The Chaser Report - RFK-razy! | PEP

Episode Date: November 24, 2024

Chas was joined by David Smith and Richard Cooke in the most recent episode of PEP, where they discussed the appointment of RFK Jr. to the department Health and Human Services. Plus, Chas and Dave both share stories from when they were "addicted to carrots". Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

The Chaser Report is recorded on Gadigal Land. Striving for mediocrity in a world of excellence, this is The Chaser Report. Hello and welcome to The Chaser Report. Dom here, unfortunately, Charles is still a little bit under the weather, so you've just got me introducing another episode from our friends at PEP. This is a clip from their recent PEP, episode number 190. It's Richard Cook, long-time Chaser Associate, former co-editor of our newspaper, worked on many of our TV shows as a researcher and writer

and in recent times a very accomplished author including of the book Tired of Winning his collection of essays about the US and also a Walkley winner not too long ago as well so he joins Associate Professor Dave Smith of the US Study Centre at Sydney Uni you often hear on our feed they're going to take a look at the latest on Donald Trump's cabinet picks including RFK Jr and his quite should we say unique plans for public health in America.

So that's part of a much longer episode, as usual. In fact, some recent episodes have clocked more than four hours, I'm told. So enjoy much less than that of episode 190. It'll all kick off after the ads, and I'll catch you with a nice, fresh episode of the Chaser Report tomorrow. Why don't we just talk about RFK? Richie's popped open the can. What do you think with this kind of regulatory, how can you reform regulations when

the import of the Chevron decision is to get rid of the state's ability to regulate. Yeah. Look, as you say, he's got a point. And part of his appeal is to people who instinctively look at any debate and quite reasonably decide that whichever side the money is on is wrong. And like, that is a very reasonable instinct. And yeah, so people distrust big farmer, distrust the food industry, yeah, and they distrust environmental polluters as well. So that's part of his cross-sectional appeal. A few years ago, a co-author of mine from Western Australia and another co-author from Flinders University did a study on parents who don't vaccinate,

and our study was specifically about how they viewed the vaccinating mainstream. Like what did they think was actually going on? with people who vaccinate, given how, you know, completely wrongheaded they think it was. You know, what did they think was going on? And the, what we got from these interviews, which were conducted in South Australia, were that they've got this view of modernity

as being just hopelessly corrupted and polluted by industrialisation, mass production. And the way that they see it is, there's this sort of inescapability of mass society that for most people it's just the path of least resistance to go into the same cookie cutter range of options as everyone else that's determined for you by the medical and food industries and so these are people who are very proud of the fact that they don't do that that they um you know that they conduct their own research which has become the notorious phrase we're doing this study in 2017 before that

would become the kind of catchphrase that it is now. And they were, yeah, they basically see modernity as fundamentally unhealthy. And that's the, that's what I see RFK as tapping into. That's entirely consonant with the, I go out and take a bear's carcass off the road with the intent of eating it because a bear's carcass that you find on the road for RFK is healthier than something that you're going to find in a supermarket. And it also, there is that quite aristocratic kind of element to it that in order to live this kind of life, you've got to have a fuckload of spare time and a lot of money to, you know, to do it. Either that or just

live off the grid completely. So that's what RFK is tapping into and I can see what the appeal is. Yeah, I just don't think it's very good to have that in charge of a government agency. And we are, of course, talking about the Health and Human Services Secretary there, or potentially. I'm going to just develop what you just said, Richie, a bit there, which is the, first of all, we should actually hear from RFK, him saying what he has been specifically ordered to do as HHS secretary. He said he wants me to do three things. One, clean up the corruption, the agents. particularly the conflicts of interests that have turned those agencies into captive agencies

for the pharmaceutical industry and the other the food industry, the other industries that they're supposed to be regulating. Number two, to return those agencies to the gold standard science, the empirically-based evidence-based medicine that they were famous for when I was a kid. And number three, to make America healthy again to end the chronic disease epidemic. President Trump has told me that he wants to see measurable concrete results within two years in terms of a measurable diminishment in chart chronic disease among America's kids. So that's what he says he's been tasked with.

And as you say, Richie, like some of that stuff is, you know, good stuff. Like, experts agree that America's high level of chronic disease is linked to widespread availability of highly processed non-nutrition food. They agree on that. Yes. And they do blame that, at least on part, on broken agriculture. policy. They do agree with him there. They also agree that there is a serious conflicts of interest issues in the FDA's drug approval process that favor big pharmaceutical companies over

the little guy. They do agree with that. But first of all, anything worth doing in those realms is going to face huge resistance. Yeah. Because they're embedded in the power sense of government and you're going to need Congress to do anything. And you can bet your life if there are special interests influencing FDA, they're also influencing Congress. Yes. So there is that. But also, let's have a look at some of these things he's talking about in more detail. He wants to overhaul the food stamps program to make the stamp, make food stamps for

healthier food. He wants to crack down on pesticides and agriculture. He wants to improve the quality of food in the school lunches program. He wants to issue tighter regulations on factory farming. Do you know what they all have in common? My guess, I'm not sure if I know what some of them are having common, I'm not sure if it's all of them. Are these all things which might be happening in California already? That's a good guess. Maybe it's true, but where I was going is none of them have

anything to do with the health, the HHS department. It's all stuff that would require congressional action. It's also all stuff that comes under the Department of Agriculture, which is what he should have been appointed for. Yes. Because the damage he does is in the HHS area. The potential good things he could do is in the agriculture space. And so he's been appointed in the wrong department, in my view, for the kinds of stuff he's talking about. I'm also very worried when I see him say, we need to return to the gold standard science.

Yeah. It's like that's one thing that actually isn't lacking in the HHS. The difference between now and when I was a boy is that now he disagrees with the science. So when he says return to the gold standard science, he means science he agrees with. And when he talks about he's going to achieve a measurable

decrease in chronic disease, the easiest way and the most Trumpy way to achieve that is to fuck up the measurements. Which is what I suspect is going to happen. That's probably true. I'll throw in one more thing on Department of Agriculture before I move off it.

Another thing he's worried about is food inspections, which he's right. Meat, poultry, egg factories are all inspected daily by the Agriculture Department, while every other kind of food production facility, including the farms where

which have produce that is responsible for most of the food-borne illnesses in America are inspected maybe once a year by the FDA. Why they have a split food inspection across two departments when one is doing a good job and the other one is doing a terrible job? Get the Department of Agriculture to do inspections for all food. I find your commitment to saying he's been appointed to the wrong department touching as if this was really supposed to interfere with stuff like Iowa corn, as being able to sell high fructose corn syrup of the back of their agricultural subsidies.

This is exactly why. I mean, the reason or part of the reason that these inspections are split in the way that they are is because the first Trump administration allowed factories like Boershead responsible for the big hysteria outbreak to self-regulate and self-inspect. That's right. When I went around marking every time they saw green mold dripping into the food with a clipboard and did nothing about it. Look, I'm not denying what you're saying.

I'm just saying that if he wants to make a difference, that's where you make it. You can summarize all of these problems with the very simple observation. When you go to the United States from Australia and taste bread, it tastes like cake. Yeah. That is the basic problem.

I don't see RFK fixing that at all. Because, yeah, the kind of vested interest that those could only be dealt with, if at all, at the level of Congress. And there's no way that Congress is dealing with. I completely agree. By the way, they could also make him EPA director, which is what Obama considered doing in 2008. Really? That is what he's actually qualified for.

He's an environmental lawyer. I didn't realize he was qualified for anything except falconry. I've just told you now a whole bunch of things. Yes. That he says he wants to do. Yeah. And that he could do. Now, let's look at what he's actually done.

This illustrates the problem with RFK. So far, he's only done one thing. He's only talked about one thing. And what that is, is he declared on January 20, this is a quote from RFK, on January 20, the Trump White House will advise all U.S. water systems to remove fluoride from public water. Fluoride is an industrial waste associated with arthritis, bone fractures, bone cancer, IQ loss, neurodevelopmental disorders, and thyroid. disease. President Donald Trump and

First Lady Melania Trump want to make America healthy again. Now, I think it's really it's worth drilling into this because number one... So to speak. Just like Pluck. It's worth drilling the teeth and enamel. It's worth drilling into this because number one, this has nothing to do with any of the things he's

talked about. And this shows how he gets distracted by bullshit. Yes. Number one. Number two, it's not based on nothing. This is classic RFK. where he's identified something that has some reality to it. Yes. But then he misinterprets, over-interprets whoever.

Because let's look at the reality here. The reality is that the EPA places limits on fluoride in drinking water of four milligrams per litre. They've been pointing fluoride in more than this is 945, 2 or 9 million people in America currently have fluoride in their tap water. Okay. Now, the HHS currently recommends for tooth protection, all you need is level at 0.7 milligrams per liter.

And there's plenty of water out there that has more than that. The Safe Drinking Water Act requires EPA to review its standards every six years. The most recent review was published three months ago. It recommended no changes. But then a report came out straight after that from the National Toxicology Program that showed that fluoride levels above one and a half milligrams per litre may, may be associated with IQ losses in children, as well as bone deformities and thyroid issues. There were no conclusions from this report.

above levels of 0.7 grams per litre, which record was the actual recommended amount, right? So there was another study that did call into question whether 0.7 grams per litre was 100% safe. Another study showed that it was 100% safe. So look, there's juries out there. There's more studies to be conducted. If he wants to conduct more studies, sure.

But that's not what he said. What he said is, we're going to recommend that there's no more fluoride mortar. Not, we're not, we're going to recommend that there's, that you don't, doesn't go above 0.7 grams per liter, which is useful. We're going to recommend there's nothing. Yeah, because of a study that says that when you go twice at the safe level,

yes, there are problems. But getting rid of fluoride has been a right-wing cause in America for, at least as long as fluoride has been there. PJ O'Rourke also cracked jokes about that. Yep. In, I think it was give war a chance. it's yeah it is a major public health achievement fluoridation of water like actually getting rid of fluoride in water

you won't see the consequences of it immediately but you will see the consequences of it over time and it's not going to be people suddenly getting smarter well Calgary they ban fluoride in 2011 and they found in the in the years eight years afterwards yep the need for intravenous antibiotic therapy for children to oh to avoid death from infection rose 700% at the hour bird the children's hospital that's what they found yes now when you bring this up people often go well about western europe western europe doesn't have fluoride in their water do they

they all in hospital infections no they're not although a number of those countries have fluoride in other sources like their milk and like salt for instance Fluoride and salt. I know. How do they get it in there? I have no idea. How do they get it into milk? There, they're amazing people.

Force feeding the cows? Can you get fluoride in raw milk, though? But then be interested. And also, Western Europe pays, obviously, a much better healthcare system for most people than America does. Can we just emphasise? It is very much common sense that no matter how good something is, if you take more than the safe amount of it, there are bad consequences. An example, when I was 10 years old, I had what I would describe as an addiction to carrots. I was eating about five of them a day, just straight from the fridge.

Did you turn orange? Raw. I did. So I remember being at a swimming pool one day and my mother staring at the soles of my feet in horror. You know, obviously I couldn't see the souls of my feet. She's like, let me look at your hands as well. They were a kind of orange color. The soles of my feet were apparently bright orange. It's because I've been eating five times the safe amount of carrots.

The reason... Per day. If the Spotify, if the people on the Spotify video can see me shaking with laughter in the middle here, it's because I'm sitting in the middle of a podcast panel with two people, two people who are both turned orange from eating too many carrots. For Dave, it happened when he was 10. For Chaz, it happened when he was about 34. Yes. For me, it was a weight loss tactic.

I was just going hard on carrots. I went through a lot of home diets. There was eating non-stop celery, fennel and carrots, and I did turn orange. There was another one where I just put chili on everything to try and increase my metabolism. I got ice cream on everything. And look, I did lose some weight. I lost a lot of weight every time I went to the toilet. So every single time I lost weight very fast.

I don't think either of you should be allowed to talk about RFK and his quack cures anymore. Anyway. Look, I wasn't trying to cure myself of anything except my insane craving for carrots.