[link removed]

FAIR
View article on FAIR's website ([link removed])
'Kennedy Is Not a Skeptic. He Is an Anti-Vaccination Enthusiast' Janine Jackson ([link removed])


Janine Jackson interviewed Defend Public Health's Elizabeth Jacobs about Robert F. Kennedy Jr. and public health for the September 5, 2025, episode ([link removed]) of CounterSpin. This is a lightly edited transcript.

[link removed]


WaPo: As RFK Jr. upends America’s public health system, Trump cheers him on

Washington Post (8/31/25 ([link removed]) )

Janine Jackson: “I have a Kennedy,” Donald Trump allegedly bragged ([link removed]) to donors, about putting in Robert F. Kennedy Jr. to head Health and Human Services. Creepy as that statement sounds, you can almost imagine some reporters saying the same.

RFK Jr. is nothing if not "colorful," what with the brain worm ([link removed]) and the bear in the car ([link removed]) . But what if news media centered their reporting on the millions of lives affected by the weird man with the famous last name? Would we still be joking about his belief ([link removed]) that he can diagnose children walking past him in airports? Or would we be interrogating the systems that elevated such a delusional person, and determining how to mitigate the impacts of his work?

What if media took their eyes off the bouncing ball, and focused on how to safeguard hard-won medical advances, and fight assaults on the idea of health as a boutique purchase, rather than the very definition of a shared concern?

The group Defend Public Health ([link removed]) has come together in that effort; our guest is a founding member. Elizabeth Jacobs ([link removed]) is an epidemiologist and professor emerita at the University of Arizona. She joins us now by phone from Tucson. Welcome to CounterSpin, Elizabeth Jacobs.

Elizabeth Jacobs: Thank you so much for having me today, Janine.

JJ: I will start by saying that, looking for someone to talk about RFK Jr., I had no interest in talking with someone who only just now decided that he shouldn't be allowed to touch public health with a pole. Kennedy was not a pig in a poke. There was plenty ([link removed]) of record ([link removed]) . So while we can be surprised every day by the brazenness of this administration and its believers, there was never a reason to believe that Kennedy as HHS secretary would be, to put the most generous face on it, helpfully critical of pharmaceutical companies, or corporate medicine, in service of regular people.
CNN: RFK Jr.’s litany of controversial views to come under scrutiny in Senate confirmation hearing

CNN (1/29/25 ([link removed]) )

But there were reasons that some people thought Kennedy was a wagon to hitch to. So let me ask you first, what was the appeal? What void did people think they were filling, do you think?

EJ: I think he talks a really good game, and he was saying things that a lot of people have wanted to hear ([link removed]) . Like he wants to look into things like pesticides or environmental toxicants—which, by the way, is a very broad category that he is usually fairly vague on ([link removed]) —and I think a lot of people wanted to hear that.

But the issue is that scientists have been studying these things for a long time. And the thought that Mr. Kennedy was going to be the one who is going to address these issues is not one that I ever personally fell for. With that said, I completely understand why he appealed, at least on paper, to many other people. He simply said the right words.

JJ: And we're in kind of new waters now. Susan Monarez ([link removed]) , the head of the CDC, was fired, and then four other top leaders ([link removed]) quit. Heads of federal agencies walking out together on principle is not an everyday occurrence. So what do we know about why those CDC officials felt they couldn't possibly do what they were now being tasked to do? It's about vaccines, right?
CBS: CBS Evening News Senior CDC officials resign after Monarez ouster, cite concerns over scientific independence

CBS (4/28/25 ([link removed]) )

EJ: Right. And we are all faced with a choice: Do we want to believe what Mr. Kennedy says about why they left, or do we want to believe what the scientists themselves are saying?

And I choose the scientists. These are people who are career federal workers, who do this job because they're dedicated to the public health of the United States of America. Working at the CDC isn't a glamorous job. It doesn't come with a huge paycheck compared to, say, if you worked in industry. So I tend to trust these individuals more than I trust Mr. Kennedy.

Their departure, the number of people who have been leaving the CDC, is unprecedented. And, frankly, it really provides a very strong hint as to the existential crisis that is happening right now with Mr. Kennedy as the head of Health and Human Services.

And a great example of that is the fact that he has just installed a person ([link removed]) with no scientific training or background at all as the temporary head of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. It is simply an outrageous, dangerous and unprecedented situation in which we find ourselves.
Guardian: Who is Jim O’Neill? CDC chief set to bolster RFK Jr plan to remake vaccine policy

Guardian (8/28/25 ([link removed]) )

JJ: And let me just ask you to expound a little bit on the effects. What can we see coming down the road with RFK Jr. and his appointees leading public health policy? I hate to ask you to say it, but what could we be looking at?

EJ: I'll start with the less obvious one, and then talk about vaccines. So the less obvious concern that I have, for example, is that Mr. Kennedy has said that he wants to fire all the members of the United States Preventive Services Task Force ([link removed]) . And that group is responsible for providing recommendations for things like which cancer screenings we should get, and when we should start getting them. And their recommendations are what causes health insurance companies to be required to pay for those screenings. So if he disbands a committee like that, there is a likelihood that our health insurance companies will no longer cover things like cancer screenings.

The very obvious danger that we are in, and that several senators brought up today in his hearing ([link removed]) with the Senate Finance Committee, is that vaccines are being undermined daily by Mr. Kennedy. And he protests this, and claims that he's not an anti-vaxxer, yet he takes actions like replacing every member ([link removed]) of the Advisory Committee for Immunization Practices with people who are anti-vaccine, or hold other very dangerous, pseudo-scientific opinions on this topic. And so it's going to be a very serious issue with regard to the vaccination coverage in this country. And it's truly almost impossible for me to believe that this is happening in the United States.

JJ: It feels like a Dr. Seuss world we're living in, in which the White House statement ([link removed]) said that CDC head Susan Monarez was “not aligned with the president's agenda of making America healthy again.” This is weird. This is just weird.

EJ: Yes. And Dr. Monarez, just one month ago, was praised ([link removed]) as a very knowledgeable, ethical leader at CDC, which I agree with. So her dismissal is, again, a funhouse mirror.

If you listen to Mr. Kennedy, he claimed ([link removed]) today in the hearing that Dr. Monarez was asked if she was a trustworthy person, and she responded “no.” I find that absolutely impossible to believe. I do not believe that's what happened. I believe what she says, which is that she was fired because she would not agree with orders, so to speak, from Mr. Kennedy to approve things that were coming out that she did not see the data for, that were going to be released by a group of people who themselves are not trustworthy.

JJ: Public health and public information, as you're indicating, are very much connected. The man, for example, who shot bullets at the CDC’s windows, that killed a police officer, was, we were told, motivated by beliefs ([link removed]) he got from somewhere about Covid vaccines. So it matters very much what ideas we allow into the ether, and that's where media comes in.
Elizabeth Jacobs

Elizabeth Jacobs: "It is my opinion that misinformation—not just scientific, but all kinds—is the greatest existential threat to the United States right now."

EJ: That's right. And it's both legacy or traditional media and social media. It is my opinion that misinformation—not just scientific, but all kinds—is the greatest existential threat to the United States right now. And we are seeing this play out, and I'll use social media as the first example.

Social media companies make money through engagement, and therefore they have no motivation whatsoever to stem the tide of misinformation on their platforms. We know, for example, that false information tends to spread ([link removed]) on social media orders of magnitude faster than factual information does. And that's dangerous, because it promotes controversy and engagement, which makes social media companies money.

Now, with the legacy media, my biggest concern is false equivalence ([link removed]) . So, for example, when stories are run about vaccines, they may have a doctor on who says vaccines are good; they're safe and effective. But then they'll also interview somebody who says, “Oh no, vaccines are no good.” And the problem with that is it creates a false image that those two viewpoints are equivalent, when, in reality, if you wanted to show the equivalence of these two opinions, you would have 100,000 scientists or healthcare professionals who are talking about the benefit and safety of vaccines, versus one person who says that they are dangerous or harmful in some way. And so this false equivalence adds to this misinformation and distrust of science.

JJ: I appreciate that, and Defend Public Health's Bruce Mirken wrote a great piece ([link removed]) back in June, which I saw on 48 Hills, about the "sane-washing," as we call it, of RFK Jr. And it was great because it talked about precisely what you're saying: Reporters should note that he says things that are wackadoodle. But then also, they do this thing where they say, “Well, he's a skeptic on vaccines.” And that ticks a box for a lot of folks, as though RFK Jr had principled concerns. He's a "skeptic," and aren't we all skeptics?

I just want to ask you about the role of journalism here. You've started to indicate it, but what could they do less or more of, do you think?
48 Hills: The media’s dangerous ‘sanewashing’ of RFK Jr.

48 Hills (6/5/25 ([link removed]) )

EJ: So I really do think it's critical to present factual information, and call things what they are. Mr. Kennedy is not a skeptic. He is an anti-vaccination enthusiast. He spreads propaganda. He actually actively spreads disinformation to the people of the United States of America. If he were skeptical, he would actually consider the just massive amount of scientific data to which he has access, which has shown time and time again that vaccines are safe and effective.

So the words that we choose are really important, and I just think there are media outlets who are doing better and better at this. But I just want to repeat that this is an existential crisis for the United States, and we have got to be clear about the danger that Mr. Kennedy poses. This isn't a minor scientific disagreement. This is the complete undermining of the entire scientific infrastructure of the United States, and our vaccine program.

JJ: There are efforts, finally, including your own, to start with—not end with—getting RFK Jr. out of there. But there's much more that we need to do.

EJ: Absolutely. And, again, I'm certainly far from alone. People who believe that Mr. Kennedy needs to be removed from office or resign, there are tens of thousands, probably hundreds of thousands now, who agree with this. And I guess one bright spot from the hearing today is that there are now three Republican senators ([link removed]) who spoke on the record about their concerns about Mr. Kennedy's actions.

So I really hope that this keeps up. I hope that physicians and other healthcare practitioners, nurses, will come forward and really talk to their elected officials about their concerns. Because, again, this is not a trivial worry.

JJ: And let me just ask you, finally, if there's reporters listening, is there anything that you would ask them to stop doing, or start doing, in terms of journalism? And not just RFK Jr., but public health in general—are there questions you would like them to start asking, or stop asking? What are your thoughts on media?

EJ: I'm not a journalist, and I have a lot of respect for how difficult this job is. I would just say to avoid any sort of desire to look for false equivalence, or present “the other side of the story," when there are situations where there is no other side of the story. So to make sure that you're talking with experts in regard to the field that you have under discussion, and, honestly, I would just really prefer to see people who are pseudoscientific quacks get a lot less ink and a lot less airtime, because they do not reflect the beliefs and the understanding of science among the majority of scientists and healthcare practitioners in this country.

JJ: We've been speaking with Elizabeth Jacobs. You can find her work, and that of others, at Defend Public Health, right where you would expect to find it, DefendPublicHealth.org ([link removed]) . Elizabeth Jacobs, thank you so much for joining us this week on CounterSpin. Thank you so much.

EJ: Thanks for having me, Janine.
Read more ([link removed])

Share this post: <a rel="nofollow" target="_blank" href="[link removed]" title="Twitter"><img border="0" height="15" width="15" src="[link removed]" title="Twitter" alt="Twitter" class="mc-share"></a>
<a rel="nofollow" target="_blank" href="[link removed]" title="Facebook"><img border="0" height="15" width="15" src="[link removed]" title="Facebook" alt="Facebook" class="mc-share"></a>
<a rel="nofollow" target="_blank" href="[link removed]" title="Pinterest"><img border="0" height="15" width="15" src="[link removed]" title="Pinterest" alt="Pinterest" class="mc-share"></a>
<a rel="nofollow" target="_blank" href="[link removed]" title="LinkedIn"><img border="0" height="15" width="15" src="[link removed]" title="LinkedIn" alt="LinkedIn" class="mc-share"></a>
<a rel="nofollow" target="_blank" href="[link removed]" title="Google Plus"><img border="0" height="15" width="15" src="[link removed]" title="Google Plus" alt="Google Plus" class="mc-share"></a>
<a rel="nofollow" target="_blank" href="[link removed]" title="Instapaper"><img border="0" height="15" width="15" src="[link removed]" title="Instapaper" alt="Instapaper" class="mc-share"></a>
​

© 2021 Fairness & Accuracy in Reporting. All rights reserved.
You are receiving this email because you signed up for email alerts from
Fairness & Accuracy in Reporting

Our mailing address is:
FAIRNESS & ACCURACY IN REPORTING
124 W. 30th Street, Suite 201
New York, NY 10001

FAIR's Website ([link removed])

FAIR counts on your support to do this work — please donate today ([link removed]) .

Follow us on Twitter ([link removed]) | Friend us on Facebook ([link removed])

change your preferences ([link removed])
Email Marketing Powered by Mailchimp
[link removed]
unsubscribe ([link removed]) .