By John Q. Hosedrinker 
Since taking the helm of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Robert F. Kennedy Jr. has aimed to restore public trust by changing federal health policies, including scaling back immunization guidance. However, these actions have drawn criticism from top medical groups who argue the changes are not science-based, leading to increased confusion. Despite Kennedy’s stated goal of promoting transparency to empower individual health choices, surveys indicate a decline in trust towards federal health agencies like the CDC. This erosion of confidence, exacerbated by the COVID-19 pandemic and Kennedy’s past promotion of vaccine misinformation, raises concerns among medical professionals about a potential surge in preventable illnesses.
Read the original article here
The trust in US health agencies, once a cornerstone of public confidence, appears to be significantly diminished, and the appointment of Robert F. Kennedy Jr. is cited as a major catalyst in this decline. It’s hard to imagine how someone with a background that includes admitting to past struggles with drug use, like snorting crack cocaine off a toilet seat, could inspire faith in an organization dedicated to public health. This personal history, coupled with a perceived lack of relevant qualifications for such a critical role, raises serious questions about his suitability and the judgment of those who placed him in this position. The very mention of such deeply personal and frankly unsettling admissions serves to undermine any credibility he might otherwise possess in the realm of health policy and guidance.
The erosion of trust isn’t a subtle, slow process; it feels more like a deliberate dismantling. The sentiment is that this decline has progressed to a point where major health institutions are no longer viewed as reliable sources of information. It’s as though the agencies have actively contributed to this loss of faith, at times appearing to propagate misinformation or “gaslight” the public, which paradoxically, has opened the door for those actively working against public health to gain influence. The notion that these institutions are being subverted from within, by individuals who may not have the public’s best interests at heart, is a deeply concerning one.
This widespread distrust extends beyond just health agencies and touches upon the very fabric of American institutions. There’s a prevailing belief that a concerted effort is underway to destabilize and undermine these pillars of society. This perspective suggests that the current situation is not accidental but rather a calculated strategy, with individuals like RFK Jr. serving a specific purpose in this broader agenda to sow discord and erode public faith. The call for new laws against such internal subversion highlights the perceived gravity of the situation and the desire for accountability.
The question of RFK Jr.’s educational background frequently arises in discussions about his fitness for office. While he may possess degrees, the focus seems to be on the nature of his expertise, which appears to be rooted more in history and law than in public health. This disconnect between his formal education and the demands of his appointed role fuels skepticism. The idea that he is leading health agencies despite lacking a background in science or medicine is seen by many as a testament to a larger, more insidious plan to dismantle established systems, rather than an attempt to improve them.
The personal conduct, particularly the admission of drug use in such stark and public terms, is seen as directly contradicting the role of a trusted health official. The specific details, like the method of drug consumption, only amplify the perceived unsuitability and the absurdity of the situation. It leads to a feeling of disbelief that someone involved in such activities is now in a position to influence public health decisions. This disconnect between personal history and professional responsibility is a significant factor in the widespread loss of confidence.
The argument is made that trust in government, in general, has been declining, and this trend is exacerbated by the current leadership. When individuals with questionable backgrounds and seemingly anti-science viewpoints are placed in positions of authority within health agencies, it reinforces the idea that the system is broken or intentionally corrupted. The comparison is often made between a dysfunctional or harmful government and the complete absence of one, suggesting that the current state is worse than no government at all.
This perception of a government that is actively working against its citizens, particularly when it comes to public health, is a powerful driver of distrust. The idea that the “party of we don’t trust the government” is now leading the charge in breaking that trust is seen as a profound irony. The goal, in this view, is not to promote health but to actively undermine it, potentially by promoting alternative, unproven, or even harmful therapies, catering to the influence of those who profit from misinformation.
The narrative that external forces, such as Russia, are actively working to destabilize the US by fostering distrust in institutions, particularly regarding vaccines and public health, is also part of this complex picture. The current environment, with individuals actively promoting conspiracy theories and questioning established scientific consensus, creates fertile ground for such foreign influence operations. The erosion of trust, therefore, is not just an internal issue but also a vulnerability exploited by adversaries.
Ultimately, the consensus among many is that trust in US health agencies has not just eroded but has been fundamentally broken. The current leadership, exemplified by the appointment of figures like RFK Jr., is seen as the direct cause of this collapse. The belief that this is part of a deliberate plan to dismantle societal institutions, to create chaos and pave the way for a specific political agenda, paints a grim picture of the current state of public trust and the future of health governance in the United States.