By John Q. Hosedrinker 
Dr. Casey Means, a nominee for Surgeon General, testified before Congress regarding her controversial background in functional medicine and wellness advocacy. Despite graduating from Stanford Medical School and dropping out of surgical training, her current medical license is inactive, with no plans to reactivate it. During the hearing, she faced scrutiny over her company, Levels, which promotes continuous glucose monitors and wellness products, and a pending FTC complaint regarding undisclosed financial relationships. Furthermore, she was pressed about a statement from HHS Secretary Roadkill questioning the efficacy of flu vaccines, to which she ultimately deferred to CDC guidance and acknowledged population-level benefits.
Read the original article here
The role of Surgeon General in the United States carries immense weight, serving as a leading voice on public health matters for the nation. Therefore, a fundamental question arises: shouldn’t the Surgeon General possess an active medical license? This question gains particular urgency when considering recent nominations, such as the one by former President Trump for wellness influencer Casey Means. The choice of an individual who struggles with basic questions about vaccines, and who apparently has not completed a medical residency, raises serious concerns about qualifications and the very integrity of the public health leadership.
It’s widely understood that becoming a physician involves more than just earning a medical degree. The completion of a residency, specializing in a particular field, is a crucial step in developing the practical skills and in-depth knowledge necessary to practice medicine competently. When someone drops out of residency late in the program, as is reportedly the case here, it signifies an unusual departure from the standard path to becoming a fully qualified practitioner. This makes the nomination of such an individual to a position overseeing national health policy particularly perplexing and, frankly, alarming.
The position of Surgeon General should not be occupied by someone who can be described as a “snake oil salesperson” or a mere influencer peddling unproven wellness trends. The public relies on the Surgeon General for accurate, science-based health advice. An individual who functions more like a representative for a health supplement store, unable to articulate the fundamentals of established medical science like vaccine efficacy, is not equipped for such a critical role. It suggests a disregard for expertise and a prioritizing of personality or ideological alignment over genuine medical knowledge.
This situation appears to be a symptom of a broader trend, where expertise is being actively undermined. When individuals in positions of power seem to favor hunches and prejudices over rigorous academic study and scientific consensus, it creates an environment where misinformation can flourish. This is particularly dangerous in public health, where decisions impact the lives and well-being of millions. The erosion of trust in experts, whether it’s climate scientists or medical professionals, has tangible and detrimental consequences for society.
The irony is particularly sharp when considering the past rhetoric around qualified candidates. For years, certain political factions have championed the idea of selecting “the most qualified” individuals for leadership roles, often criticizing diversity initiatives as compromising merit. Yet, the nomination of an unqualified wellness influencer to a top public health position directly contradicts this stated principle. It suggests that “qualification” has become a flexible term, contingent on political affiliation rather than demonstrable expertise and experience.
The implications of such appointments extend far beyond domestic concerns. The United States holds significant influence on global healthcare. Decisions made by American health authorities, and the messaging they disseminate, can have ripple effects worldwide. When the nation’s top health advisor appears to be skeptical of established medical interventions like vaccines, it can embolden anti-vaccine movements in other countries, jeopardizing global public health efforts. This makes the current situation not just a national embarrassment but a global concern.
Furthermore, the question of what “wellness” even truly signifies in this context remains elusive. Without clear definitions, metrics for measurement, or regulatory oversight, “wellness” can easily become a nebulous concept exploited for commercial gain or ideological agendas, detached from actual health outcomes. The Surgeon General should be a beacon of scientifically grounded health practices, not a proponent of ill-defined trends.
The fact that Casey Means reportedly expressed dislikes for birth control and seemingly avoids answering direct questions about vaccines, while being nominated for a leading public health role, paints a disturbing picture. It suggests an agenda that may be driven by personal beliefs rather than a commitment to comprehensive and evidence-based public health. This raises concerns about potential biases influencing policy and public health guidance.
In essence, the nomination of an individual who lacks a fundamental medical license and demonstrable expertise in public health to the position of Surgeon General is more than just a political misstep; it’s a profound disservice to the American people and a dangerous precedent. The public deserves leaders who are not only qualified but also deeply committed to science and the well-being of all citizens, not individuals who may be more adept at building a personal brand than at safeguarding national health. The urgency for a return to prioritizing genuine expertise in public service cannot be overstated.