RFK Jr.’s MAHA: “Half Right,” or Simply Stating the Obvious?

I read with interest The Economist’s recent article suggesting that RFK Jr. is “half right” about chronic disease in America. Let’s be clear: chronic disease absolutely deserves our attention – and it gets it. The NIH, CDC, and major research institutions have dedicated significant resources to understanding and preventing chronic diseases. For instance, nutrition research, which RFK Jr. claims is underfunded, actually accounts for substantial research investment across multiple NIH institutes and centers.

But the suggestion that we’ve somehow overlooked or underemphasized chronic disease prevention flies in the face of decades of research and public health initiatives. The challenge lies not in a lack of attention, but in the complexity of chronic disease prevention and the frustratingly slow pace of progress despite intensive efforts. While public impatience with rising chronic disease rates is understandable, this frustration shouldn’t lead us to embrace oversimplified solutions that ignore the complex web of biological, social, and environmental factors at play.

I’d argue that public health research and preventative health—for both chronic and infectious disease—are grossly underfunded, but the answer isn’t to take from one to give to the other. Like all boats rising with the tide, both areas of public health will benefit from increased investment in our overall public health infrastructure. When we strengthen these foundational systems and provide adequate funding for prevention and research across the board, everyone’s health improves.

The Reality of Current Research

The evidence is clear: chronic diseases disproportionately affect our most vulnerable populations, with well-documented geographic and socioeconomic patterns. Five of the top ten leading causes of death in the U.S. are chronic diseases or strongly associated with them. The challenge isn’t a lack of attention or research – it’s the complex nature of these conditions and their deep connections to social, economic, and environmental factors.

Decades of research have helped us understand these patterns and their underlying causes. We know that access to healthcare, education, healthy food, and safe spaces for physical activity all play critical roles in chronic disease prevention. Recent studies continue to reinforce and deepen this understanding, helping us better target interventions and resources where they’re needed most.

Subscribe now

The Interconnected Nature of Disease

What’s particularly concerning about the MAHA approach is its artificial separation of chronic and infectious disease prevention. This division ignores well-established relationships between the two:

1. Many chronic conditions increase vulnerability to infectious diseases (as we saw dramatically during the COVID-19 pandemic)

2. Some infectious diseases can lead to chronic conditions (like HPV causing cancer)

3. Prevention strategies often overlap and complement each other (like promoting healthy behaviors that protect against both types of conditions)

4. Public health infrastructure serves both purposes simultaneously

The Danger of Oversimplification and Scapegoating

While it’s tempting to seek simple explanations for complex health challenges, attributing chronic disease primarily to specific additives or environmental factors without robust evidence can be counterproductive. This approach:

• Diverts attention from evidence-based interventions

• May lead to unintended consequences when ingredients are hastily replaced

• Undermines public trust in scientific research

• Creates false choices between different types of public health initiatives

Moving Forward Constructively

Instead of creating false choices, we should focus on evidence-based approaches that address both chronic and infectious diseases while acknowledging their interconnections. This means:

• Maintaining strong infectious disease prevention while expanding chronic disease initiatives

• Addressing social determinants of health that affect both types of conditions

• Supporting research that examines complex causality rather than seeking simple answers

• Implementing proven interventions while continuing to study emerging concerns

• Recognizing that health challenges rarely have single causes or simple solutions

While both infectious and chronic diseases present significant challenges, chronic diseases often involve complex webs of contributing factors that develop over decades. Unlike some infectious diseases where we can interrupt transmission chains or prevent infection through vaccination, chronic disease prevention requires sustained changes across multiple aspects of people’s lives – from daily behaviors to living environments to social and economic conditions. This doesn’t make infectious disease control “easy” – as the COVID-19 pandemic starkly reminded us – but it does mean that chronic disease prevention demands particularly comprehensive, long-term, and multifaceted approaches.

The path forward requires nuanced understanding and comprehensive approaches. We need to build on our existing knowledge while remaining open to new evidence – but we must do so through rigorous scientific investigation, not oversimplified narratives that pit one type of public health challenge against another. The stakes are too high for anything less.

Stay curious,

Unbiased Science

Subscribe now