The Trump administration’s hostility toward science and public health isn’t exactly a secret, but it was nevertheless jarring to see Vice President JD Vance and Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. participate in a public chat at a “Make America Healthy Again” event. USA Today reported:
Vice President JD Vance said he doesn’t like ‘taking medications’ and speculated without evidence that some may be causing chronic diseases during a Make America Healthy Again summit. … Vance said the one way in which he’s ‘instinctively MAHA,’ referring to the acronym for the Trump administration’s health efforts, is that he doesn’t like taking ibuprofen if he has a back sprain or wakes up with back pain.
“I don’t like taking medications. I don’t like taking anything unless I absolutely have to,” Vance said. “And I think that’s another MAHA-style attitude. It’s not anti-medication, it’s anti-useless medication.”
And what, pray tell, counts as a “useless” medication? To hear Vance tell it, ibuprofen — a common, over-the-counter medication for pain relief — fits the bill.
On the one hand, Americans have a president who has launched a bizarre campaign against Tylenol. On the other hand, Americans also have a vice president who has a problem with the active ingredient in Advil.
But there was another exchange from Wednesday’s event that stood out for me.
JD Vance: "Science as practiced in its best form is that if you disagree with it, then you ought to criticize it and you ought to argue against it."
— Aaron Rupar (@atrupar.com) 2025-11-12T17:36:02.124Z
Kennedy, a longtime conspiracy theorist who has touted countless unscientific ideas — my personal favorite was his claim that Wi-Fi causes “leaky brain” — complained that those who challenge scientific “orthodoxies” end up getting “destroyed.”
Vance, naturally, agreed. “Science as practiced in its best form is that if you disagree with it, then you ought to criticize it and you ought to argue against it,” the vice president argued, adding that it’s wrong to “silence” those who push back against the scientific canon.
At first blush, many might find such rhetoric reasonable. What’s wrong with questions? Why shouldn’t scientists and medical experts take the time to respond to criticisms as part of a vigorous review process? Doesn’t that ultimately result in stronger and more reliable results? The problem has to do with qualifications. If scientists and medical experts do vigorous studies, subject their work to a peer review process, and find that actual experts have endorsed the validity of their work, that has real and meaningful value. When cranks and charlatans, who have no qualifications and none of the requisite skills needed to evaluate such research, come along and peddle nonsensical criticisms, it’s not up to scientific professionals to waste time discrediting those claims — because they have more important things to do. The fact that two powerful members of the White House Cabinet don’t seem to understand this is deeply discouraging.
Steve Benen is a producer for "The Rachel Maddow Show," the editor of MaddowBlog and an MS NOW political contributor. He's also the bestselling author of "Ministry of Truth: Democracy, Reality, and the Republicans' War on the Recent Past."
Latest Post
Recommended
