59 Comments
User's avatar
Katy's avatar

What a rockin’ list! I’d add, incentivize pediatricians based on health outcomes. Forbid pharmaceutical companies from incentivizing based on percentage of vaccine uptake.

Expand full comment
Willyjp's avatar

Compensating vaccine companies on the basis of success of a product at meeting certain pre-defined goals for product performance might make sense but the problem with incentivizing physicians by a compensation system based on "outcomes" is that it is very, very difficult, if even possible, to set meaningful goals for physician care, except perhaps on a case by case basis.

The progress and prognosis of most disease is just too dependent on "host" factors. To the extent that this has been tried, it usually results in rote repetition of prescribed, rewarded steps whether or not they really apply to a particular patient. The "outcome" of most disease depends more on the patient than the disease!

The danger in "outcomes" incentivizing is that it may result in no one wanting to take on really severe cases with a bad prognosis. Efforts at avoidance of assuming care, reluctance to operate, etc., etc. can be observed to varying degrees according to the individual and circumstances.

You might say that the present system incentivizes care in proportion to the seriousness of the case, and, if incentives are to be considered and I'm the one who is sick, that's the way I'd like it! You might point out that such a system relies on the ethics of the physician to avoid abuse. But, trust me, so does the other method!

Ideally, the patient's need for care should be the only "incentive" a physician recognizes. Traditionally, that is the way we have been trained. But, of course, in my day (MD in 1967!) we didn't graduate from training with a mountain of debt. Of course part of the "payback" in my day was the 2 years in uniform prescribed by my Draft Board. If we want to "incentivize" physicians to respond only to the needs of the patient, we need to find some fix for the ridiculous amount of personal debt it requires to become one nowadays! My bias is that a few years of required "national service" might be a fair repayment.

Expand full comment
Jewel Swanson's avatar

Great list. Hopefully at least some of the suggestions will be accomplished under the Trump government

Expand full comment
WI Patriot's avatar

Uncle Sam needs "You" to work with RFK Jr. for a while because the players involved with this are not going to give up the money train they have built. Sharyl thank you for all you do.

2025 is going to be awesome !!

Expand full comment
Nelson Head's avatar

Eastern medicine is based in large part on marshalling the body’s own mechanisms to heal damaged tissue and cure disease. Because no profitable pharmaceuticals are employed, no Western clinical trials and research have been undertaken to reveal its efficacy and safety. Yet, there is ample evidence that it is effective. The NIH should undertake to finance such research.

Expand full comment
Richard Allen's avatar

I would like to add that our government should test foods, bottled water (bottled in plastic or glass), and tap water to see what potentially harmful substances have leached into the foods from packaging or gotten into the water - rather than relying only on small non-profits like Mamavation and EWG.

Expand full comment
Surak's avatar

Fantastic. This is HOW you make America healthy again.

Expand full comment
Tom Scarda's avatar

What a great list! Well thought out. I’m not sure if I saw eliminating lobbying when it comes to health, food and pharmaceuticals. Also, figure out a way for research to be disconnected from politics and grant money.

Expand full comment
Ralph Boas's avatar

I think the word "not" is a typo and should be taken out of the sentence below

23. Use AI to improve the monitoring of the databases.

Ensure there are independent analysts who more aggressively monitor for patterns (with the goal not of identifying, reporting, and addressing them rather than explaining them away).

Expand full comment
John Wright's avatar

It's a start!

Expand full comment
taxpayer's avatar

Yes, it'll really take some consideration to evaluate all of these. First off, I would suggest replacing "utilize AI" with "use best applicable methods," which might not always involve artificial intelligence.

Expand full comment
John Wright's avatar

Personally I object to the term "AI" because there is no *intelligence*. Yes, we can utilize sophisticated computer software to spot trends and better inform us, but let's not encourage the misconception that there is any *thinking* going on.

We are building some great tools and they will be useful for health too, but "use best applicable methods" is a far better phrase. "Large Language Models" (LLMs), "Neural Networks", "Deep Learning", etc - great tools... but not "intelligent". The last thing we need is dumb software deciding that "cancer is normal" because everyone's immune system deals with it on a daily basis.

Expand full comment
c Anderson's avatar

You can object all you want to the term AI, but no human has the possibility of taking in all known information without bias. Can you do that?

Expand full comment
John Wright's avatar

"AI" is biased by what information it is trained on. At least a human might be aware of their own bias.

I'm a software developer and I certainly fully support the usage of "big data" and analysis to help us make further progress.

"AI" unfortunately has no intelligence to recognize garbage data any differently than valuable data. The software is getting better rapidly. Perhaps soon we won't have as many "hallucinations" from "AI".

Expand full comment
c Anderson's avatar

You skipped the part that AI can analyze what is valid or invalid. That indicates that AI can decipher fact vs opinion. AI is a tool that enhances our ability to coordinate data. Of course AI can improve what we know and detect garbage because numbers are used to define fact from garbage.

Expand full comment
John Wright's avatar

I disagree. To a large extent what "AI" notices is what is "popular". I've yet to see any evidence of "AI" understanding quality.

Expand full comment
Mark Leone's avatar

Monitor the nation's blood supply for spike protein and lingering artificial RNA molecules, and screen out tainted blood donations.

Expand full comment
Jami's avatar

I'm a nurse. I had a patient recently ask (just as we were preparing to begin his blood transfusion) if it is possible to request unvaccinated blood. Unfortunately, there's not, unless it's an autologous or directed donation, arranged weeks in advance. The blood donors aren't even screened for vax status when they give blood.

Expand full comment
Richard's avatar

Pardon the cynical view, and I hope I'm wrong, but it seems too late for that because we've had 4 years of a policy and practice of accepting donations from those who took the shot.

Expand full comment
Doug Thorburn's avatar

101. Get government completely out of health care and allow tort law to do what it was originally intended to do: protect us from harm and punish wrongdoers.

Expand full comment
cat's avatar

No DEI in medical education.

Match "GRAS" ingredients with those banned in other countries, to see which studies the other countries have discovered or depended on in deciding to ban the "GRAS" ingredients still allowed in US food.

Require all "GRAS" ingredients deemed as "GRAS" by companies to be identified and compiled for reconsideration by FDA. If there is no safer ingredient, require elimination of the ingredient from the food item or process.

Expand full comment
Dr. Emily Porter, PhD Psych's avatar

1. End immunity from liability for vaccine manufacturers

2. cash pay prices for all medical procedures, visits, and equipment must be up to date and published online and in office for people to compare and prepare before selecting a provider

3. End routine circumcision of baby boys. Provide informed consent of negative effects including possible trauma and desensitization.

4. allow for doctors to make appointments as long as they need to be for proper care. an intake for a new patient might be 1 to 2 hours. people typically have multi-systemic issues that need to be investigated as a whole.

5. End pharmaceutical advertising on television to reduce the impact pharmaceutical money has on truth in content.

6. define cure and track cures for various ailment. track the success rates and patient satisfaction for each doctor, practice, hospital, and ailment.

7. include teeth and eyes in medical benefits since they affect the working of the whole body and life.

8. drastically improve women's care, in particular in reference to hormone balance and estrogen dominance including issues like PMS, PCOS, PPMD, endometriosis, infertility, low libido, perimenopause, and menopause. And also in the quick diagnosis of autoimmune issues and and thyroid issues.

9. Fully reintegrate mental and physical health. clearly trauma causes physical health problems through the neuroendocrine system and likewise physical health issues like mineral deficiencies and hormone imbalances cause mental health disorders.

10. Utilize proper nutrition in prisons and jails to lower violence and recidivism.

11. Stop the FED from creating inflation and exacerbating poverty and wealth disparity, that causes a host of health issues including violence, addiction, abuse, stress related disease, malnutrition, environmental toxin exposure, and inability to pay for healthcare and medications.

12. Feed fresh healthy foods in hospital cafeterias.

13. Teach nutrition thoroughly in medical school, and not the kind sponsored by Coca-Cola.

14. Use natural dyes in food as they do in other countries.

15. Remove synthetic vitamin fortification from foods and teach individual nutrition instead. It is typically the wrong forms and everybody deserves access to food that is unadulterated.

16. ideally the whole country, but more realistically, states should pass their own constitutional amendments for freedom of medical choice and bodily autonomy. including choice and informed consent in medical procedures and also freedom from additives in the water, aerosol sprays, vaccines in food supply etc.

12.

Expand full comment
Jim Prado's avatar

Excellent list. I would add…. Fund studies of “alternative medicine” and provide/mandate health insurance/ Medicare/Medicaid coverage for evidence based non-allopathic treatments. There is no good reason why only the wealthy can Access Functional Medicine, Naturopathic medicine and Chiropractic! The AMA has the political power to keep these groups from being fully funded/recognized under our current reimbursement system.

Expand full comment
Tom's avatar

From your computer to RFK’s inbox

Expand full comment
Willyjp's avatar

Shraryl: For the most part, I'm 100% for your list. But I have to take a bit of issue with the entire underlying idea that "Truth" is definitely knowable at any given time if it only weren't obscured by bad-guy players with their own agenda. I'm in my 80s now but I graduated from the University of Oregon Medical School (now "OHSU") in 1967. At that time we had a very renowned and revered Prof. of Neurology, Dr. Roy Swank. Dr. Swank had devoted a very large part of his career to finding the cause of Multiple Sclerosis. He had developed the theory that it had something to do with consumption of dairy products. He had countless well written, peer reviewed, convincing studies in numerous major journals. He could show you the correlation with the incidence of MS with the prevalence of dairy products used as food in various countries, and on and on and on! Many people were still skeptical of his theory and I think it's fair to say that it never persuaded the majority of physicians in the field of Neurology, although it was given great respect by authorities in the field. Certainly he was able to make a very convincing case for his theory, and clearly there was no ulterior motive behind any of his work. He simply was personally convinced, by his analysis of the data available, that use of dairy products as food was somehow connected to the incidence of MS. Today, the vast majority of neurological scientists agree that it has been convincingly shown that MS is an auto-immune disease, and you'd be hard pressed to find anyone even looking at a connection with use of dairy products. So was Dr. Swank wrong? Or was he onto something that the majority still hasn't seen? I'm not active in medicine any longer, but as far as I know, there is still no firm answer to that question. But over the years there has been strident advocacy for both sides of that question. SO, I ASK YOU: If this controversy were au courant, would you say that one side or the other ought to be sanctioned for "fake research" or "fake opinion" and suspected of conflict of interest of some kind?? If you say "yes," I'd have to strongly disagree with you because this example is just one of many that shows that it is quite normal to have many, many dead end paths chosen before we ever find the road to "truth."

Expand full comment