As a physician who has dedicated my life to improving public health, I am deeply troubled and, frankly, alarmed by the prospect of Robert F. Kennedy Jr. becoming the Secretary of Health and Human Services. This is not just a matter of political disagreement. It’s a scenario that could have profound, far-reaching consequences for the health and well-being of every American, including you and your loved ones.

The Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) is the lead agency for protecting the health of all Americans. It oversees critical institutions such as the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), and the National Institutes of Health (NIH), which are responsible for disease prevention, food and drug safety, medical research, and implementation. health policies that affect every American. Imagine a health care system where scientifically proven treatments are called into question, where long-standing safety nets we take for granted are dismantled, and where misinformation guides critical health policies. This isn’t dystopian fiction—it’s a very real possibility if Kennedy takes on this pivotal role.

One of the most alarming aspects of Kennedy’s potential appointment is his seniority skepticism about vaccines. Despite overwhelming scientific evidence supporting the safety and effectiveness of vaccines, Kennedy has repeatedly promoted debunked theories that inaccurately link vaccines to autism and other health problems. Although he told NPR that “we won’t take anyone’s vaccines”, that’s little consolation.

If they were to implement policies based on these unfounded beliefs, they could, among other things, lead to lower vaccination rates, which could cause outbreaks of preventable diseases; weakened immunization programs, putting vulnerable populations at risk; and erosion public trust in vital health institutions.

At the NIH and FDA, Kennedy’s skepticism of established medical practices and pharmaceutical companies could lead to drug approval delays, potentially withholding life-saving treatments from patients; reduced funding for critical medical research; and promoting unproven or dangerous alternative treatments. The FDA particularly caught Kennedy’s attention, and he said he intended to agency reviewespecially its nutritional regulators. While improving our food system is a worthy goal, Kennedy’s approach, which includes promoting the consumption of raw milk, could expose Americans to grew up risks caused by foodborne diseases.

Kennedy’s national reputation was built on his environmental advocacy, but even there his approach been unscientific. If he were to bring his approach to chemical regulation to the role of HHS secretary, it could have unintended consequences. Without support and appropriate scientific researchexcessive regulation could prevent the development of truly beneficial products and treatments.

Perhaps most troubling is the potential for Kennedy’s views to shape broader public health policy. His position on the issues like water fluoridationdespite its proven benefits for dental health, it could lead to policy changes that harm millions of Americans.

The Secretary of HHS approves policies and decisions that have a direct effect on your daily life, such as the safety of the food you eat and the medicines you take; the availability and cost of health care services; the information you receive about health risks and preventive measures; and the funding and direction of medical research that may lead to new treatments for disease.

With Kennedy’s unscientific views guiding these decisions, it could mean less reliable health information from government sources; increased risk of infectious disease outbreaks in your community; reduced access to proven medical treatments; and higher health care costs due to ineffective policies.

In an era where public health challenges are increasingly complex, we need a leader in HHS who is firmly grounded in scientific evidence and best practices. Nominating Kennedy could undermine decades of public health progress and put Americans at unnecessary risk.

As a physician, I urge all Americans to carefully consider the implications of this potential appointment. The health and well-being of our nation depend on having a leader at HHS who respects and supports scientific integrity and evidence-based practices. A role for healthy skepticism is appropriate, but our health and that of our loved ones is too important to be guided by unfounded theories and misguided policies.

This article was originally published on MSNBC.com