Even Robert F. Kennedy Jr., President-elect Donald Trump to lead the Department of Health and Human Services, or Dr. Mehmet Oz, his choice to lead the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, is no stranger to scandal. But it is their connection to the concept of “health”, which includes the belief that health is total and that people are the most competent experts in their knowledge – that should command our attention.
Kennedy and Oz are dangerous choices to lead the big federal agencies because they promote the worst of the welfare state: conspiracy theories, cheap hucksterism and anti-institutionalism that undermine the very institutions they are designed to run. But we must separate our rightful anger at electing them from two important facts: The health issues they discuss pose legitimate problems for many Americans — which is what made each one famous — and the health movement they are part of. has contributed to our understanding of health and well-being in the United States.
Kennedy made his name as a fighter for the environment, but his desire to protect everything “natural” led him to make arguments accepted by science, shameful in the fight against the rejected theory that vaccines cause autism, but also polluted. water can make people transgender, that 5G cell towers “control our behavior” and that raw milk is safe to drink.
Oz, who trained as a heart surgeon, joined Columbia University (until it cut ties with him in 2022) but rose to fame as the host of “The Dr. Oz Show” (spinoff of “The Oprah Winfrey Show”). where he provided nutrition, nutrition and sexual health tips interspersed with unproven medical and supplement advice. Those are the recommendations that got him into the Senate, where he admitted that most of his advice “doesn’t have the scientific basis to say it’s true.”
During his unsuccessful run for the US Senate in Pennsylvania, we learned about his financial ties to pharmaceutical companies that produce hydroxychloroquine, the drug he would promote to treat Covid while downplaying the dangers of the drug, raising doubts about his credibility.
Kennedy and Oz created such a large audience because they regularly speak to issues such as obesity, anxiety, autism, chemical dependency and chronic pain that concern Americans. The couple also gives voice to their audience’s concerns about the inadequacy of the health care system to address or solve their most pressing problems. The belief that our health care is not taking care of us is a political issue, but while many seek reform of the system, Kennedy and Oz often attack the existing institutions and practices themselves.
These messages were especially heard by the American people during the pandemic. Kennedy and Oz took aim at how the government was run – and rose to the heights of popularity. Most of their comments were blunt and angry. Kennedy called the Covid vaccines the most deadly and thought that the virus was designed to protect Ashkenazi Jews and the Chinese people, while Oz pushed hydroxychloroquine and, with issues rising in April 2020, called opening schools “a wonderful opportunity.” This took a long time before even the advocates of open schools decided that this was a safe idea.
But if we dwell on what these two are really talking about, we may fail to see why so many non-conspiracy-conscious Americans are drawn to what they say. For example, when the public health authorities quickly ordered masks, vaccinations, closures and isolation – and dismissed those who questioned these harmful measures, even raising reasonable health concerns about issues such as residence and isolation – thought Kennedy, Oz and others. what went around was beautiful.
They continued to recommend exercise and nutrition as a way to reduce comorbidities. They didn’t ask questions not only about the rapid release of the vaccine, but also about seemingly impossible things like the six feet of social distancing we were told to observe or the 14-day stay those infected were told to endure. Those questions, including those they raised about the origin of the virus itself, were (mostly) understandable but not accepted in the health discourse.
When Oz said that lockdowns that shut down schools and separated people from their loved ones “wasn’t a healthy way to live,” he expressed a sentiment that was in many ways unsurprising, but sounded like a bold statement in a climate of oppression.
This conflict and the importance of holistic health and individual organization is what made the view of “health” not only interesting but often a positive force in improving people’s lives. In the early 20th century, those who preached the gospel about diet and exercise were dismissed as “health nuts,” (and some of their ideas deserved that title). But after World War II, when more Americans than ever before enjoyed some success, the World Health Organization adopted a new definition of health: “a state of complete physical, mental and social well-being and not merely the absence of disease or infirmity.” .”
The word “fitness” didn’t come into circulation until the 1970s, but when it did, Americans across the political spectrum embraced the idea that the body and mind are connected and that it’s up to people to take charge of their health.
For those who embraced cultural resistance and the civil rights movement, “wellness” meant self-determination: a rejection of Western medical institutions that routinely minimized the suffering of marginalized groups such as women and Black people. To conservatives, “settlement” meant promoting personal morality and discipline, rather than relying on government handouts, quick pill fixes or succumbing to the moral neglect they despised.
By the turn of our century, the idea of purposeful investment in one’s health was widespread and commercialized. Think affordable food, environmentally friendly clothing and accessories, yoga studios in affluent neighborhoods, and slogans like “Grow, don’t just live,” all kinds of prints on cushions and coffee mugs. When health totems like “self-care,” organic food and yoga were often labeled as liberal, the world’s politicians were mostly silent until the pandemic encouraged its side of freedom, conspiracy and anti-establishment.
While many of the most visible practices and ethical products were seen as consumer standards, or today’s snake oil enabled by the lack of regulation, the change in understanding it brought about has shaped our understanding of health in profound ways. One-edge advice on “integrated health” and alternative medicine has been organized in advanced medical centers that offer meditation and preventive health advice. Some insurances now cover chiropractic care, acupuncture, massage and doula services. Public schools teach yoga and mindfulness, while farmers markets accept food stamps.
We have a long way to go, but our gradual acceptance in the community of the importance of comprehensive health, and the desire to oppose the neutrality of medicine and pharmaceutical establishments, mainly from these critics.
The health movement has always had organizers and hacks, and unfortunately Kennedy and Oz promote some very destructive ideas. But to protect our public and personal health, it is important to understand why this aspect of good health is resonating now. And as we work to separate fact from fiction, we must also remember and revive the legacy of the health movement.
This article was originally published on MSNBC.com