As an experiment (about Chat GPT, not about NYT) I asked Chat GPT to try to combine two current articles from NYT about RFK Jr. Note this is a one-time experiment regarding AI, not a general use of copyrighted material.
##
https://www.nytimes.com/2025/02/15/opinion/rfk-maha-history-america-healthy.html
https://www.nytimes.com/2025/03/09/opinion/maha-chronic-disease.html
###
Chat GPT 4o
###
Robert F. Kennedy Jr. and the MAHA Movement: A Health Crusade at a Crossroads
In his first months as Secretary of Health and Human Services, Robert F. Kennedy Jr. has positioned himself as a transformative figure, vowing to tackle chronic disease and overhaul the nation’s approach to health. His Make America Healthy Again (MAHA) movement blends personal responsibility, skepticism of pharmaceutical interventions, and a nostalgic return to “natural” wellness principles. But while Kennedy’s crusade resonates with a public disillusioned by institutional failures, his embrace of pseudoscience and anti-vaccine rhetoric threatens to undermine the very health outcomes he seeks to improve.
The Long Shadow of American Health Crusaders
Kennedy is not the first American to lead a populist movement against mainstream medicine. The health philosophies he champions—raw diets, vaccine skepticism, distrust of pharmaceutical companies—have deep historical roots. In the early 20th century, figures like Bernarr Macfadden and Dr. John Harvey Kellogg promoted alternative health ideologies with remarkable similarities to MAHA.
Macfadden, a self-styled fitness guru, believed that a disciplined, morally upright body could ward off all disease without medical intervention. He rejected vaccines and denounced white flour as “dead food.” He was a master of self-promotion, using tabloids and radio to evangelize his ideas, much like today’s social media influencers who amplify Kennedy’s message.
Dr. Kellogg, in contrast, was a medical professional who combined scientific rigor with a flair for marketing. He advocated for hygiene, vaccines, and nutrition long before they were widely accepted, distinguishing him from Macfadden’s more radical rejection of institutional medicine.
Kennedy, like Macfadden, has leveraged his charisma—and the enduring cultural resonance of the Kennedy name—to galvanize a movement skeptical of modern medicine. He has framed the battle for public health as a moral and spiritual one, much as Macfadden did a century ago.
A Diagnosis Without a Treatment Plan
Kennedy’s rhetoric about America’s chronic disease crisis strikes a chord with many. He is correct that the nation faces an epidemic of obesity, diabetes, and heart disease, and that the medical system often prioritizes expensive interventions over prevention. But while his critique is compelling, his proposed solutions remain vague and, at times, deeply problematic.
For instance, Kennedy frequently highlights diet and lifestyle as the primary causes of chronic disease while downplaying the broader systemic factors—poverty, pollution, racial disparities, and lack of access to primary care. The American diet is indeed broken, but reversing its impact requires more than urging individuals to eat organic produce and avoid ultra-processed foods. Many of the same low-income Americans most affected by chronic disease also face food insecurity, work multiple jobs, and live in areas where fresh produce is scarce.
Kennedy’s emphasis on "natural health" also fuels skepticism toward medical advancements. His movement has embraced criticisms of antidepressants, weight-loss medications, and vaccines—therapies that have improved millions of lives. While Kennedy has built trust among those who feel dismissed by the medical establishment, his anti-science rhetoric risks leading many down a dangerous path, where preventable diseases resurface and effective treatments are rejected.
The Appeal of MAHA in an Age of Uncertainty
What explains the surge of enthusiasm behind Kennedy’s vision? In part, it reflects a broader cultural moment of instability. Just as Macfadden and Kellogg found receptive audiences amid the upheavals of the early 20th century—urbanization, women’s rights, and mass immigration—Kennedy’s movement has flourished in the wake of COVID-19, growing distrust in public health, and rapid technological change.
MAHA, as historians note, is more emotional than intellectual. It taps into a desire for control at a time when many feel powerless. When institutions seem unreliable, the body itself becomes a locus of control: fasting, raw diets, exercise regimens—these become acts of self-mastery. In this way, MAHA mirrors not just historical health movements but also broader populist trends that reject bureaucratic authority in favor of charismatic, outsider leadership.
The Public Health Challenge Ahead
Kennedy’s appeal underscores the failings of the American health system. Medicine has excelled at managing crises—heart attacks, strokes, and organ failure—but it has lagged in prioritizing preventive care and holistic well-being. If Kennedy’s tenure forces institutions to address these gaps, he will have done a service.
But there is a looming danger: if his movement continues to blur the line between constructive health advocacy and medical misinformation, the consequences could be dire. Already, vaccine-preventable diseases are reemerging in communities with high rates of religious and philosophical exemptions. If Kennedy’s rhetoric further weakens trust in science-based medicine, his legacy may be defined not by the health gains he envisions, but by the harm he unintentionally amplifies.
In the end, America’s path to better health requires both systemic change and individual empowerment. But that change must be grounded in science, not ideology. The true challenge for Kennedy—and for those who seek to counterbalance his movement—is whether public health can be reimagined in a way that builds trust, while also protecting Americans from the false promises of “natural” cures that history has already debunked.
###
Second question - One might add Mary Baker Eddy.
###
Absolutely—Mary Baker Eddy and Christian Science provide another fascinating historical parallel to Robert F. Kennedy Jr.'s health movement. If we were to integrate Eddy into the discussion, it would highlight the long-standing American tradition of spiritualized health movements that challenge mainstream medicine.
Mary Baker Eddy and the Religious Roots of Health Movements
While figures like Bernarr Macfadden and John Harvey Kellogg promoted alternative health ideologies rooted in diet, exercise, and early medical theories, Mary Baker Eddy—the founder of Christian Science—represents another powerful tradition in American health movements: the belief in spiritual healing over medical intervention.
Eddy, born in 1821, founded Christian Science in the late 19th century after experiencing what she described as a miraculous healing. She argued that sickness was not a physical condition but a spiritual error, and that true healing could only come through prayer and an alignment with divine truth. This philosophy led Christian Scientists to reject conventional medicine, including vaccines and pharmaceuticals, in favor of faith-based healing.
Like Robert F. Kennedy Jr. and the Make America Healthy Again (MAHA) movement, Eddy’s ideas emerged in an era of profound medical and social transformation. In her time, scientific medicine was still developing, and many Americans were skeptical of doctors who relied on crude interventions like bloodletting and mercury-based treatments. Much like today's distrust of "Big Pharma," Eddy’s followers saw medical institutions as profit-driven, corrupt, and unnecessary.
Parallels Between Christian Science and MAHA
The emphasis on personal health as a moral and spiritual issue connects Eddy's movement to MAHA. Kennedy, like Eddy, presents health as something within individual control, rather than the domain of scientific authorities. Christian Scientists avoided medical treatment as an act of faith; MAHA followers often see rejecting vaccines, pharmaceuticals, and industrialized food as an act of defiance against an overreaching system.
Furthermore, both movements gained traction by appealing to those disillusioned with mainstream medicine. Eddy's Christian Science spread in an era when doctors were still guessing at many treatments, just as Kennedy's movement flourished in the wake of COVID-19, when public trust in health institutions collapsed.
A key difference, however, is that Eddy’s movement was explicitly religious, while Kennedy’s MAHA movement, despite its rhetoric about morality and spirituality, draws from a secular wellness culture. Yet, MAHA shares a striking similarity with Christian Science in that it presents medicine not just as a science, but as a battle between good and evil—with personal health choices seen as acts of resistance against corrupt elites.
What History Teaches Us
The rise and decline of Christian Science offers a potential warning for MAHA. While Christian Science thrived for much of the 20th century, its refusal to adapt to modern medicine ultimately led to its decline. As antibiotics, vaccines, and surgical advancements dramatically improved public health, fewer people were willing to risk faith-based healing alone.
Similarly, the MAHA movement may face limits if its rejection of medical science leads to real-world consequences. Already, measles outbreaks are appearing in communities with high vaccine refusal rates. If Kennedy’s movement continues to erode trust in proven medical interventions, history suggests that Americans will eventually turn away—as they did with Christian Science—when they see the cost of rejecting medical advancements.
Adding Mary Baker Eddy and Christian Science strengthens the historical argument that health-based movements tied to distrust of medical authorities are a recurring American phenomenon. The challenge is whether MAHA will follow the trajectory of Christian Science—collapsing in the face of medical reality—or whether Kennedy’s movement will evolve in a way that balances skepticism with science.
###
But Christian Science lasted for generations before, as you write, "Collapse."
###
Yes, that’s a crucial point—Christian Science didn’t collapse overnight; it took generations. It remained a powerful movement well into the 20th century, with tens of thousands of devoted followers, and it still exists today, albeit in a diminished form. This long lifespan suggests that MAHA, like Christian Science, could endure for decades, particularly if it adapts to societal shifts rather than remaining rigid in its rejection of mainstream medicine.
Christian Science: A Cautionary—but Not Immediate—Decline
Christian Science flourished from the late 19th century through much of the 20th. At its peak in the 1930s and 1940s, it had hundreds of churches across the U.S., international followers, and even its own newspaper, The Christian Science Monitor, which remains respected today. The movement's resistance to modern medicine coexisted with broader cultural currents—many Americans were skeptical of doctors, and for decades, medical science still lacked many definitive cures.
What weakened Christian Science over time was not simply the rise of better medicine, but the fact that mainstream American culture shifted in ways that made its core beliefs harder to sustain:
- Scientific advancements made alternative healing methods less appealing. When antibiotics, vaccines, and modern surgery started dramatically reducing disease and death, rejecting medical care became harder to justify.
- Legal battles over faith healing undermined its credibility. High-profile court cases involving children dying from treatable illnesses because their parents refused medical care led to greater scrutiny of religious exemptions.
- Generational change led to attrition. Many second- and third-generation Christian Scientists were less committed than their parents and grandparents. Over time, membership dwindled as younger generations sought medical treatment despite their faith’s teachings.
Could MAHA Follow the Same Trajectory?
If Christian Science took nearly a century to decline, MAHA could also have a long lifespan, even if its ideas are eventually discredited. It has the potential to persist for generations because:
- It aligns with broader American distrust of institutions. Just as Christian Science thrived when medical science was unreliable, MAHA thrives in an era of deep skepticism toward public health authorities, Big Pharma, and government regulation. This distrust is unlikely to disappear anytime soon.
- It taps into cultural and political identities. Christian Science was primarily a religious movement, but MAHA is part of a larger cultural and political realignment. It appeals to libertarians, conservatives, and wellness communities alike, making it more flexible and resilient than a purely religious sect.
- It has a powerful leader with a famous name. Kennedy, like Mary Baker Eddy, is a charismatic figurehead who gives the movement legitimacy. Even if he fades from the spotlight, his ideas—like Eddy’s—may continue to shape health beliefs for decades.
A Key Difference: MAHA Has More Room to Adapt
While Christian Science had a rigid theological foundation, MAHA is more fluid. Some of its followers are anti-vaccine, but others embrace “natural immunity” while still getting certain shots. Some promote organic diets, but others support fringe medical treatments like ivermectin. This flexibility could allow MAHA to evolve rather than collapse—much as wellness culture, with its mix of pseudoscience and legitimate health advice, has persisted despite the debunking of many of its claims.
What Could Cause MAHA to Decline?
If history is a guide, MAHA won’t disappear overnight, but certain factors could erode its influence over time:
- Scientific breakthroughs that are impossible to ignore (e.g., new vaccines or treatments that dramatically prevent chronic disease).
- Legal or public health crises linked to MAHA ideas (e.g., a deadly resurgence of preventable diseases in anti-vaccine strongholds).
- Generational shifts, where younger Americans see Kennedy’s movement as outdated or extremist, much as many second-generation Christian Scientists quietly abandoned their parents’ beliefs.
Conclusion: A Movement with Staying Power
Rather than disappearing quickly, MAHA could follow Christian Science’s path: thriving for decades, adapting where necessary, and only slowly diminishing as new cultural and scientific realities take hold. If Kennedy’s movement continues to blend valid critiques of modern medicine with outright misinformation, it may prove more resilient than past health fads—especially if it becomes less about science and more about identity, rebellion, and personal empowerment.
