4 ms·

It's actually impressive that Trump managed to appoint the absolute worst possible person to be Secretary of Health and Human Services. I know nothing about bi

It's actually impressive that Trump managed to appoint the absolute worst possible person to be Secretary of Health and Human Services. I know nothing about biology, I know that I know nothing, so if someone decided for whatever reason to appoint me to the position it would be fairly harmless because I would defer extremely heavily to people who actually know about this stuff. If he had appointed someone with proper medical or biological training, that would be fine because they actually know about stuff and can make informed decisions. RFK Jr. is the absolute worst person because he thinks he knows a lot about biology, but he actually knows nothing, and is largely informed by a lot of conspiratorial nonsense, meaning he has the potential to cause a lot of irreparable to the US healthcare system. He's not going to defer to actual expertise, he's going to defer to idiotic blog posts filled with anecdotes about how a friend of a friend of theirs got a vaccine and it was bad. I cannot imagine that this attempt at chicken eugenics will work as intended. I suspect that if this were a good idea, it would have been tried already.

ekianjo 1y ago
> defer extremely heavily to people who actually know about this stuff. in a system with high regulatory capture, you would be defering your power to the industry's interests.
- tombert 1y ago
  Which would still be better than defunding all our scientific research and telling people to eat Five Guys fries because they're fried with beef tallow.
- aredox 1y ago
  [flagged]
  - wand3r 1y ago
    This is one of the most darkly funny things I have read this week. Just want in the fuck is going on.
  - tombert 1y ago
    Hey! I'm American and I think RFK Jr. is a moron and a dangerous person to give power with anything involving human health. Trump has never had a majority of the votes, just a plurality. The majority of voters did not want this.
    - brewdad 1y ago
      I would argue the majority of voters did actually want this. Anyone who voted third party in the presidential race was at the very least fine with this. By not casting a vote for the only person who could possibly defeat Trump, Trump became our President. They got to keep their ideological purity though. I guess that will keep them warm at night when it's their turn to get rounded up.
      - tombert 1y ago
        I think a lot of people, for reasons that will forever remain unclear to me, didn’t genuinely think Trump would do any of the stuff he said he would do. I heard a lot of people say that he wasn’t serious about tariffs for example. But I don’t want to pretend I understand what compels people to vote for people that I don’t like. Maybe the majority of people really did want to have RFK Jr. in charge all of our health stuff.
      - sjsdaiuasgdia 1y ago
        2024 voting-eligible population: 244.6M Voted for Trump: 77.3M Voted for Harris: 75M Voted for other candidates: 2.6M Eligible to vote, but didn't vote: 90M Unfortunately, the largest constituency continues to be the "can't be fucked to vote" party.
        tombert 1y ago
        Might be useful to put some commas or something. I thought you were saying that 244 million voted for Trump.
        sjsdaiuasgdia 1y ago
- sjsdaiuasgdia 1y ago
  "The experts work in the industry they are experts in" does not necessarily mean the experts are bringing incorrect information, or that the outsiders have better information.
  - ekianjo 1y ago
    You failed to address the capture of the experts I was referring to. Most experts have conflicts of interest, and only very few of them actually declare them.
    - sjsdaiuasgdia 1y ago
      I was pointing out that you failed to make a strong point in the first place.
      - ekianjo 1y ago
        Are you suggesting regulatory capture is not a thing?
        sjsdaiuasgdia 1y ago
        Not at all. I do say there's a spectrum. I don't think everything a corporation-employed scientist does is necessarily tainted by the priorities of their employer. Similarly, I don't think every corporate priority is necessarily malicious in intent, or must come with negative societal outcomes. You seem to come from a different presumption.
        ekianjo 1y ago
        My presumption comes from direct observation. And no, I don't believe there's anything like 100% good or bad, but it's easy to understand that corruption can spread as long as there is no mechanism to stop it. In effect, there is a revolving door between the Pharma industry and the FDA, with a huge conflict of interest that is addressed by no one right now. I'd be curious to hear how you explain things like Vioxx, OxyContin abuse, and the COVID19 vaccines that were never properly tested yet are so good for you they never cause side effects according to authorities and their producers, and are perfectly safe up to the xth injection, forever.
- elgenie 1y ago
  Appointing a know-nothing conspiracy theorist doesn't have that exact issue, yes … but in a way where the cure is significantly worse than the disease. You can cultivate state capacity and independent expertise to reduce regulatory capture, not replace it with a kakistocracy where regulatory capture is instead by woo-woo morons.
  - tombert 1y ago
    While I would agree with your overall synopsis, RFK Jr. actually has some conflicts of interest with regards to the anti-vax stuff. He directly profits from anti-vax lawsuits, and if he's in charge of the CDC and FDA he has the motivation to try and publish fake reports from (previously) respected departments. https://www.npr.org/sections/shots-health-news/2025/01/22/nx-s1-5271582/rfk-hpv-vaccine-merck https://www.npr.org/sections/shots-health-news/2025/01/22/nx...
  - ekianjo 1y ago
    > but in a way where the cure is significantly worse than the disease. Since the US has by far the sickest human population on Earth (it's not even debatable), I guess the current system has been a spectacular failure. I don't think that RFK is the right answer either, but "continuing on the same path as before" is a bad idea just as well. > independent expertise to reduce regulatory capture What is independent expertise exactly? Where do you find virgin experts completely devoid of external influence? I have yet to meet any expert who has never had grants or speaker engagements.
    - sjsdaiuasgdia 1y ago
      So instead we should listen to the "health influencers" that surround people like RFK Jr? Are they independent?
      - ekianjo 1y ago
        I'm not giving you a solution, I am simply observing that the current system is utterly broken. So continuing as is is not an option, obviously.
- ben_w 1y ago
  While true, that's still an improvement on being a conspiracy theorist. My mum was New Age type who regularly gave me homeopathic tablets labelled "sodium chloride" and "titanium dioxide", and later Bach flower remedies. Someone in the pocket of, say, Big Tobacco is going to downplay smoking risks; but that's still not as bad as suggesting replacing all pharmacies with table salt and white sand. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homeopathic_hospitals_in_the_National_Health_Service https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homeopathic_hospitals_in_the_N...
tyleo 1y ago
“Worst possible person” isn’t accurate but “worst person ever in the role” probably is.
- rsynnott 1y ago
  It's... hard to imagine someone worse, in this particular case. Possibly someone who was actively malicious (vs just delusionally insane, which seems to be the case here)?
- tombert 1y ago
  Within some degree of reason I think it still holds. Yes, if you actively appointed a doomsday cult leader who wants to exterminate the human race, then that would be worse, but that kind of feels like a contrived example. Within the scope of "people who would realistically actually be appointed", he is the absolute worst case scenario.
  - ineedasername 1y ago
    >"people who would realistically actually be appointed" But really it wasn't all that realistic. Sure it happened, but just 'cause it happened doesn't make it realistic.
    - tombert 1y ago
      It was realistic in the sense that Trump was always going to appoint an unqualified politician for the role. He chose the worst possible one he could from that set.
jvanderbot 1y ago
I'm convinced very little of these folks beliefs are anything more than pantomimed poll results. Oh look at me I'm anti establishment, opposing those that made you wear masks during COVID. Whatever polls well there gives you a lifelong set of supporters.
ipv6ipv4 1y ago
Picking the absolute worst person for a particular job is Trump’s MO. Trump selects for either compromised individuals, or people with an ax to grind against the organization they are appointed to head. The reason is because compromised people are going to be dependent on his good graces, and hence absolutely loyal to him personally.
ourmandave 1y ago
It's actually impressive that Trump managed to appoint the absolute worst possible person to be Secretary of Health and Human Services. And the republicans in the senate approved the halfwit because they all fear getting primaried.
const_cast 1y ago
> It's actually impressive that Trump managed to appoint the absolute worst possible person to be Secretary of Health and Human Services. It's a legitimate and popular republican strategy, I forgot the exact name. They did the same thing with the EPA during the last Trump administration - appointing an actual oil tycoon to head it. I imagine it's pretty difficult to just find an oil tycoon. The idea is to derail the agency from the inside out.

ekianjo 1y ago

> defer extremely heavily to people who actually know about this stuff. in a system with high regulatory capture, you would be defering your power to the industry's interests.

tombert 1y ago
Which would still be better than defunding all our scientific research and telling people to eat Five Guys fries because they're fried with beef tallow.
aredox 1y ago
[flagged]
- wand3r 1y ago
  This is one of the most darkly funny things I have read this week. Just want in the fuck is going on.
- tombert 1y ago
  Hey! I'm American and I think RFK Jr. is a moron and a dangerous person to give power with anything involving human health. Trump has never had a majority of the votes, just a plurality. The majority of voters did not want this.
  - brewdad 1y ago
    I would argue the majority of voters did actually want this. Anyone who voted third party in the presidential race was at the very least fine with this. By not casting a vote for the only person who could possibly defeat Trump, Trump became our President. They got to keep their ideological purity though. I guess that will keep them warm at night when it's their turn to get rounded up.
    - tombert 1y ago
      I think a lot of people, for reasons that will forever remain unclear to me, didn’t genuinely think Trump would do any of the stuff he said he would do. I heard a lot of people say that he wasn’t serious about tariffs for example. But I don’t want to pretend I understand what compels people to vote for people that I don’t like. Maybe the majority of people really did want to have RFK Jr. in charge all of our health stuff.
    - sjsdaiuasgdia 1y ago
      2024 voting-eligible population: 244.6M Voted for Trump: 77.3M Voted for Harris: 75M Voted for other candidates: 2.6M Eligible to vote, but didn't vote: 90M Unfortunately, the largest constituency continues to be the "can't be fucked to vote" party.
      - tombert 1y ago
        Might be useful to put some commas or something. I thought you were saying that 244 million voted for Trump.
        sjsdaiuasgdia 1y ago
sjsdaiuasgdia 1y ago
"The experts work in the industry they are experts in" does not necessarily mean the experts are bringing incorrect information, or that the outsiders have better information.
- ekianjo 1y ago
  You failed to address the capture of the experts I was referring to. Most experts have conflicts of interest, and only very few of them actually declare them.
  - sjsdaiuasgdia 1y ago
    I was pointing out that you failed to make a strong point in the first place.
    - ekianjo 1y ago
      Are you suggesting regulatory capture is not a thing?
      - sjsdaiuasgdia 1y ago
        Not at all. I do say there's a spectrum. I don't think everything a corporation-employed scientist does is necessarily tainted by the priorities of their employer. Similarly, I don't think every corporate priority is necessarily malicious in intent, or must come with negative societal outcomes. You seem to come from a different presumption.
        ekianjo 1y ago
        My presumption comes from direct observation. And no, I don't believe there's anything like 100% good or bad, but it's easy to understand that corruption can spread as long as there is no mechanism to stop it. In effect, there is a revolving door between the Pharma industry and the FDA, with a huge conflict of interest that is addressed by no one right now. I'd be curious to hear how you explain things like Vioxx, OxyContin abuse, and the COVID19 vaccines that were never properly tested yet are so good for you they never cause side effects according to authorities and their producers, and are perfectly safe up to the xth injection, forever.
elgenie 1y ago
Appointing a know-nothing conspiracy theorist doesn't have that exact issue, yes … but in a way where the cure is significantly worse than the disease. You can cultivate state capacity and independent expertise to reduce regulatory capture, not replace it with a kakistocracy where regulatory capture is instead by woo-woo morons.
- tombert 1y ago
  While I would agree with your overall synopsis, RFK Jr. actually has some conflicts of interest with regards to the anti-vax stuff. He directly profits from anti-vax lawsuits, and if he's in charge of the CDC and FDA he has the motivation to try and publish fake reports from (previously) respected departments. https://www.npr.org/sections/shots-health-news/2025/01/22/nx-s1-5271582/rfk-hpv-vaccine-merck https://www.npr.org/sections/shots-health-news/2025/01/22/nx...
- ekianjo 1y ago
  > but in a way where the cure is significantly worse than the disease. Since the US has by far the sickest human population on Earth (it's not even debatable), I guess the current system has been a spectacular failure. I don't think that RFK is the right answer either, but "continuing on the same path as before" is a bad idea just as well. > independent expertise to reduce regulatory capture What is independent expertise exactly? Where do you find virgin experts completely devoid of external influence? I have yet to meet any expert who has never had grants or speaker engagements.
  - sjsdaiuasgdia 1y ago
    So instead we should listen to the "health influencers" that surround people like RFK Jr? Are they independent?
    - ekianjo 1y ago
      I'm not giving you a solution, I am simply observing that the current system is utterly broken. So continuing as is is not an option, obviously.
ben_w 1y ago
While true, that's still an improvement on being a conspiracy theorist. My mum was New Age type who regularly gave me homeopathic tablets labelled "sodium chloride" and "titanium dioxide", and later Bach flower remedies. Someone in the pocket of, say, Big Tobacco is going to downplay smoking risks; but that's still not as bad as suggesting replacing all pharmacies with table salt and white sand. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homeopathic_hospitals_in_the_National_Health_Service https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homeopathic_hospitals_in_the_N...

tyleo 1y ago

“Worst possible person” isn’t accurate but “worst person ever in the role” probably is.

rsynnott 1y ago
It's... hard to imagine someone worse, in this particular case. Possibly someone who was actively malicious (vs just delusionally insane, which seems to be the case here)?
tombert 1y ago
Within some degree of reason I think it still holds. Yes, if you actively appointed a doomsday cult leader who wants to exterminate the human race, then that would be worse, but that kind of feels like a contrived example. Within the scope of "people who would realistically actually be appointed", he is the absolute worst case scenario.
- ineedasername 1y ago
  >"people who would realistically actually be appointed" But really it wasn't all that realistic. Sure it happened, but just 'cause it happened doesn't make it realistic.
  - tombert 1y ago
    It was realistic in the sense that Trump was always going to appoint an unqualified politician for the role. He chose the worst possible one he could from that set.

jvanderbot 1y ago

I'm convinced very little of these folks beliefs are anything more than pantomimed poll results. Oh look at me I'm anti establishment, opposing those that made you wear masks during COVID. Whatever polls well there gives you a lifelong set of supporters.

ipv6ipv4 1y ago

Picking the absolute worst person for a particular job is Trump’s MO. Trump selects for either compromised individuals, or people with an ax to grind against the organization they are appointed to head. The reason is because compromised people are going to be dependent on his good graces, and hence absolutely loyal to him personally.

ourmandave 1y ago

It's actually impressive that Trump managed to appoint the absolute worst possible person to be Secretary of Health and Human Services. And the republicans in the senate approved the halfwit because they all fear getting primaried.

const_cast 1y ago

> It's actually impressive that Trump managed to appoint the absolute worst possible person to be Secretary of Health and Human Services. It's a legitimate and popular republican strategy, I forgot the exact name. They did the same thing with the EPA during the last Trump administration - appointing an actual oil tycoon to head it. I imagine it's pretty difficult to just find an oil tycoon. The idea is to derail the agency from the inside out.