeping policy changes.A follow-up “Make our children healthy again strategy” report is due in August, raising concerns about the scientific credibility underpinning the administration’s health agenda. More

    • 163 Shares119 Views

      in US Politics

      RFK Jr drops Covid-19 boosters for kids and pregnant women from CDC list

      by

      The US health secretary, Robert F Kennedy Jr, announced that the federal Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) would remove Covid-19 booster shots from its recommended immunization schedule for healthy children and pregnant women.Legal experts said the Trump administration appointee’s decision, which Kennedy announced on social media, circumvented the CDC’s authority to recommend such changes – and that it is unprecedented for a health secretary to unilaterally make such a decision.“I couldn’t be more pleased to announce that as of today, the Covid vaccine shot for healthy children and healthy pregnant women has been removed from the CDC’s recommended immunization schedule,” Kennedy said in the announcement.Kennedy claimed Joe Biden’s administration last year “urged healthy children to get yet another Covid shot despite the lack of any clinical data to support the repeat booster strategy in children”.The secretary was flanked by Food and Drug Administration (FDA) commissioner – Dr Marty Makary – and the head of the National Institutes of Health (NIH), Dr Jay Bhattacharya. Neither the head of the FDA nor of the NIH would typically be involved in making vaccine administration recommendations.Bhattacharya said the announcement was “common sense and good science”.Removing the booster shot from the recommended immunization schedule could make it more difficult to access – and it could affect private insurers’ willingness to cover the vaccine. About half of Americans receive healthcare through a private insurance company.Such a unilateral change is highly unusual if not unprecedented for a typical US Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) secretary. And it could leave the HHS department open to litigation, said one vaccine law expert.“The secretary has never been involved in making Covid-19 vaccine recommendations – any vaccine recommendations,” said Dorit Reiss, a law professor at the University of California San Francisco who has closely followed attempts to circumscribe access to Covid-19 vaccines.It is not clear whether the social media announcement was accompanied by formal documentation of the change. Annual Covid-19 booster shots were still recommended for children on the CDC’s website Tuesday morning. It is unclear how Tuesday’s announcement could affect federal programs, such as Vaccines for Children, which provides shots to uninsured and under-insured children.“I am surprised at the open contempt they are showing to the process and not even pretend to do it in a substantive and deliberative way,” Reiss said. “If only because I would think they want to make it as litigation-proof as they can.”The change further sends conflicting messages about the importance of Covid-19 vaccination during pregnancy. The CDC says people are at increased risk of severe illness if they contract Covid-19 during pregnancy, including heightened risk of hospitalization and the need for intensive care.That evidence was acknowledged by Makary in a similarly unprecedented article in the New England Journal of Medicine, which announced changes to the way the FDA would license Covid-19 vaccines. In that article, pregnancy and recent pregnancy were listed among “underlying medical conditions that can increase a person’s risk of severe Covid-19”.Further, there is evidence that mothers who are vaccinated pass protective immunity to infants. Infants younger than six months are at the highest risk of severe disease among children, with the risk to children younger than four years old on par with that of 50-64-year-old adults, according to the Journal article.Typically, changes to vaccine administration recommendations are first considered by the CDC’s advisory committee on vaccine practices (ACIP), a group of independent vaccine experts. ACIP meetings are public, meaning in a normal process Americans can watch experts debate the validity of different approaches in real time before a vote. Although the CDC does not always take the group’s advice, it often does. The CDC was without a permanent director as of Tuesday, a little more than four months into Donald Trump’s second presidency.ACIP recommendations are then counter balanced by recommendations from the FDA’s vaccine and related biologics products advisory committee, which has a similar structure and transparency measures. That group met five days earlier to recommend strains to include in this fall’s Covid-19 booster shot, settling on the JN.1 lineage.Kennedy’s announcement comes as the Trump administration has packed HHS with “Covid contrarians” – a colloquial term used by researchers to describe people, typically critics, who do not accept mainstream public health’s recommendations to prevent Covid-19.Congressional Republicans allied with Trump have also continued to flog the Biden administration’s response to the pandemic in hearings. Vaccine hesitancy has become much more common among Republican party voters than it once was, a Gallup poll has found. More

    • 138 Shares199 Views

      in US Politics

      Key takeaways: RFK Jr’s ‘Maha’ report on chronic disease in children

      by

      Donald Trump’s health secretary and long-time vaccine skeptic, Robert F Kennedy Jr, presented a highly anticipated report on children’s health this week.The “Maha commission” report, referring to the “Make America healthy again” movement, was required by a presidential executive order in February. The report focuses on chronic disease among children.The 68-page report broadly summarizes five areas affecting children’s health, with a focus on ultra-processed foods, environmental chemical exposure, lack of physical activity, “overmedicalization”, and “capture” of regulatory agencies.It notably omits some of the most common causes of chronic disease and death in children, insinuates there could be harms where there is lack of evidence, and avoids discussing how Republicans have already changed the health system in ways researchers believe are harmful.Art Caplan, a professor of bioethics at New York University’s Grossman School of Medicine, told the Guardian that the report has “interesting ideas about health and children’s health and crackpot fringe tin-hat-wearing nonsense – it’s got it all”.Here are five of the key takeaways from the report.1. The report ignores some common dangers to childrenThe most common causes of death among children are car crashes and firearm accidents. The report ignores these issues, as well as behaviors that often start in adolescence and lead to chronic disease in adulthood, such as smoking and alcohol use. It also criticizes water fluoridation, without mentioning its protective effects against cavities.Also, absent from the report is a discussion of how the administration has already changed the health department in ways that advocates argue will benefit industry and could exacerbate chronic disease.For instance, Kennedy eliminated two smoking prevention offices at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) and the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) in what one former regulator told Stat was “the greatest gift to the tobacco industry in the last half century”. He also eliminated a world-leading sexually transmitted infection laboratory.In another example, one of the nation’s leading researchers of ultra-processed foods quit his “dream job” after facing what he described as censorship from the administration (the health department reportedly asked him to return). In a similar vein, the Trump administration cut a program that delivered local whole foods to schools soon after taking office, in spite of Kennedy calling for healthier school meals.2. The report focuses on issues key to Kennedy’s view of healthThe report is roughly broken up into five sections focusing on ultra-processed foods, environmental chemical exposures, children’s mental health, “overmedicalization” and “corporate capture” of regulators by the industries they are supposed to oversee.Kennedy has harped on many of the issues listed in the report for months in public appearances and even though his defunct presidential campaign – especially including ultra-processed foods and obesity. Although some of these concerns may find bipartisan support – such as the focus on “forever chemicals” such as Pfas – it also pushes into areas where the science is unsettled.For instance, the report mentions that high levels of fluoride are potentially associated with reduced IQ, but does not mention its well-established protective effects against cavities – the most common chronic condition in children, according to the National Institute of Dental and Craniofacial Research.Similarly, the report argues that the childhood vaccine schedule is causing concern among parents for,“their possible role in the growing childhood chronic disease crisis” – without citing evidence that vaccines are linked to any specific chronic disease.3. It’s likely to face diverse pushback – and create new alliancesEven before the report was published, congressional lawmakers were being bombarded by calls from agricultural and chemical lobbyists wary of how the report would criticize their products – and indeed it did.One of the report’s sections questions whether “crop protection tools” including “pesticides, herbicides and insecticides” could harm human health. It then specifically name-drops glyphosate, the key ingredient in Roundup, and atrazine, a common herbicide. That is sure to make for strange political bedfellows and consternation within the Republican party. Similarly, the report cites synthetic dyes and ultra-processed foods are potentially harmful.Chemicals and food additives have been issues of concern for decades on the left. However, the Maha movement has also catalyzed opposition to them on the right.4. The report’s authors are not namedThe commission’s members are made up of the heads of intersecting agencies, including Kennedy at the Department of Health and Human Services, and the heads of the departments of agriculture, housing, education, veterans affairs and the Environmental Protection Agency, among others.However, the exact authors of the report are unknown. This contrasts with Kennedy’s repeated promise at his confirmation hearing that his health department would practice “radical transparency”.The work of the “Maha” commission was reportedly spearheaded by senior Kennedy adviser Calley Means, a former food lobbyist and healthcare entrepreneur who rose to prominence as a Maha truth-teller. Means co-wrote a bestselling book with his sister, current US surgeon general nominee Casey Means, which blames many of America’s ills on sedentary lifestyle and poor diet.5. Changing any of the issues identified is likely to be toughOne of the key issues the report identifies is the influence of food, pharmaceutical and chemical companies on American policy. They are monied and powerful.As a result, getting real change through Congress is certain to be tough – especially in an administration devoted to reducing regulations. More

    • 163 Shares99 Views

      in US Politics

      Forget the DEI hires – meet Trump’s latest WTF hire | Arwa Mahdawi

      by

      The US health secretary doesn’t think you should really listen to him when it comes to health issues. During an appearance before House and Senate committees this week, Robert F Kennedy Jr, famous for his unconventional views about medicine and his revelation that a parasite ate part of his brain, seemed to think it was strange that lawmakers were asking him about vaccines.“What I would say is my opinions about vaccines are irrelevant,” Kennedy said when pressed on whether he would vaccinate his child for measles. “I don’t want to seem like I’m being evasive, but I don’t think people should be taking advice, medical advice, from me.” The US health secretary repeated his refrain about not wanting to give advice a number of other times.I, on the other hand, am desperate to dole out a bit of advice. Namely: it would probably be a good idea if a few people who actually knew what they were talking about were brought into the US government. I know, I know. Look at me being a crazy idealist! Still, at the very least, it might be wise to at least ensure that the people who are in charge of health issues know a thing or two about medicine.Alas, judging by some of Donald Trump’s latest appointments, it would seem that I am asking far too much. See, for example, Dr Casey Means, who was nominated for US surgeon general last week. Means has got “Dr” in front of her name, which sounds promising, but she’s more of an influencer than a practitioner. Though she trained as a surgeon at Stanford, she never completed her medical residency afterward. Why? She says it’s because she was disillusioned with traditional medicine, but a former colleague told the Los Angeles Times that it was due to anxiety. Means also doesn’t have an active medical license. In short: she wouldn’t be able to get a job as a doctor at your local hospital but she’s being considered for the role of “the nation’s doctor”. As for experience working in government? She doesn’t have any of that, either.What Means does have, Trump announced in a recent social media post, are “impeccable ‘MAHA’ credentials”. That’s the “Make America healthy again” movement: a movement that is preoccupied with some very valid issues (processed food, corruption in the health industry) but mired in conspiracist thinking. Means has been on TV a lot to talk about Maha obsessions such as removing fluoride from drinking water. She also makes money from dietary supplements that she promotes on social media and has co-authored a book with her brother that claims “almost every chronic health symptom that Western medicine addresses is the result of our cells being beleaguered by how we’ve come to live”. Which, of course, isn’t completely false but has been accused of being overly simplistic. Means’s brother, by the way, is also a prominent adviser to Kennedy.So are all the Maha crowd rejoicing in the streets at the idea of Means becoming surgeon general? Not quite. Her nomination has actually sparked Maha infighting. Some Maha voices think Means is not extreme enough, particularly when it comes to the Covid shot. These people seem to want a surgeon general who declares Covid was a hoax and bans vaccines altogether.The far-right conspiracy theorist Laura Loomer, meanwhile, who seems to have become one of Trump’s most influential albeit unofficial advisers, isn’t happy with Means because she thinks she’s unserious. Writing on Twitter/X, Loomer said Means “PRAYS TO INANIMATE OBJECTS, COMMUNICATES WITH SPIRIT MEDIUMS, USES SHROOMS AS ‘PLANT MEDICINE’ AND TALKS TO TREES! SHE ALSO DOESN’T EVEN HAVE AN ACTIVE MEDICAL LICENSE.”Loomer isn’t the only one a little worried about Means’s enthusiasm for psychedelic drugs including magic mushrooms – which the prospective surgeon general once suggested in a newsletter helped her find a romantic partner. Psilocybin, a psychedelic compound found in certain mushrooms, is currently listed as a schedule I drug, defined as a substance “with no currently accepted medical use and a high potential for abuse”.Means should probably be a little worried about what Loomer thinks, as Loomer may have played a part in ousting Trump’s original pick for the position. That was Janette Nesheiwat, a former Fox News medical contributor and the sister-in-law of Mike Waltz, the former national security adviser. On X this month, Loomer called Nesheiwat “a pro-Covid vaccine nepo appointee” who “didn’t go to medical school in the US”. (Nesheiwat has said that she got a degree from the University of Arkansas School of Medicine, but it would seem that she actually earned her medical degree from a school in Sint Maarten.)Will Loomer topple Means before her confirmation (which hasn’t been scheduled yet) as well? I don’t know but I can tell you that if she does, it’s unlikely that her successor will be any more qualified. The Trump administration, as we all know, has been waging war on diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI). If you’re a (non-Trump-loving) woman or a minority, it doesn’t seem to matter how many qualifications you have, you’re automatically considered a “DEI hire” and looked upon with suspicion. Many prominent people in the Trump administration, meanwhile, seem to be WTF hires. They are there because they’re white, Trumpy and often in the family of someone influential (or they have been on Fox News). Whether we get Means or not, you can be sure that whoever is confirmed as the nation’s top doctor will be completely unqualified to treat the US’s Trump-induced ailments.

      Arwa Mahdawi is a Guardian columnist More