By John Q. Hosedrinker 
President Trump’s nomination of Dr. Casey Means, a “functional medicine” practitioner lacking an active medical license, as Surgeon General follows the withdrawal of his previous pick, Dr. Janette Nesheiwat. Nesheiwat’s nomination was withdrawn amid controversy surrounding her educational background and support for COVID-19 vaccination, fueled by accusations from conspiracy theorist Laura Loomer. Means’ selection, announced on Truth Social, positions her to collaborate with HHS Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. on a health initiative. This marks the second failed nomination for a top health official under the Trump administration.
Read the original article here
Trump’s nomination of Casey Means, a wellness influencer and conspiracy theorist lacking a medical license, to replace a Fox News contributor as Surgeon General is, frankly, astounding. The sheer audacity of the appointment speaks volumes about the current state of political priorities. It’s not just that Means lacks the fundamental qualifications for such a critical public health role; it’s the blatant disregard for expertise and the prioritization of loyalty over competence that’s deeply troubling.
This appointment isn’t simply a matter of someone unqualified taking on a high-profile position; it represents a potential catastrophic blow to public health. Means’ promotion of alternative medicine practices and her alignment with conspiracy theories raise serious concerns about the integrity and credibility of the office of the Surgeon General. The potential impact on public health messaging and policy is frankly terrifying.
The fact that Means’s background includes advocating for views that contradict established medical consensus further underscores the alarming nature of this choice. The Surgeon General’s role demands a deep understanding of evidence-based medicine, and Means’ history suggests a significant divergence from this core requirement. This isn’t just about a lack of a medical license; it’s about a fundamental lack of adherence to the scientific principles essential for effective public health leadership.
The public outcry following the announcement of Means’ nomination is completely understandable. Concerns are not merely about her lack of qualifications but about the wider implications of prioritizing ideology over competence in such a vital role. The silence from a significant portion of the political establishment is equally concerning, suggesting a prioritization of political allegiance over the welfare of the nation.
Means’ belief in the power of alternative remedies and her scepticism of mainstream medical practices, combined with her apparent lack of understanding or acceptance of basic scientific principles, raise serious concerns about her ability to effectively guide public health initiatives. The potential for misdirection and the propagation of misinformation pose a direct threat to public health and trust in established medical institutions.
What’s particularly unsettling is that Means’ appointment signals a potential disregard for evidence-based decision-making in critical public health policy. This is not merely a matter of political preference; it directly impacts public trust and access to accurate health information. The position of Surgeon General requires a strong commitment to science and data-driven decision-making, qualities that appear significantly lacking in Means’ profile.
This nomination throws into sharp relief the broader issue of unqualified individuals being appointed to positions of power. The lack of basic medical credentials is merely the tip of the iceberg; the deeper problem lies in the apparent disregard for expertise and the prioritization of political alignment over competence and experience. The consequences of this trend are likely to be far-reaching and potentially devastating.
The fact that the Senate has not yet rejected this nomination is also quite concerning. It suggests a willingness to disregard the critical importance of the Surgeon General’s role and the qualifications needed for such a demanding position. This pattern of accepting unqualified candidates highlights a larger erosion of standards and a concerning trend of prioritizing political loyalty over competence.
It is imperative that qualified voices speak out against this nomination. The position of Surgeon General is too important to be held by someone lacking the essential qualifications and adhering to principles that contradict established medical consensus. The repercussions of this decision could extend far beyond simple political theatre and pose a serious threat to the wellbeing of the entire nation.
The overall situation underscores the growing need for greater vigilance and public engagement in political processes. Appointing someone completely unqualified for such a pivotal role in public health has potentially grave consequences. The focus should remain on demanding accountability from those in positions of power and ensuring that critical appointments are based on merit, experience, and a commitment to evidence-based practices. The future of public health and the integrity of governmental institutions are at stake.