This "exploration" could be promising if it leads to tangible outcomes. It's sad that even a glance toward making a reasonable change can simultaneously be the inch taken before the mile and a gotcha asserting [in]competence. These guys are so good at being mind viruses. And it's ironic that potentially positive US food policy changes might come from someone with an anti-vaccine agenda. The frustrating part is that by operating outside of norms he might actually achieve meaningful changes where his predecessors have not. The anti-vaccine position is just baffling, though. Even if we grant their most extreme claims for argument's sake - some autism, autoimmune conditions, or 5G chips in our bloodstream - that society still functions better than one riddled with preventable diseases and populated by people who aggressively resist basic public health measures like masks during outbreaks. This seems like an incredibly disqualifying position for anyone overseeing public health policy.