Better in their words…

In times of uncertainty, repetition often masquerades as truth. Messaging becomes a proxy for consensus, and uniformity of language is mistaken for a deliberative process. Nowhere has this been more evident than in the growing wave of statements and calls for resignation surrounding Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr.

We can see it coming: A chorus of professional voices will emerge that raises concerns—not about operational failures or demonstrable public health harms, but about tone, trust, and the optics of disagreement. Media outlets have already mirrored their trial positions, often recycling identical phrases across platforms: “misinformation,” “eroding trust,” “disregard for science.” And just like that, a reverse narrative, one that is 100% counter to reality, is born.

But false policy narratives are not science. It’s not the result of gold-standard experimentation or the testing of hypotheses. Narrative is what fills the silence when effective backbone institutions move faster than their debate can catch up. They have no evidence behind their messaging, so they message harder.

The lessons of COVID19 have been lost on these people.

To be clear: reasonable people may differ with Kennedy’s policy proposals. They may take issue with his past statements or question the long-term direction of his reforms. That is not the problem.

The problem is the speed and uniformity with which criticism will be deployed, often absent of clear articulation about what, specifically, has gone wrong.

Kennedy has, since taking office, called for:

• Full public release of clinical trial safety data,
• A review of how vaccine schedule recommendations are formed,
• And greater transparency around high-risk research like gain-of-function studies.

These are not radical positions. In fact, they are aligned with basic principles of scientific openness. Yet the reaction has been less about debate and more about narrative consolidation—an urgent effort to shape perception before most Americans have even reviewed the reforms themselves. They are planning a torrent. Right now, its just sprinkling.

When senior officials resign, when press releases arrive in clusters, and when public health associations deploy prewritten talking points across multiple platforms, what’s taking place is not dialogue. It’s choreography. And what’s being managed is not risk—but optics.

Coordinated messaging isn’t inherently dishonest. But it is designed to reduce complexity. It is crisis management, not consensus building. And in this case, the cost of oversimplification may be very high.

The United States faces genuine, measurable public health challenges:

• Chronic disease rates continue to rise.
• Medical mistrust is growing across the political spectrum.
• Oversight of public-private partnerships remains a contentious and unresolved issue.

In this landscape, transparency and accountability are not optional. They are essential. And when a public official begins to ask uncomfortable but necessary questions—especially about how decisions are made and who benefits—we must take care not to confuse disruption with dysfunction.

There are forces, clearly, that would prefer the comfort of alignment. But alignment is not always truth. And truth does not fear inspection.

The health of a nation depends not just on policy, but on the integrity of the process that creates it. That process requires room for dissent, scrutiny, and yes—reform.

Whatever one thinks of Kennedy’s record or rhetoric, it is essential that he be given the space—and the public backing—to pursue the questions that matter most. Questions about data, about trust, and about the right of the public to understand and challenge the systems that govern their health.

Because if we allow messaging to outrun substance—if we accept uniform talking points as a substitute for open evaluation—we will lose more than one Secretary. We will lose the public’s last reservoir of trust.

And we can’t afford that. Not now.

Share

Leave a comment