RFK: Wearables are a Key to the MAHA Agenda, Making America Healthy Again
Also RFK: MAHA needs access to your wearable data because autism
Part 1: Wear Your Wearables, Eaters
You’ve likely already heard about RFK and the wearables. And that he’s granting access to wearable data, medical records, pharmacy data, and lab tests because wtf is causing all of this autism?!?!?
He wants you and every other American to be wearing a wearable yesterday. This should come as no surprise to anyone. Why? Because he fucking told you.
Which I wrote about here:
And here:
This is where I’ll ask you to bear with me. It’s one of those times where I see a long, twisted game…and it’s hard to lay out and explain.
Slow clap to the scorpions…your evil is impressive.
I have a background in applied behavior analysis, which I’ve mentioned previously. ABA is mostly associated with the “treatment” of autism. It is rooted in Skinner’s radical behaviorism and behavioral learning theory, based on operant conditioning. Operant Conditioning seeks to shape voluntary behaviors by the addition or removal of stimuli…if you do this (task), then you get that (reward).
My time in this field was interesting, however ultimately I found it to be reductionistic, hollow, manipulative, and dehumanizing. In my opinion, it is a moderately effective tool for training moderate compliance. This compliance is completely dependent on a reward/token economy, and little else.
A token economy is a system of contingency management based on the systematic reinforcement of target behavior. The reinforcers are symbols or tokens that can be exchanged for other reinforcers.
If you are interested in reading about the shortcomings and failures of the behavioristic approach, I highly recommend reading Alfie Kohn. His book, Punished by Rewards: The Trouble with Gold Stars, Incentive Plans, A’s, Praise, and Other Bribes, does an excellent job illuminating the behavioristic (operant conditioning) inscription on almost every aspect of our social system, particularly schooling. In hindsight, my experience with ABA is largely responsible for my decision to homeschool my three boys.
It took less than three months of kindergarten for me to pull my oldest out of school forever. At his school the children’s names were placed on the yellow stripe of a rainbow at the beginning of each day. Over the course of the day their name would either move up toward green, blue, or purple because they had “good” behavior; or it would move down because of bad behavior to yellow, orange, or *gasp* RED. If they were really “good” they “earned” a sticker. If you have been reading this stack for any amount of time you can probably guess how much I loved this.
I tell you this story because it’s an excellent example of a pattern that is echoed throughout our culture. What is most intriguing is that it has been repeatedly shown (like over and over and over again) that using rewards to modify behavior, doesn’t work well.
“Drawing from hundreds of studies, Kohn demonstrates that people actually do inferior work when they are enticed with money, grades, or other incentives. Programs that use rewards to change people’s behavior are similarly ineffective over the long run. Promising goodies to children for good behavior can never produce anything more than temporary obedience. In fact, the more we use artificial inducements to motivate people, the more they lose interest in what we’re bribing them to do. Rewards turn play into work, and work into drudgery.” (source)
This may be as surprising to you as it was to the many researchers that have repeatedly drawn the same conclusions. It may also be surprising because this is largely the model that continues to be used in homes, schools, and the workplace. I could ramble on, but I’ll spare you the rant…what I would like for you to remember is:
The token economy/reward system has been used for a long time and is how most of us were schooled.
This model has been heavily studied and shown not to work very well.
This info is readily available and not a secret.
Back to the wearables that RFK would like for everyone to be wearing. The ones that newly nominated Surgeon General Casey Means is selling. That you can use your pre theft tax dollars to buy through her brother Calley’s company. Calley also has a government role btw. Since we know conflicts of interest don’t matter I won’t go in to all the ways this situation is fucked.
I want to talk about the wearables. From my experience in the studio, I can tell you with certainty that they are marketed very specifically and very intentionally. I don’t really need to look at anything to confirm this because almost everyone in my studio wears some sort of biometric tracking device…and they fall neatly into personality/demographic categories.
For example, my clients that wear the Oura ring are Type A, organized, over achieving, perfectionists that tend toward anxiety. When I inquire about what they gain from wearing the ring they report, pretty much without fail, that they are able to go back and look at their data from the day and see that they were stressed at some point. They like it because it confirms their experience of stress.
Here is a screen shot from the Oura site:
People who wear the Whoop are usually athletic and tend to be fun, as in they also like to party. They report that the Whoop tells them if they’ve slept, and how well. If they had too much to drink the night before, the Whoop confirms that they haven’t recovered and feel like shit.
Here is a screen shot from that site:
People who wear the Apple Watch are rule followers. They are trying to get a certain number of steps in, close rings of achievement, and frequently get frustrated when they are partially into a workout and notice they have forgotten change their watch to Pilates. They report that they want to “get credit” for it. Most recently I noticed that people are now getting credit for standing up or even just standing.
Here is that site:
I have observed little to no change in my clients from wearing these devices. Some report taking more steps, but I have never had someone lose a significant amount of weight and disclose it happened when they started wearing a Fitbit….or that wearing their Oura ring led to lowering their blood pressure.
Let’s circle back to conditioning for a sec…
I think that what these devices purportedly do is provide reinforcement through feedback that should increase a behavior that is associated with being healthier. This can be looked at a couple of ways.
You don’t know that you are sitting too much, drinking too much, staying up too late, and not exercising…and if you know it, then you’ll change it.
Seeing your score, closing your ring, or meeting your goal provides you with a badge, a little hit of dopamine and that will reinforce your healthy behavior.
Knowing what I know about behaviorism, operant conditioning, and how adding a reward or simply the act of tracking progress is inversely correlated with intrinsic motivation and positive behavioral change…I wondered how much evidence we have that these wearables produce positive health outcomes. Seems like there must be substantial evidence if the secretary of HHS is going to allot large sums of money to advertise for them, right?
Science Says Fitness Trackers Don't Work. Wear One Anyway
The first, a randomized controlled trial involving 800 test subjects, was conducted between June, 2013 and August, 2014. The results, which were published lastyear in The Lancet Diabetes & Endocrinology, found that, after one year of use, a clip-on activity tracker had no effect on test subjects' overall health and fitness—even when it was combined with a financial incentive. (In a perverse twist, volunteers whose incentives were removed six months into the study fared worse, in the long run, than those who were never offered them at all.) The second, an RCT out of the University of Pittsburgh conducted between October 2010 and October 2012, examined whether combining a weight loss program with a fitness tracker, worn on the upper arm, could help test subjects lose more weight or improve their overall health. The results, published last year in the Journal of the American Medical Association, showed that subjects without fitness trackers lost more weight than their gadget-wearing counterparts—a difference of about eight pounds. And while it's true that weight is not a great proxy for health, the findings also showed that the test subjects with fitness trackers were no more active or fit than those without.
All of which is, frankly, pretty embarrassing for companies that manufacture fitness devices—not to mention disquieting for the people who wear them.
Here is some evidence that wearables are ineffective tools for positively effecting health outcomes 👇
Jakicic et al. (2016). Effect of Wearable Technology Combined With a Lifestyle Intervention on Long-term Weight Loss: The IDEA Randomized Clinical Trial.
This RCT found that adding a wearable device to a lifestyle intervention did not result in greater weight loss compared to standard behavioral interventions over 24 months. In fact, the wearable group lost less weight (mean 2.4 kg vs. 5.9 kg in the control group).
Finkelstein et al. (2016). Effectiveness of Activity Trackers With and Without Incentives to Increase Physical Activity (TRIPPA): A Randomized Controlled Trial.
This Singapore-based RCT showed that wearable activity trackers, with or without incentives, did not significantly increase physical activity levels or improve health outcomes like aerobic capacity or quality of life over 12 months.
Cheatham et al. (2018). The Effects of Wearable Fitness Devices on Physical Activity and Weight Loss in College Women.
This study showed that wearable fitness devices did not significantly increase physical activity or lead to weight loss in college women compared to controls, highlighting limited effectiveness without additional behavioral support. In the subgroup analyses, wearable trackers demonstrated no clear benefit for physical activity or weight reduction.
Effect of commercial wearables and digital behaviour change resources on the physical activity of adolescents attending schools in socio-economically disadvantaged areas: the RAW-PA cluster-randomised controlled trial
Effectiveness of activity trackers with and without incentives to increase physical activity (TRIPPA): a randomised controlled trial
Fitbit Use and Activity Levels From Intervention to 2 Years After: Secondary Analysis of a Randomized Controlled Trial
Wearable Activity Tracker-Based Interventions for Physical Activity, Body Composition, and Physical Function Among Community-Dwelling Older Adults: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials
The Impact of Wearable Motion Sensing Technologies on Physical Activity: A Systematic Review [Internet].
Now let me ask you…
Do you think these huge wearable companies have ever heard of operant conditioning? Do you think our government has ever studied human behavior and conditioning? Do you think they know that this is a terrible model to use if the goal is to Make America Healthy Again???? Of course we already know that they don’t actually want to make America healthy because they are still recommending regular poison injections.
If the wearables aren’t making people fitter, slimmer, or generally healthier, what are they doing and why do they want everyone wearing one? Obviously they are tracking, a stated goal of our scorpion government…but they are also conditioning people to wear their tracking tags fitness reminders. And all of YOUR data that the wearable is collecting is being amassed by the government under a thinly veiled guise of solving autism. Let me say that again in bold and by itself.
The government is amassing ALL of the biometric data that people are willing to give…to solve the autism “mystery”.
Y’all. This is NOT about autism. This is about surveillance and compliance.
The behavior of wearing a wearable is being conditioned.
Have you ever worn a ring or a watch and been so accustomed to wearing it that you feel naked without it? ←That is conditioning
What about a seatbelt? ← Conditioning.
And now we see that wearables are moving toward being in the body vs on the body with the continuous glucose monitors that are now widely available. Do you think it will be easier or harder to get someone who is used to wearing an Oura ring to plug a CGM into their arm?
And, here’s the kicker… while they are conditioning the behavior of wearing a device, they are actually making people less likely to become fit or maintain their fitness. 🤯
SCORE for the SCORpions! People get used to having a wearable on them at all times, checking it, updating it, etc…but they actually don’t get healthier. PERFECT. Because people who are less healthy need more interventions like pharmaceuticals and supplements. And I GUARANTEE that they’ll be selling blood tests for hormones and vitamin levels, etc. If the wearables aren’t selling these yet, I’m sure they will be soon. Hormones are all the rage right now, but that’s a topic for another time. I’m not even going to look into any of that because I’ve only scratched the surface of what I want to talk about today.
Part 2: Expanding the Grid
At this point I could separate this into two posts. But I’m not going to do that because I think you, dear reader, can handle it. It’s a lot of information and a lot of seemingly disparate pieces, but it’s all part of the same agenda, so I’m putting it into the same post. Okie dokie, here we go…
Next up, The Big Ass Bill that is going to facilitate more radiation.
Trump Backs $88 Billion House Spectrum Plan
WASHINGTON May 21, 2025 – President Donald Trump is backing a House budget bill that would require the government to auction off 600 megahertz of spectrum to raise many billions for the U.S. Treasury over ten years.
“We must maintain our status as the Worldwide Leader in WiFi, 5G, and 6G, connecting every American to the World’s BEST Networks, while also keeping everyone safe,” he wrote in a post Tuesday on his social media platform Truth Social. “Bottom line, I am going to free up plenty of SPECTRUM for auction, so Congress must put 600 MHz in ‘THE ONE, BIG, BEAUTIFUL BILL.’”
The bill would restore the Federal Communications Commission’s ability to auction spectrum and mandate it sell 600 megahertz for the purpose of mobile or fixed broadband, while protecting the military’s prized lower 3 GHz band and the 6 GHz band used for Wi-Fi from counting toward the total. It’s part of a sweeping budget reconciliation package that still needs one more committee approval before a House floor vote.
The wireless industry has been pushing hard for the inclusion of such a spectrum pipeline and wants Congress to push the bill through.
“We urge Congress to advance this legislation quickly so that America’s wireless providers can put these airwaves to work,” Ajit Pai, CEO of CTIA, the industry’s main trade group, said in a statement when the spectrum language was released. Pai led the FCC under the first Trump administration and took over at CTIA on April 1.
Oh look, we’re only halfway through 2025 and CTIA has already bribed lobbied to the tune of $5.3 million. I wonder if they’ll get their way 🤔…
Related:
House Sends Spectrum Pipeline to Senate
Cruz Touts Support From Wireless Industry, Others for Spectrum Bill
Before I go any further, let’s review how we do regulation of radio waves here in the US of A…
Don’t want to read the whole post? Here are some takeaways 👇
Who does the regulating? Unclear!
The Federal Communications Commission (FCC)
Regulates interstate and international communications by radio, television, wire, satellite and cable in all 50 states, the District of Columbia and U.S. territories.
But actually the EPA regulates EMF as it relates to public health.
In May 2019, Regulation S.I. 190 of 2019 were signed into law to extend the functions of the EPA to cover public exposure to electromagnetic fields (EMF).
Unless we are talking about phones, and in that case, FCC says it’s “primarily” FDA that’s responsible for that regulation….
The FDA, which has primary jurisdiction for investigating mobile phone safety, has stated that it cannot rule out the possibility of risk, but if such a risk exists, "it is probably small."
And according to the EPA, we are really safe.
The exposure limits were set in…wait for it…1996! Although it was recommended that the the FCC reassess, the “FCC still has no specific plans to take any actions that would satisfy our recommendations”.
Got that? The FCC regulates. Sorta kinda. Unless it’s the FDA. Except when it’s EPA.
I made a flow chart to clear it up.
Let’s recap. Trump has a Big Bill that seeks to free up a bunch more radio waves for the expansion of 5G and 6G. It would give the FCC Spectrum Auction Authority (which is currently expired). The FCC has historically done a piss poor job of “regulating” exposure limits (please see my post here) and it is wildly unclear as to who regulates what and when.
What is the FCC’s Spectrum Auction Authority, you ask?
ChatGPT explains:
Definition: The FCC’s spectrum auction authority, granted by Congress in 1993 through the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act, allows the FCC to allocate radio spectrum licenses for commercial wireless services (e.g., 4G, 5G) via competitive bidding. Spectrum is the range of radio frequencies used for wireless communications, a finite and valuable resource.
Purpose: Auctions efficiently assign spectrum licenses to companies (e.g., Verizon, AT&T) for wireless services and promote innovation by making spectrum available for new technologies like 5G and 6G.
Process: The FCC conducts electronic auctions where eligible bidders (companies or individuals) compete for licenses to use specific frequency bands. This replaced slower methods like lotteries or hearings, reducing license grant times to under a year.
While all of that Big Ass Bill/Spectrum fuckery is happening, did you hear about this👇
Cable companies Charter and Cox agree to merge
Charter Communications and Cox Communications, two of the largest cable companies in the U.S., have agreed to merge.
The deal would be one of the largest in the industry – and across corporate America – in the last year.
The agreement values Cox at $34.5 billion on an enterprise basis – comprised of $21.9 billion of equity and $12.6 billion of net debt and other obligations – in line with Charter’s recent enterprise value based on 2025 estimated adjusted earnings before interest, taxes, depreciation and amortization multiple, according to a Friday news release.
Not sure how this sidesteps antitrust laws, but we know that doesn’t matter anyway.
Here’s what ChatGPT has to say:
The merger will create one of the biggest TV and internet providers in the United States. The combination, which must pass muster with antitrust authorities, would create one of the biggest TV and internet providers in the United States.
Regulatory Influence: A Charter-Cox acquisition would create a telecom giant with significant lobbying power. The search results highlight tensions between cable companies (favoring unlicensed spectrum) and wireless carriers (favoring licensed spectrum). A combined Charter-Cox could push for policies that balance licensed and unlicensed spectrum allocations, aligning with their Wi-Fi-heavy strategy while navigating the FCC’s auction-driven focus on licensed spectrum.
The Spectrum Pipeline Act and the restoration of the FCC’s spectrum auction authority are pivotal for expanding 5G and generating revenue, but they primarily benefit traditional wireless carriers by increasing licensed spectrum availability. Charter and Cox, as cable operators relying on unlicensed Wi-Fi spectrum for mobile services, have a complex relationship with these policies. A potential Charter-Cox acquisition would strengthen their market position, enabling them to advocate for more unlicensed spectrum while facing increased competition from 5G broadband enabled by FCC auctions. The Spectrum Pipeline Act’s inclusion of 125 MHz for unlicensed use aligns with their interests, but the broader focus on licensed spectrum could pressure a merged entity to adapt its strategy.
For the record, CTIA, Charter, and Cox are all listed as Clients Lobbying on S.3909: Spectrum Pipeline Act of 2024.
Anywho….here are some of the users of the revolving door between the FCC and the telecom industry:
So there’s a Big Ass $88 Billion Bill that wants restore the Federal Communications Commission’s ability to auction spectrum and mandate it sell 600 megahertz and get more wifi and 5G and 6G for errrrrrryone.
AND in an amazing stroke of serendipitous coincidence, HHS Secretary RFK announces how hyped he is to promote wearables for errrrrrryone.
Kennedy’s Wearables Vision
Kennedy announced a massive HHS campaign to promote wearables like smartwatches, heart-rate monitors, and glucose trackers—highlighting their ability to empower users with real-time health data and management tools.
Here’s RFK with an inspirational demo:
How are wearable devices and the FCC spectrum policy related??? Well, wearables need wireless all the time!
Wireless Connectivity
These devices need constant connectivity—using Bluetooth, Wi‑Fi (especially 2.4, 5, 6 GHz), and increasingly cellular (LTE/5G)—to transmit data to smartphones, cloud services, and APIs.
As Kennedy pushes for universal wearable adoption, the demand for seamless, always-on wireless networks will skyrocket—putting greater strain on both licensed and unlicensed spectrum.
FCC Spectrum Policy
More mid-band spectrum (obtained via FCC auctions) boosts 5G capacity and reduces latency—critical for wearables to reliably send and receive health data in real time.
If unlicensed bands (like 6 GHz for Wi‑Fi 6E/7, Bluetooth) are re-allocated or reduced, it could degrade the performance and affordability of consumer wearables.
((Cue: Lobbying))
Kennedy’s wearable agenda will amplify demand for high-speed, resilient wireless connectivity. To enable his vision, policymakers must balance licensed cellular spectrum expansion (via FCC auctions) with protection of unlicensed bands that power consumer and medical wearables. Without both pieces—5G capacity and Wi‑Fi-friendly airwaves—the full potential of a wearable-driven public health strategy will be limited.
((Cue: More Lobbying))
Medical & Regulatory Implications
Many of these devices may fall under FDA medical device regulations if used for clinical decision-making
Widespread adoption will also raise privacy and interoperability challenges—like secure data sharing with providers, integrating into electronic health records, and managing sensitive medical data flow over wireless networks. 👈 Good thing the MAHA team already locked in access to everyone’s health data and doesn’t have to worry about that because Autism!
Now let’s take a look at the 🔥 Wearable Market Watch 🔥
Robert Kennedy’s touting of health ‘wearables’ sends medical device makers’ shares higher
Gosh guys, looks like everyone’s going to be making plenty of money…but is 6G even safe?? Has it been studied????
Mmmmm…kinda. Not really though.
Evaluating the Environmental and Health Impacts of 6G Deployment in India: Challenges and Opportunities for Sustainable Digital Infrastructure
While 6G promises ultra-fast connectivity, AI-driven automation, and advanced telecom capabilities, it also raises critical environmental, health, and socioeconomic concerns. The findings of this study emphasize the urgent need for sustainable deployment strategies, including AI- based energy efficiency, renewable- powered telecom infrastructure, and strict regulatory frameworks to mitigate carbon emissions and radiation exposure risks. Addressing the digital divide will be essential to ensure equitable access to 6G networks, particularly in rural and underserved regions. Global policy collaboration is crucial to develop uniform safety standards, regulate terahertz radiation exposure, and promote eco- conscious 6G adoption. Additionally, further research into biological effects and alternative communication technologies will be necessary to create a safer, more sustainable wireless future.
6G’s terahertz radiation might raise male reproductive health risks, study finds
Who cares!
Pssssst…Terahertz waves are electromagnetic radiation and the backbone of 6G technology.
Hey, we can rest assured that there will be so much studying and testing on terahertz radiation before it’s deployed. Just like there was with 5G. The FCC I mean the FDA actually I think it’s maybe the EPA will take care of us just ask the FCC. 🤣
That was a long and wandering post…I’m not even sure that it makes sense at this point. If you made it to the end, thank you.
And I could be wrong about all of this. I’m definitely open to it.
Maybe all everyone needs to be healthy is a wearable telling them they need to stand up more, or that they are hungover, or they haven't closed all their rings. Maybe offering reinforcing dings and badges on a wearable app will suddenly start making people exercise, eat well, and prioritize sleep.
Maybe the MAHA crew is amassing a huge database of “Medication records from pharmacy chains, lab testing and genomics data from patients treated by the Department of Veterans Affairs and Indian Health Service, claims from private insurers and data from smartwatches and fitness trackers …” just to figure out Autism and definitely won’t use all the data from the wearables they want everyone wearing for anything else.
Maybe the FCC/telecom circle jerk will end up considering exposure limits and health, and we will all end up healthier with more wifi, 5G, and 6G.
Meeebbbeeeee…..
But if you need me, I’ll be over here definitely NOT wearing a wearable.
Stay sharp, friends!
Another angle is the punishment for non-achievement. So although rewards don’t work, one can easily imagine the data being used punitively: if you don’t do the exercise or lose the weight or lower your blood pressure then your insurance premiums, social credit score, banking access, food choices etc etc can be limited. It seems like that’s the direction they’re heading in.
I don't even have a fitbit, step counter or anything like that. No wearables for me ever.