← The Opinions
The Opinions
Robert F. Kennedy Jr.’s Impact So Far: ‘The Worst Possible Case’
00:27:21
David Wallace-Wells and Emily Oster argue that the effects of MAHA will be long-lasting.
Loading summary
Transcript52 lines
- [00:01]
Juliette Kayyem
Hi, I'm Juliette from New York Times.
- [00:02]
David Wallace Wells
Games, and I'm here talking to fans about our games.
- [00:05]
Juliette Kayyem
You play New York Times Games?
- [00:06]
David Wallace Wells
Yes, every day.
- [00:07]
Juliette Kayyem
There's this little tab down here called Friends, so you can add your friend.
- [00:11]
Emily Oster
That feels new to me.
- [00:12]
Juliette Kayyem
It is.
- [00:13]
Emily Oster
It's nice to have the social aspect.
- [00:15]
David Wallace Wells
Oh, my God. And you have all the Times. That's crazy, right?
- [00:17]
Juliette Kayyem
You can look at Spelling bee, Wordle Connections. Oh, my God. Amazing.
- [00:22]
David Wallace Wells
Love that I have to get the app.
- [00:23]
Juliette Kayyem
New York Times Games subscribers get full access to all our games and features. Subscribe now@nytimes.com games for a special offer.
- [00:34]
David Wallace Wells
This is the Opinions, a show that brings you a mix of voices from New York Times Opinion. You've heard the news. Here's what to make of it.
- [00:50]
Emily Oster
I'm David Wallace Wells, a writer for New York Times Opinion and a columnist for the New York Times Magazine, and I'm here with Emily Oster, an economist and CEO of Parent Data, a data driven website about parenting and health. Emily, thanks for being here.
- [01:02]
Juliette Kayyem
Thanks so much for having me. I'm excited for this conversation.
- [01:05]
Emily Oster
So last week, an armed man opened fire on the main campus of the cdc, killing an officer and dying himself. And this was an attack that was reportedly motivated by the shooter's belief that the COVID vaccine had made him sick. Now, I don't want to draw too direct a line between this shooting and national attitudes towards American public health institutions, but. But I do think it's important context for what we're here to talk about, which is RFK Jr. S role at HHS and what he's doing to American public health. We're going to talk specifically about vaccines, but also about food first, though, vaccines. Last week, RFK announced that he was cutting $500 million in funding for MRNA vaccine research and development. And I wanted to start just to ask you to reflect a little bit on that announcement, like in the context of RFK's broader, you know, work at HHS since taking over. How big a deal is this cancellation of the MRNA research? How do you make sense of it?
- [02:04]
Juliette Kayyem
I think it's a great question and it's a somewhat hard thing to make sense of. On the one hand, this should not have been unexpected. You know, generally this administration has suggested a high level of skepticism towards vaccines. And. And the skepticism towards vaccines is most acute towards the COVID vaccine. So the fact that they would make moves like this should not have been very, very surprising. I think the place where maybe it's a little surprising is if you think about it in the context of what is, in my view, the greatest public health achievement of President Trump's first term, which was the Operation Warp Speed, which saved millions and millions of lives and somehow has become something we're not really talking about. I'm always continually surprised Trump does not want to take more credit for that.
- [02:54]
Emily Oster
Yeah, I often say it's like, you know, he can lead his followers anywhere but to support of the vaccines. Or at least I used to say that before Jeffrey Epstein came back into the news. That's like the second big cleavage in his constituency.
- [03:05]
Juliette Kayyem
Yeah, I mean, it's been, it's some ways been very surprising. He doesn't want to trumpet that more. But at any rate, given what they have said about vaccines, they didn't find this, this too surprising. I think it is problematic. It's probably worth outlining for people what are the things that we lose with this pulling back of research in this space? I think there's two really core issues for the future. One is that this is the fastest technology we have to generate vaccines, full stop. I mean, the difference in the amount of time it takes to make a vaccine in the traditional manner versus with this technology is very, very large. And if you think about a future pandemic having access to this technology is the difference. A vaccine in, you know, three months or four months or six months and a vaccine in two years. The second thing that comes to mind is that there is real potential here to improve our protection against, for example, the flu, which kills many people every year, because with a faster vaccine, you can generate a more well matched vaccine to the current flu strain. And so the possibility in a world of MRNA vaccines is that we would all get, you know, a well matched Covid booster and flu vaccine and, you know, maybe RSV vaccine or at least the elderly would get that and it would really protect them. And by taking away this funding, I think we've turned off that possibility at least, or at least made it somewhat less likely.
- [04:29]
Emily Oster
And, you know, I think that, so that's one bundle. There's another bundle that's really relevant here, which is applications outside of respiratory illnesses. So we have a lot of promising work on true vaccination for hiv. It's not, doesn't look like it's, you know, going to be a sort of silver bullet cure all for this disease, but very promising nevertheless. And then maybe even more exciting in theory is this huge new application to cancer, which it's not really a vaccine, it's more a tool to use in immunotherapy. But the basic idea is that we're using the same platform to train someone with cancer's ability to fight off the cancer in their body using their own immune system. And if we're really backing away from MRNA entirely, then we're putting ourselves really behind the eight ball when it comes to cutting edge cancer research as well.
- [05:14]
Juliette Kayyem
Yeah. And I. I mean, in some ways this technology is really, really cool and has many potential opportunities. And it's sort of surprising is again, not the right word. But to sort of back off from something with so much potential. I think it's too strong to say that this will cut, you know, completely eliminate research in these spaces. There's other funders, but this is a lot of funding and generally the federal government does do a fair amount of funding of sort of particularly this kind of basic research, and we're not going to have so much of that.
- [05:46]
Emily Oster
So the way that I think of it is, you know, I knew who RFK was when he was confirmed. He, he made some gestures, you know, in the confirmation hearings that he was going to be better on many of these issues than he's ultimately been. But I would say what we've seen over the last six months or so is a confirmation of something like his critics, worst case scenario. And as a big picture story, it seems to me it's a war on vaccines in a pretty direct frontal way. How did we get here? I mean, how did we get to a place where America's public health is being charted by a figure with this set of convictions? How do you understand that?
- [06:22]
Juliette Kayyem
So I think part of the issue is that there's really many sides to the Maha movement, to the RFK movement. You know, there's the side that's about vaccines that we've been talking about, and then there's this other side about food. And it's a sort of interesting set of bedfellows because this side about, you know, improving the quality of food, improving the quality of nutrition for kids, lowering ultra processed foods, et cetera, you know, that's really not been the purview of the right in the past. That's something, you know, Michelle Obama was into this. I mean, this has been mercilessly by.
- [06:53]
Emily Oster
The right for it. Yeah.
- [06:54]
Juliette Kayyem
Remember the let's Move campaign? Remember, you know, she planted a garden. People were just like vicious. And you know, now we're back to the presidential fitness test. I'm really sure why that's so different. And so I think there's a really interesting set of bedfellows on this stuff. And There are people who I think would genuinely say, I'm here for the vegetables, I'm here for the lack of ultra processed foods, and I'm maybe less worried about the vaccines. And I think, unfortunately, what has happened from my standpoint is the worst of both worlds in that the changes that are being made on the food side are minor, performative, irrelevant, and the changes that are being made on the vaccine side are enormous and terrible. And so we've somehow landed in exactly the worst possible case. But is that how you. Is that how you see it? Or are you more optimistic?
- [07:46]
Emily Oster
You know, I found myself saying a lot the last couple weeks that I could imagine an alternate history in which RFK was made the head of the EPA and like, you know, Vivek was the head of hhs. And I was like, that would be a pretty good outcome, actually, all things considered. So, yeah, there's a way of sort of like rearranging the MAHA coalition in a way that I think would be beneficial. Maybe still full of some hysteria and some bad science, but nevertheless on both fronts, on the public health front and on the sort of environmental pollution front, moving in the right direction, moving in a good direction. And I do want to talk about food in a minute, since you wrote a great piece about RFK's food policy. But before we do that, I just want to drill down on a few beats on this particular point. One is, when you look at what RFK is doing, when you think about MAHA as kind of an ascendant movement, I think it's easy to fall into a trap when you think that that's essential. The whole Republican Party or something like a majority of the American public. And there have been measured declines in faith in Americans, public health institutions, measured declines in vaccines, but they are also, on some level, relatively small. It's not a majority of Americans. It's really still a vocal minority, growing, but still small. And one of the injustices or tragedies of this moment is that many of those people making those arguments are now in positions of real power to shape not just direct policy, but also also our culture around what is acceptable, what is good science, what is not. And for many disengaged Americans, they're just going to be hearing a lot more about new research, revisiting old questions, and their faith in public health and vaccines may fall further as a result. And then I would just want to emphasize the particular role of the cohort of, I call them Covid contrarians, who are empowered under RFK in America's health infrastructure. Now I'm thinking of Marty Mackerey, Jay Bhattacharya, Vinay Prasad. And what is really interesting to me about their story in this context is that they were some of the most vocal people promoting the vaccines in 2021. They were quite, you know, aggressive in saying, if you've got the shots, you really don't have to worry about COVID anymore. You got, you can move on with your life. And now when you see RFK walking back from MRNA technology, generally, what he's emphasizing is that these vaccines don't deliver long lasting sterilizing immunity in respiratory illness. And that is true. It's something I wrote about at the. So I think that the, the, the basic proposition that RFK is putting forward is correct, that Covid vaccines, MRNA vaccines, did not truly end the pandemic in the way that many people expected them to. And yet many of the people who are, if not direct architects of this policy, then going along with it as part of the new public health regime were people who just a few years ago were the biggest boosters of these vaccines. I think that raises some really basic questions about what are we doing here? Like what is, what is the story that takes us from 2021-20 and why is it that so many people who had so much faith in those shots are now part of a program to walk back from that technology generally?
- [10:47]
Juliette Kayyem
Yeah. So let me say, let me say two things. So on the first question of vaccine hesitancy, I think the end case scenario that I am most concerned about is one in which in some way this administration manages to make it quite difficult to get your kid vaccinated. And so sort of changing some aspect of, you know, what's approved or what's covered by Medicaid, that's a really bad scenario. On the COVID vaccine, I think you and I probably have a different position on this, but I do lay some blame at the feet of some of the public health advice that postdated the early 2021 Covid vaccines. And to sort of play devil's advocate or try to express what somebody like Jay Bhattacharya, the director of the nih, would say here is that these vaccines were an incredible breakthrough. They saved millions of lives. But when we started telling people your 7 year old needs a third booster in 2023, you lost a lot of people. And that is when a lot of this resistance, particularly among parents, became more extreme. And that perhaps if the sort of left leaning public health establishment had talked a bit differently about how to think about vaccines in the period post sort of immediate vaccination, if there had been nuance or understanding in that conversation, things might have gone differently. I don't think that it's insane to have a different position about the value of vaccination in February 2021 and the value of vaccination in August 2025 for Covid. I think that's just what science would say in my position. But we may not agree there.
- [12:29]
Emily Oster
Yeah, I mean, I would say for sure the public health messaging about whether you should get A booster in 2024, 2025, should not be what it was. And you know, about the Original Shots In 2021, I had a lot of questions and problems with the way that the messaging was undertaken at the time, too. I thought that there was much too much confidence placed in long term sterilizing immunity. When we first started seeing breakthrough infections, it was not the case that the public health establishment really took that seriously as a question of science. I think there was something irresponsible about that. I think that they were basically overlooking signals from the population in order to try to meet the public where they were. And on that point, you know, I do think that there is a political logic, as you lay out, that, you know, people got frustrated and exhausted and fed up with a lot of COVID mitigation messaging over the course of the pandemic. And there is a political logic to adjusting. But I also think we're. We're now in a period of what looks to me like a massive, massive overcorrection on that point. Now I think we're in a place where we've sort of so overlearned the lesson of COVID that people want to be able to navigate the landscape of risk on their own, don't want to be told what to do, don't want to even really intersect with or interact with public health guidance, that we are left much more vulnerable going forward.
- [13:44]
Juliette Kayyem
Yeah, I think that's fair. I mean, I think particularly on the vaccines, I think to kind of dismiss what was really the speed with which that happened and the safety profile and then the number of people who were saved, I mean, that was really, you know, it was a miracle. And I think to come back and say, well, you know, like, that was kind of useless is, as you say, a complete overcorrection and totally not consistent with reality and puts us behind the eight ball on the next pandemic.
- [14:12]
Emily Oster
So we talked a lot about vaccines, but of course, that's just like one half of the program here. And there is a Consistent thread, I think, which we'll probably tug on as we go into the other big area, which is food. Tell me your assessment of RFK's actions on food. How do you think about what he's doing there and how it compares to the sort of war on vaccines? On the sort of public health and medicine side?
- [14:36]
Juliette Kayyem
So far, the moves on food have been, I would say, entirely performative and focused in tiny and unimportant directions. So, you know, food dyes, I mean, just to be clear, I don't think your food needs to be dyed. There's no health benefit to dyeing your food. But many of the dyes, virtually all of the ones that he has targeted, the evidence supporting any link with, you know, hyperactivity or whatever, you know, any of the kind of neural issues that are associated, none of those links are supported in good data. So taking, you know, red dye, 40 out of Swedish fish or Skittles is not likely to improve anyone's health. And what he's achieved is he's gotten people to say more or less that they'll think about doing that. I would say that's about where we have landed. I do not think that the changes that have been promised, even if they happened, I do not think they would matter very much or at all for health. And I don't think they're gonna happen. So I would say on those, kind of like, I got this company to promise to do blah, you know, we're gonna make some coke that has sugar instead of high fructose corn syrup. That's not improving people's. People's health. There is one thing that has happened which I think actually does have the potential to improve health, although is ethically quite a bit more complicated. He has allowed the USD issue waivers to a number of states to take soda off of the approved items that you can purchase with your ebt, with your SNAP benefits.
- [16:10]
Emily Oster
Food stamps.
- [16:10]
Juliette Kayyem
Yep, with food stamps. And I actually think there's a reasonable chance that that may affect people's consumption of soda and that actually could have some health effect. This is like catnip for economists. And so I'm sure we will, in two years we will see some papers about whether that has mattered, but everything else I can think of that he has done on the food stuff is just useless.
- [16:32]
Emily Oster
And then how do you make sense of that as a political choice? I mean, when I think about these two areas, right, I think that basically there are maybe some questions we want to ask about some of the vaccines we're giving, maybe, but basically we know that they're really effective and powerful. And on the food side, the questions seem much larger and more consequential. And I'd be much more willing to follow a quasi conspiratorial quest to get to the bottom of, you know, our ill health on that front than I would on vaccines. And when I think about the makeup of the Maha movement, obviously there are people who are focus on vaccination, but I think there's a natural constituency that's much larger, that's like, we shouldn't be eating the food that's so bad for us. How do we reform our agricultural practices? How do we change our eating practices, our diet? How do we change that at a large scale level to make sure that the country is healthier? It seems to me almost just at an intuitive level that that would be a larger, more natural constituency. Why are we seeing so much more action on the kind of vaccine side than we are on the food diet and environmental health side? What's that about?
- [17:32]
Juliette Kayyem
I think it's about the fact that it's hard. There's really maybe two things. So one is this is running up against much more directly many of the political barriers that are put up by many people, but in particular by the right. So many of the changes that one would like to make are going to be vehemently opposed by lobbyists with enormous budgets. And ultimately some of these changes would need to be made through Congress. And that's going to be an uphill battle. Much easier to get a company to stand up and say, we'll think about taking dyes out of our skittles sometimes, than to actually change some significant environmental or agricultural practice. The second piece is that a lot of the changes that probably need to be made, real meaningful change, involves getting people to change how they are eating. And that is very hard. It is very, very difficult to get people to change how they're eating. Whereas changing out everybody on the vaccine advisory committee and then changing your advice there is actually comparatively quite straightforward and that is therefore an easier win. I think the wins here are really tough.
- [18:45]
Emily Oster
And do you see a possible hopeful future where MAHA makes more progress over the next couple of years on the food side, or do you think it's going to continue being sort of empty and performative?
- [18:59]
Juliette Kayyem
Maybe I'm not very optimistic. I think there's an increasing set of evidence around ultra processed foods in particular. And so could I see some changes that might impact the share of our diet, which is in ultra processed foods, which has also already gone down a bit. I think that would be interesting. I, I have to be honest, I think that if we are looking to improve the metabolic health of the U.S. probably the answer to that is going to come from putting GLP1s on the Medicaid and Medicare formularies rather than from this movement. And I realize that's probably not a politically especially popular thing to say, but it's probably gonna have more impact.
- [19:49]
Emily Oster
It could be very popular. I mean, people love taking those meds. What is it like there's some astonishingly large percentage of Americans who are already, who've already taken them. Right. And I don't think they wanna be paying. Yeah.
- [20:01]
Juliette Kayyem
And Eli Lilly has just come out with a fairly compelling trial on the pill form of those.
- [20:07]
Emily Oster
Right. Which I make a much more popular even.
- [20:09]
Juliette Kayyem
Yeah, if we got a good quality pill, it's cheaper, it's more popular. So I don't know. I mean, I would love to see movement on healthiness of food in particular around kids, where I just think the, you know, the potential to like make school lunches fun and interesting and get people to eat veget. Like I've occasionally talked to people who work in this space who I find incredibly inspiring, but for the most part we haven't really done it.
- [20:34]
Emily Oster
I think the GLP1 discussion is really illuminating because at least as I understand the sort of fractured lay of the land of the Maha coalition, like this is not a Maha solution. The Maha solution is diet, behavior, exercise. And that just illustrates to me something that's really profound here, which is, you know, much of what has been gathered together under this particular rubric. Maha is really a kind of public health libertarianism, which is to say, like it's about bodily autonomy, it's about how I can be made even more in charge of my own health and well being and therefore see my own healthiness as a reflection of some kind of behavioral virtue. And that this whole category of thing that counts as, you know, what the system is telling me to do, I'm going to just dismiss out of hand. Even though, like, what's the difference between RFK Jr taking testosterone supplements versus like some, you know, some obese person getting on GLP1s as opposed to going on a diet. There's not really a categorical difference there, but in the worldview of Maha, these are very, very different ideas. One of which involves an individual seeking out a solution on their own, independent of official advice. And the other is basically just like, you know, we imagine Americans like opening up their gullets and just getting like drowned in big Pharma sludge. And like that is much more offensive. On the other hand, as you say, if we really want to get America's obesity problem under control, we actually did invent a miracle drug to deal with obesity. If we were really serious about literally making America healthy again, we have a tool to make an enormous difference there. And the culture that is calling for exactly that, that has made that their slogan, their calling card, is resistant to it because their philosophy is really not about making America healthy again. And I worry that we're heading because of that in a much into a darker future where we are much less aware of or focused on the opportunities that we share, and instead push down paths where we're responsible for our own well being, you know, as sort of independent autonomous units without even being able to count on new meds like GLP1s coming down the pike. This is sort of, for me, like the sort of dark future of Maha lies in that direction.
- [22:49]
Juliette Kayyem
I think that's a fair assessment. I mean, I would go back to what you said before, which is, you know, if your goal is really to make America healthy again, you should think about the full range of possible ways to do that. There are many avenues there. But to sort of say, well, we're only gonna consider the avenues that we've decided are associated with virtue, which always is how this feels to me. You know, like, we're gonna focus on the avenues that are standing outside and drinking lemon water and, you know, intermittent fasting and, you know, whatever else it is. And we're not gonna think about some of the avenues that might help a much larger share of people. You know, that feels like you're not really doing the thing that you say you're not making America healthy again. That's it.
- [23:27]
Emily Oster
That's one distinction, right? It's about the individual versus the collective, but another is about institutional wisdom versus sort of individual entrepreneurial detective work. Right?
- [23:37]
Juliette Kayyem
Doing my own research. We're all gonna do our own research.
- [23:40]
Emily Oster
So on some level, we all know that we are in a place where people distrust authority and wanna do their own research. This often gets described as a kind of crisis of trust in American public health and American science at a level of kind of cultural discourse. We are in a much more dist place than we were five years ago. How do you see that playing out? I mean, can we recover some of that on a relatively short timeline? What are our chances here?
- [24:07]
Juliette Kayyem
I am not very optimistic about restoring trust in these broader public health institutions, in part because I feel that it was Lost for some set of people. And it's really hard to regain trust once you've lost it. And then we brought in a group which now another set of people distrust. And so we're now in a place where no one trusts what the CDC has up on their website, either because of before or because of now. We've made the problem sort of twice as large as it was, you know, eight months ago. I will say that I think if you look at these same kinds of surveys, you know, of parents, people trust their pediatricians, even if they don't trust the cdc. And that is an opportunity to you actually keep people's health supported, but maybe through a different kind of messaging, or maybe through a messaging that's a little more tailored to individuals. And the problem is that that takes more time, but that trust feels that it has not decayed in the same way.
- [25:09]
Emily Oster
When I take the longer term view, I think something like the decline in vaccination rates that we're seeing before the pandemic was the simple result of the fact that it had been a full generation since we had really seen the costs of non vaccination. And you know, in the same way that people talk about, you know, we're seeing rise of populism veering into fascism in part because people have forgotten the lessons of World War II. I think there's a sort of a parallel here with, with vaccination and with science. And I sort of wonder in a grotesque way if future public health challenges will push us back in the direction of trust, which is to say, if bird flu starts to spread through human population person to person, are we really going to say that we don't trust the CDC's guidance? Are we really going to say that we don't want a rapid development of the MRNA vaccine? What worries me is that it may take us to that crisis to really get to a place of renewed confidence. The optimistic story I could tell is that we're still living in the sort of messy froth of that pandemic. And once those waves settle down, we can see things a little more clearly. But I worry it's going to take another tidal wave to really push us into a place of renewed confidence and faith in science.
- [26:18]
Juliette Kayyem
I think that's very well said and I have the same worries.
- [26:21]
Emily Oster
So on that note, Emily, I just want to thank you for coming to talk to me. It's been great spending the time with you and really appreciate your wisdom and your writing. Thank you.
- [26:29]
Juliette Kayyem
Well, thank you so much for having me. This was really a great conversation.
- [26:56]
David Wallace Wells
If you like this show, follow it on Spotify, Apple, or wherever you get your podcasts. The Opinions is produced by Derek Arthur Vishaka Darba, Christina Samulewski, and Jillian Weinberger. It's edited by Kari Pitkin and Alison Bruzick. Engineering, mixing and original music by Isaac Jones, sonia Herrero, Pat McCusker, Carol Sabaro, and Afim Shapiro. Additional music by Amin Sahota. The Fact Check team is Kate Sinclair, Mary Marge Locker, and Michelle Harris. Audience strategy by Shannon Busta and Christina Samulewski. The director of Times Opinion Audio is Annie Rose Strasser.