Who benefits from the MAHA anti-science push?

Raw Milk, Pasteurization, and Regulation

• Strong disagreement over whether raw milk advocacy is “anti-science.”
• Pro-pasteurization commenters stress germ theory, historic deaths from contaminated farm milk, and call pasteurization and vaccination “crown jewels” of civilization.
• Others argue raw milk can be safely produced/boiled, is common in some countries, and that with testing and hygiene it should be an informed-consent choice, not a ban.
• FDA-cited data in the thread: thousands of illnesses and hundreds of hospitalizations over 20 years even under heavy regulation; some infer much higher harms if rules were loosened.
• Debate over analogy: we allow McDonald’s and heart-disease risks but heavily restrict a niche product like raw milk. Counterpoint: fast food is regulated (inspection, labeling), and raw milk is regulated because a subset of users won’t handle it safely.
• Raw-milk cheese is discussed as a processed product where fermentation, curing, and competing bacteria reduce risk; legal lines are often drawn at commercial sale rather than personal use.

Individual Freedom vs Public Health

• One side frames bans as “safetism” and paternalism: government should allow risky consumption with warnings and standards.
• Opponents ask how many deaths/hospitalizations are acceptable so others can enjoy raw milk; they view sales bans as reasonable population-level protection.

MAHA, Anti-Science, and Politics

• MAHA and related movements are seen by some as part of a broader attack on germ theory, vaccines, and public health institutions, linked to RFK Jr. and terrain-theory rhetoric.
• Others emphasize deep distrust of big pharma, FDA, and medical literature (e.g., Alzheimer’s drugs, vaccine indemnification, weak evidence for many blockbuster drugs) and see disruptive leadership as a potential check on industry capture.

Supplements, Quackery, and Financial Incentives

• Commenters claim many MAHA-aligned figures sell supplements or alternative health products and profit from sowing distrust.
• DSHEA (1994) is cited as having reopened the door to large-scale “snake oil” and quasi-medical marketing.

What Counts as “Science”

• Some argue it’s wrong to label MAHA “anti-science” because science is about questioning.
• Others respond that science also requires hypotheses, experiments, reproducibility, and willingness to revise beliefs; cherry-picking studies and using “just asking questions” to push policy is described as anti-scientific.
• Concern about rising anti-intellectualism: equating uninformed opinion with expert knowledge.

COVID, Trust, and Polarization

• Several comments link today’s skepticism to COVID-era policies (school closures, church vs. liquor/dispensary rules, political hypocrisy), arguing trust in experts was “shattered.”
• Others defend those public-health distinctions as based on crowd dynamics and transmission risk, and warn that using these failures to justify broad rejection of vaccines and public health is dangerous.

Who Benefits?

• Named beneficiaries in the thread: supplement and “wellness” sellers, anti-vaccine and raw-milk marketers, certain politicians leveraging distrust for power, and foreign adversaries (Russia/China) who gain from US institutional erosion.
• Some argue the movement is not merely distraction but reflects genuine ideological goals to dismantle modern public health and regulatory systems.