The familiar discourse about natural versus vaccine immunity has resurfaced, bringing to mind the debates surrounding public health officials’ cautious approach to COVID-19. As noted by Siddhartha Mukherjee, we’re transitioning from what he termed America’s “privatized pandemic,” exploring a fresh balance that questions establishment views. In this process, we find ourselves turning to a new set of health leaders who stand out for their outspoken skepticism and mistrust.
In the wake of the pandemic, discussions have frequently focused on the decline of public trust in science. However, it’s perhaps even more troubling to note the diminishing confidence in government, particularly among younger generations. The pandemic clearly left a lasting impact. Consequently, more Americans today feel they should not only have the final say over their own health decisions but also have a major role in shaping the health information landscape that guides these choices. Many choose to believe that well-being is something they can personally sculpt, whether it’s in the gym or through choices in the supermarket aisle—specifically, the supplement section. The crucial part is that these decisions are backed by personal research or at least some well-regarded podcast, accompanied by a personal checklist.
The specifics of this checklist are less important than their opposition to mainstream ideas. Take Mehmet Oz, for instance. He’s on the brink of being appointed head of the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, despite the fact that only 21% of the health advice he dispensed on his TV show was deemed to have credible evidence backing it. There’s also the statement from Kennedy, declaring that “there is no vaccine that is safe and effective.” Though he later claimed this was a misinterpretation, his involvement in addressing the Texas measles outbreak involved sending out vitamin A, rather than advocating for vaccination. Additionally, he has lauded the use of steroids and cod liver oil—treatments not typically recommended, nor strongly supported by research to be included in standard protocols.
The MAHA movement might present itself as a reformist wave, raising crucial questions about why the wealthiest nation falls short in health outcomes compared to its peers. However, what it truly seems to signal is a shift toward public-health libertarianism, essentially challenging the concept of health as a collective benefit bolstered by mutual support. It highlights a move away from communal responsibility, leaning towards a more individualistic approach where people rely on long-established biomedical resources without feeling any obligation to contribute to their replenishment.
In principle, several MAHA initiatives hold merit: tackling chronic diseases, obesity, diet and exercise, and the environmental impact of various pollutants and pharmaceuticals. Yet, by placing the emphasis on individual actions, dietary choices, and the notion of treating one’s body as a sacred entity, over germ theory, aerosol transmission, and the social determinants of health, America’s new health leadership risks repeating a fundamental error. They assume individuals are completely independent and invulnerable, dismissing anything beyond personal control as either trivial or an infringement on personal freedom.
