I'm just responding to a question that is puzzling people: can Robert Kennedy III (or whatever) handle the Department of Health (or whatever)?
Why would anyone refuse to accept vaccinations as a helpful prophylactic (disease preventative), and give credence to stories about the dangers of vaccine—for instance—and advocate not using them? The eradication (disappearing) of Polio, and Malaria, and Smallpox, and the careful control of childhood diseases (Chickenpox, Whooping Cough, Measles, etc.) are evidence of the success of vaccinations, but the suspicions persist.
Autism. Belief that the Moon Landing was staged. The Earth is flat, etc, etc. Some things are obviously taken at face value, e.g. smart phones.
One componentof this deep-rooted suspicion is, I believe, the belief—or the desireto believe, or the desire to show support for those who believe—that the Government is not to be trusted. This is clearly expected and reasonable for those in opposition to the present government; the rejection of vaccination is theatre, as the Republicans have so often accused the Democrats of.
But after decades of theatre, old Bob probably can't distinguish between his beliefs, and the rôle that he's playing. He needs to know the basics of microbiology, and public health, and pharmacology, just in order to understand how the FDA works.
There's a famous quote that there are none so blind as those who will not see, so that it is far easier to convince ordinary people who don't believe in the efficacy of vaccinations, than it is to explain to someone like Robert Kennedy, whose disbelief was initially pretended for demogogical reasons.
