Trump's surgeon general pick exposes cracks in MAHA movement
Casey Means is a prominent health influencer and ally of Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr., but she is seen as insufficiently skeptical of vaccines by some of his prominent supporters — and a 'total crack pot' by others in Trump World.
Trump chose the Stanford-educated doctor-turned-chronic disease entrepreneur to be surgeon general after withdrawing his first pick Janette Nesheiwat, a former physician and Fox News host. Means, like Kennedy, has focused much of her health advocacy on diet and nutrition.
'Bobby really thought she was great. I don't know her. I listened to the recommendation of Bobby,' Trump said of Means. 'I met her yesterday and once before. She's a very outstanding person. A great academic, actually. So I think she'll be great.'
Nesheiwat's nomination was withdrawn the day before her Senate confirmation hearing, after media reports called her credentials into question and conservative figures attacked her for praising the COVID-19 vaccines.
Like Kennedy, Means has expressed skepticism about vaccines, promotes food as medicine and is critical of the current health care system. But the pick was unpopular with other health influencers aligned with Kennedy.
'I can't help but think this is a very carefully groomed and selected person. Just about no clinical experience. Talks a great game about everything but vaccines. Feels all wrong,' said Suzanne Humphries, a medical researcher who, like Means, has appeared on Joe Rogan's podcast.
'She's not a health freedom advocate,' Mike Adam, who goes by Health Ranger, wrote on social platform X. 'She's not a vaccine truther. She'll never recommend natural cancer cures or remedies. She's basically cosplaying as a MAHA champion.'
Means became a key influence in the MAHA movement last year along with her brother Calley Means, who works as an adviser to Kennedy in Department of Health and Human Services.
They co-wrote the book 'Good Energy: The Surprising Connection Between Metabolism and Limitless Health' about the connection between metabolism and personal health, and they promoted their ideas across conservative media, including a hit episode of Tucker Carlson's podcast.
The blowback to her nomination reflects the broader tensions within the MAHA movement, as different factions vie for influence in the Trump administration. The surgeon general serves as the public health face of the administration and wields a powerful bully pulpit, but has little actual authority.
Richard Carpiano, a professor of public policy at the University of California, Riverside, researches social factors affecting vaccine uptake and the anti-vaccine movement. He said Casey Means seems to have failed the purity test among some Kennedy supporters, but that public infighting also reflects the realities and limits MAHA.
'This is really kind of showing or pointing to questions of, you know, to what degree is it really like a movement or is it really just this kind of like brand that that Kennedy is really just trying to push,' Carpiano said.
MAGA influencer Laura Loomer in a series of posts on X accused the president's advisers of poorly vetting the new nominee for surgeon general.
She called Means a 'total crack pot' and 'Marxist tree hugger,' in the post, pointing to various alternative practices Means has written about, including communicating with spirit mediums and using hallucinogenic mushrooms as medicine.
Kennedy's former running mate, Nicole Shanahan, has also criticized Means's nomination, writing in a post on X that she was told neither of the Means siblings would work at department if she supported Kennedy.
'With regard to these siblings, there is something very artificial and aggressive about them, almost like they were bred and raised by Manchurian assets,' she wrote, adding that she suspected Kennedy was being controlled.
Kennedy has vehemently defended Means's nomination.
'The absurd attacks on Casey Means reveal just how far off course our healthcare conversations have veered, and how badly entrenched interests–including Big Food and its industry-funded social media gurus–are terrified of change,' he wrote Thursday on X.
Calley Means on Friday shot back at Loomer, writing on X, 'Just received information that Laura Loomer is taking money from industry to scuttle President Trump's agenda. @LauraLoomer if that's incorrect, sue me and let's do discovery.'
Loomer responded by calling him a 'PR spin master' and accused him of being 'threatened' by her 'access to President Trump.'
Casey Means left a five-year residency program at the Oregon Health & Science University after 4 1/2 years due to anxiety and feeling she wanted to do something different, the Los Angeles Times reported.
She has since cultivated a large following online and is the co-founder of Levels, a health technology company that focuses on tracking health information through devices like continuous glucose monitors.
Those who've worked with Means describe her as someone with a genuine concern for public health, particularly when it comes to young people.
Soh Kim, executive director of the Stanford Center for Innovation and Design Research, worked alongside Means at Stanford University, teaching a food, design and technology course.
'She is very rare in terms of, like, her rigorous medical knowledge but also, she is somebody who can, you know, talk to anyone in the class with their level,' Kim said.
But others questioned her qualifications for such a high-profile public health role. Former U.S. Surgeon General Jerome Adams noted, shortly after Means was nominated, that the surgeon general position has historically been required to be held be a licensed physician.
'As the Senate is considering confirmation, it is important that historical precedent, the ability to effectively lead the USPHS, and the law, are all taken into consideration,' he wrote, referring to the U.S. Public Health Service, which the surgeon general oversees.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
WIRED
5 minutes ago
- WIRED
An Inventor Is Injecting Bleach Into Cancerous Tumors—and Wants to Bring the Treatment to the US
Xuewu Liu, a Chinese inventor who has no medical training or credentials of any kind, is charging cancer patients $20,000 for access to an AI-driven but entirely unproven treatment that includes injecting a highly concentrated dose of chlorine dioxide, a toxic bleach solution, directly into cancerous tumors. One patient tells WIRED her tumor has grown faster since the procedure and that she suspects it may have caused her cancer to spread—a claim Liu disputes—while experts allege his marketing of the treatment has likely put him on the wrong side of US regulations. Nonetheless, while Liu currently only offers the treatment informally in China and at a German clinic, he is now working with a Texas-based former pharmaceutical executive to bring his treatment to America. They believe that the appointment of Robert F. Kennedy Jr. as health secretary will help 'open doors' to get the untested treatment—in which at least one clinic in California appears to have interest—approved in the US. Kennedy's Make America Healthy Again (MAHA) movement is embracing alternative medicines and the idea of giving patients the freedom to try unproven treatments. While the health secretary did not respond to a request for comment about Liu's treatment, he did mention chlorine dioxide when questioned about President Donald Trump's Operation Warp Speed during his Senate confirmation hearing in February, and the Food and Drug Administration recently removed a warning about substance from its website. The agency says the removal was part of a routine process of archiving old pages on its site, but it has had the effect of emboldening the bleacher community. 'Without the FDA's heavy-handed warnings, it's likely my therapy would have been accepted for trials years earlier, with institutional partnerships and investor support,' Liu tells WIRED. He says he wrote to Kennedy earlier this year urging him to conduct more research on chlorine dioxide. 'This quiet removal won't immediately change everything, but it opens a door. If mainstream media reports on this shift, I believe it will unlock a new wave of serious [chlorine dioxide] research.' For decades, pseudoscience grifters have peddled chlorine dioxide solutions—sold under a variety of names, such as Miracle Mineral Solution—and despite warnings and prosecutions, have continued to claim the toxic substance is a 'cure' for everything from HIV to Covid-19 to autism. There is no credible evidence to back up any of these claims, which critics have long labeled as nothing more than a grift. The treatments typically involve drinking liquid chlorine dioxide on a regular basis, using solutions with concentrations of chlorine dioxide of around 3,000 parts per million (ppm), which is diluted further in water. Liu's treatment, however, involves a much higher concentration of chlorine dioxide—injections of several milliliters of 20,000ppm—and, rather than drinking it, patients have it injected directly into their tumors. Liu claims he has injected himself with the solution over 50 times and suffered no side effects. 'This personal data point encouraged me to continue research,' he says.
The Hill
34 minutes ago
- The Hill
Forget trade wars — the future isn't about physical goods, but data, ideas and services
Despite a U.S.-driven trade war with China, voters turning to populism across the globe and the risk of a recession, reports of globalization's demise are — at least for now — overblown. Washington's trade hawks would do well to read the signs. True, that may seem like pie in the sky. Messages from Washington are all about reshoring and decoupling of trade. As President Trump's reciprocal tariffs aims to reindustrialize the American economy, his vision is one of the manufacture of cars and smartphones moving away from Asia to assembly lines of obedient workers in America. But the chief engine of the U.S. economy is no longer found in physical factories. Instead, it lies in intangible investments, such as research and development, software, organizational structures and intellectual capital. These immaterial assets eclipse physical capital such as machinery and equipment, now accounting for over 60 percent of corporate capital investment and, by some estimates, 90 percent of the S&P 500's market value. This has led to new patterns of globalization, defined by invisible items — data, ideas, modern services and cross-border teams. As trade in physical goods began to sputter in the beginning of the 21st century, these invisible flows have soared over the past decade. They are largely immune to tariffs, decoupling and attacks of populist politicians. Even with chips nearshored, global U.S. companies like Qualcomm still earn a quarter of their profits by licensing ideas globally. Although the U.S. may start soon a full-blown trade war with the European Union, data flows between the two trade giants are set to soar in the next decade, according to the European Commission. And as U.S. multinationals exit China, they remain reliant on cross-border teams within these companies. Meanwhile, modern services trade has continued to grow by 10 percent well into 2024 without interruption. Contrary to common belief, intangible flows span both manufacturing and services. Take Coca-Cola. The multinational rarely produces any of its famous beverages anymore. Instead, it licenses its recipe to non-affiliated contract producers called bottlers, from whom it receives property income. Google runs on worldwide data flows to power its services globally. McKinsey predicts that by 2040, modern sectors such as cloud computing, shared autonomous vehicles, AI, space and biotechnology will account for 16 percent of global GDP, nearly double the share of today's leading sectors like industrial electronics and semiconductors, which currently make up 9 percent. These emerging sectors fuse manufacturing and services. These sectors are also rife with global intangible flows. Consider BioNTech's COVID-19 vaccine. The underlying mRNA technology was licensed from the biochemist Katalin Karikó. Cloud‑based trial data zipped across borders and Pfizer's partnership turbo‑charged the research and development and scale‑up. The same blueprint was later licensed to Moderna for its vaccine. Intangible flows like these are powering modern U.S. multinational production networks and their supply chains. Just as a quarter to half of the trade in U.S. goods in the 20th century occurred within multinationals, so too will U.S. intangible flows mostly take place within global firms this century. These new flows clash with Trump's trade narrative. For starters, the American economy is well positioned to benefit, as it holds strong comparative advantages in these emerging industries. Second, they don't fit with populist views on the evils of trade deficits. Data, for instance, transcends borders as a global commodity, contributing neither to a country's trade deficit nor surplus. U.S. cross-border research and development and global teams remain largely unnoticed as an international flow. But their output has surged by respectively 95 and 30 percent since 2009, boosting income at home. Meanwhile, the U.S. has held the world's largest trade surplus in modern services for years, backing both high- and low-skilled jobs at home. The overall U.S. trade deficit in goods is not the problem, but rather the byproduct of America's greatest modern globalization success. These new globalization flows are difficult to grasp, hard to monetize and challenging to rein in behind countries' borders. They do not rely on ships, airplanes and trucks, but instead on the internet, human minds and collaboration. The paradox is that they have continued to grow despite the ongoing global turmoil, and they could put the U.S. in the driver's seat this century. The outlook for globalization is more positive than the populist doomsayers in Washington are claiming. However, new intangible flows rely on attracting the world's top talent, without undermining universities; on maintaining a predictable environment for global business, without disregarding court rulings; and on avoiding questionable policy initiatives, without blindsiding allies. If the U.S. truly wants to capitalize on its strengths, policymakers should change their global engagement strategy and embrace the next wave of globalization before it's too late.
CNBC
35 minutes ago
- CNBC
Kelly Evans: How do you "fix" the Fed?
The irony of having this whole discussion right now about how to "fix" the Federal Reserve is that the critics have actually gone pretty quiet lately. "We must give credit where credit is due: after a significant inflationary policy error during 2021 and early 2022, the Powell-led FOMC has effectively nailed the immaculate disinflation/soft landing," Roth MKM economist Michael Darda wrote in late May. That achievement, he added, is "something unprecedented after more than a two-year inflation surge." Similar acknowledgements are being heard from investors and money managers. "The Fed is actually doing a pretty good job right now," Andres Garcia-Amaya of Zoe Financial told us on air last month. "The market's at all-time highs, inflation is below 3%, and the economy is doing just fine." Which is partly why the market gets so jittery about Fed Chair Powell's potential replacement now, whenever the issue is raised. But even those who critical of Fed policy right now are critical in both directions: some, like Barry Knapp of Ironsides Macro, think they are running policy too tight and should cut rates; and others, like Larry Lindsey, warn rate cuts would be a mistake if inflation rises towards year-end. The larger issue, as Lindsey discussed on our show earlier this week, is how to make the Fed less error-prone in general. Even excluding Covid, the Fed's growth forecasts have been off by 63% on average, he noted. If the Fed instead had simply assumed 2% annual GDP growth over the past fifteen-plus years that they've been issuing projections, they would have been much closer to the mark. And the Covid episode itself--when inflation hit 9% before the Fed finally began hiking dramatically--remains a major point of concern about the institution's lack of intellectual diversity. The Fed's hundreds of economists and staffers are too one-sided, according to Lindsey, because they are hired from a small handful of "elite" schools. Not only should that be broadened, but the board itself, which decides monetary policy, should have at least a couple of non-economists from the business world, he added. Those are not the kinds of changes that would necessarily unnerve markets. In fact, such ideas might even be as part of a message that says the new Fed chair isn't just coming in to run policy more loosely at the margin. Otherwise, the market is left to conjecture about just what exactly the new Fed chair's plans for monetary policy or institutional change might actually be. Some more specificity on both fronts could go a long way towards keeping the current positivity about the Fed going, for once. See you at 1 p.m! Kelly Twitter: @KellyCNBC Instagram: @realkellyevans
