Since Donald Trump’s rise to power in his second term as president of the United States, there has been a significant amount of criticism of his foreign and domestic policy initiatives, which have been linked to the idea that his actions, rather than defending the country’s national (or federal) interests, are actually weakening its political leadership and economic strength.
From the so-called tariff war to the supposed fight against crime and the weakening of the state apparatus, some observers have argued that it would be difficult for anyone who had consciously set out to undermine the functioning of the political, economic, and social institutions and norms that have prevailed in the last 80 years of the American dream (or nightmare) to have been more successful in such a short time.
However, between late August and early September of this year, a series of events took place that have to do with the real health of the United States and its people, which not only weaken their well-being in practical terms, but also constitute an insurmountable challenge for the future.
The hearings for the appointment and confirmation of Robert Francis Kennedy Jr. as Secretary of Health and Human Services revealed his views on a number of issues, particularly those related to vaccines and the campaigns that use them to save thousands of people from preventable diseases.
It is true that on more than one occasion, vaccines in poor condition, or those that have not undergone a rigorous certification process, have caused irreparable damage to their recipients. It is also true that time and again, members of the lobby known as Big Pharma have spent vast sums of money to prevent adequate control over their proposals for new drugs, or to expedite the processes. But it is something else entirely to deny the overwhelming scientific evidence that many laboratory discoveries, which have been turned into medical products or services, have saved the lives of many people, particularly children. This certainty goes beyond political creeds or religious beliefs.
Groups and personalities for and against mass vaccination have been vocal about their positions for years in the United States and the rest of the world. But little by little, evidence of their positive effect on human and animal health has prevailed. National regulatory standards were discussed at the international level, giving way to protocols that are now recognized within the United Nations system and other multilateral organizations.
However, the COVID-19 pandemic served as a new battlefield for each side to show off its philosophical weapons, pitting science against disbelief, bringing false Christianity back to the forefront, and forgetting that health is a social concept and not an individual one. Wearing a mask and observing movement restrictions were presented as “attacks on fundamental freedoms.” The “human right” of an individual (not that of their community) who could irresponsibly infect others was upheld.
By 2020 (Trump 1.0), these views were being used in politics to discredit and discredit American scientific organizations and leaders who had built their careers on the basis of studies, publications, and many hours of laboratory work or teaching. The incorporation of new findings in human, animal, and plant health allowed the United States, during the late 20th and early 21st centuries, to top the lists of best results in terms of life expectancy, lower food risk, and pest elimination. As science advanced, restrictions began to appear on industrial activity, commercial influence on the environment, and irresponsible management of waste from production processes.
In practical terms, the practice of fracking (injecting water under pressure) to increase oil production at low cost contaminated the water table, the plastics industry polluted the oceans, and pesticides used to increase crop yields contaminated the land. Little by little, the “political right” began to identify with the demands of multimillionaire producers who were regulated by scientific findings, while the “political left” (or part of it) tended to represent the new paths traced by the results of research.
All of this was reflected in the emergence and development of the two national science academies in the United States, in the world’s largest scientific diplomacy body, the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS), in the creation and operation of the regulatory body Food and Drug Administration (FDA), and in the Centers for Disease Control (CDC), among others.
In a country where there is no single health system, but rather an amalgam of overlapping systems at the private, public, university, foundation, and federal, state, or local levels; in a scenario where a patient’s medical information is governed by much-vaunted confidentiality rules that limit the calculation of the social impact of a disease, even though their private details are shared and stored en masse on social media, the United States records five or six times more fatalities in a pandemic than those who act jointly.
Now, in Trump’s remake, a discussion between Secretary Kennedy and the newly appointed director of the CDC, Dr. Susan Monarez, causes the latter to lose her job, other executives to resign in solidarity, and other prominent figures who have held the position to write a public letter calling for the former’s resignation. All of this had repercussions at a public hearing in the US Senate, where Democrats and a number of Republicans questioned the official’s attitude.
But even this would be a faint account of reality. New criteria and data from experts are constantly coming to light, warning of the seriousness of the denial of human health science becoming law.
In the specific case of the CDC, 2,400 specialists, a fifth of its total staff, have already been laid off, and the 17 members of the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices have been dismissed.
Similar attitudes are being taken with regard to the human and financial resources of the Environmental Protection Agency, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, and other federal institutions.
According to an article published by The Hill on September 7, current federal spending on research and development, provided largely through university funds approved by the National Science Foundation (NSF) and the National Institutes of Health (NIH), is at its lowest level in 25 years. The NSF has eliminated $1.5 billion in research funding, and the NIH has eliminated the equivalent of $8.7 billion. It is worth remembering that 99% of the 356 drugs approved by the FDA between 2010 and 2019 were developed in part with NIH funding.
This reality, coupled with the revocation of visas for foreign students and non-US experts participating in various US programs, has prompted both the European Union and the People’s Republic of China to approve funds to attract some of this scientific talent to their shores.
Repeated political harangues against the aforementioned scientific institutions have led to events such as an individual firing 500 rounds at the CDC headquarters weeks ago before committing suicide, or the US now having one of the highest rates of measles infection in recent years.
It is to be expected that criticism will continue against the current Secretary of Health as long as he remains in office, but the issue has much deeper roots that guarantee its recurrence.
This scenario may provoke a reaction in any non-US reader along the lines of “let them deal with their own problems.” And we may or may not agree, but the problem is that both human health and environmental protection, among many other issues, are global concerns.
From Cuba, it can be said responsibly that absolutely all of the agencies mentioned above have acted over the years in accordance with their scientific nature and, above and beyond the restrictions of the US blockade, have exchanged information, consultations, and publications with Cuban counterparts, have attended events, or have invited others.
In fact, a significant part of the blockade regulations have left openings to allow a certain level of communication between both parties, enabling them to prepare for and avoid the impact of hurricanes, the spread of epidemics, and to guarantee the health of the seas and wetlands between neighbors who are only 90 miles apart.
In other words, the political behavior of the US authorities against scientific development will have consequences for their own society and economies, but will also have an impact on third parties.
This scenario has been observed from Beijing and other capitals. Long before the events described above, Chinese leaders spoke of the Belt and Road Health Initiative and began to implement projects that have already had impressive results in several African countries.
Despite the limitations of all kinds facing Cuba today, not one of the medical programs that the island runs in a number of countries around the world has been reduced, nor has care been denied to a Cuban living abroad or to a foreigner who has come to the island to be treated by specialists who put their humanity before their income. And for that we are being condemned. We already know why.
José Ramón R. Cabañas Rodríguez is Director of the International Policy Research Center (CIPI) in Havana, Cuba.
(Source: Resumen Latinoamericano – English)
