Hi community!

It’s been another whirlwind week for vaccines and public health. Here are some of the biggest vaccine and public health headlines from this week:

* NIH Abruptly Pulled Funding for Vaccine Confidence Research: Despite surging measles cases, record flu rates, and rampant vaccine misinformation, the NIH has abruptly defunded research on vaccine confidence—an indefensible decision with life-or-death consequences.

* Measles Outbreak Update: The Southwest’s deadly measles outbreak continues to grow, with nearly 300 cases now across multiple states, including Texas, New Mexico, and Oklahoma. This week, we also learned that newborns, their parents, and families were exposed in a hospital in Lubbock, Texas.

* A Small Win for the CDC: Just before his scheduled confirmation hearing this week, the Trump administration abruptly withdrew Dave Weldon’s nomination for CDC director. If there was any doubt about his stance on vaccines, his four-page statement—riddled with falsehoods and misleading claims—made it clear.

* U.S. FDA Bypasses Advisory Committee in Flu Vaccine Strain Selection. The FDA has selected flu vaccine strains for the 2025-2026 season, ensuring timely availability and aligning with WHO recommendations, as it normally does. However, instead of the usual open public hearing with VRBPAC input, the decision was made behind closed doors after the committee meeting was canceled. Public trust in vaccines depends on transparent decision-making. Cutting out independent oversight risks fueling skepticism at a time when trust is already fragile.

* Misinformation with a Side of Fries: The nation’s top health leader downplayed ongoing measles outbreaks, spread misinformation about vaccines, and promoted vitamin A as a measles treatment—essentially a vaccine alternative—during a bizarre interview at a Steak ‘n Shake, where he ate french fries cooked in beef tallow. If it hasn’t happened already, someone will surely start selling vitamin A-infused fries cooked in beef tallow for measles prevention—and cash in on the chaos.

Now, here’s what is on my mind this week…

When to Call Out, When to Call In: Talking About Vaccines the Right Way

This week, I went straight from a news interview—where I made it crystal clear that messaging from health leaders promoting alternatives to vaccination is harmful—to seeing patients in clinic and having conversations with parents hesitant to vaccinate their children.

My vaccine communication posture in these two settings was very different.

When I talk about vaccines, my approach depends on who I’m speaking with. This isn’t about inconsistency—it’s about meeting the moment with the right stance.

When addressing leaders and policymakers or when speaking publicly about their actions, I don’t pull any punches. Those in power—whether in government, public health, or media—shape the systems that influence vaccine access, trust, and uptake. Their words and decisions have real consequences, and when they promote misinformation or enact harmful policies, those actions must be called out. I expect more from them, as we all should because they have the ability—and the responsibility—to make a difference at scale.

But when I’m talking with the public—patients, families, friends, and communities—the posture is entirely different. These conversations aren’t about calling out but calling in. They are built on partnership, empathy, and curiosity. More often than not, I listen more than I speak. I don’t dismiss concerns; I try to understand them. Vaccine hesitancy often isn’t about a lack of knowledge—it’s about trust, values, and lived experiences.

Both approaches matter. Accountability for those in power. Compassion for those making personal choices. One without the other fails the bigger picture. If I only criticized harmful policies but ignored individual concerns, I’d miss the chance to build trust. If I only engaged empathetically with individuals but stayed silent on systemic failures, I’d let harmful policies go unchecked.

The goal, always, is a healthier, better-informed society. And that means knowing when to challenge and when to connect.

It can do more harm than good when health providers, public health professionals, and science communicators conflate these different postures. I wrote about this in The New York Times several months ago: amid eroding trust in public health and a surge of misinformation, the response from many in health, medicine, and science has been to yell and call out the public—often louder and louder. But that approach doesn’t work. In fact, it often backfires.

How health leaders communicate with the public is as critical as what they say. When people feel genuinely supported, valued, and understood—when approached as partners rather than opponents—they become far more open to considering scientific evidence.

Fire Doesn’t Put Out Fire

Holding leaders accountable and upholding scientific integrity does not require dismissiveness, condescension, or combativeness.

I know that if I gave extreme answers to reporters, launched direct attacks on those whose policies I believe are making America less healthy, or resorted to outrage and vitriol, I’d get more likes, shares, and attention. But that’s not my goal.

I want our communities to thrive. And maybe that makes me naïve, but I believe the best way to achieve it isn’t by fighting fire with fire—it’s by modeling something better. Strength and clarity, yes, but also hope, compassion, and a commitment to the people we serve.

Measles Outbreak Grows—And So Do Questions About Protection

The deadly measles outbreak in the Southwest continues to grow, with nearly 300 cases now reported across multiple states, including Texas, New Mexico, and Oklahoma. At this rate, I predict that 2025 will be the year the U.S. loses its measles elimination status—a designation we’ve held for 25 years, defined as the absence of endemic (ongoing) transmission for a year or more.

This week, we also learned that multiple newborns, their parents, and families were exposed to measles after a woman gave birth in a hospital in Lubbock, Texas. Unlike older children and adults, newborns aren’t eligible for measles vaccination after exposure. Instead, they can receive measles immune globulin—a concentrated dose of measles antibodies administered by injection. This is called passive immunization, where antibodies provide immediate but short-term protection. While I’m grateful this tool exists—and it’s very safe—no parent wants their newborn to need it. And the truth is, these exposures were preventable. Every single case of measles could have been avoided with vaccination.

With the outbreak growing, I’ve been flooded with questions from family, friends, colleagues, and the public:

• Should my child get an early MMR vaccine?

• Should I check my measles titers?

• I’m traveling soon—do I need another dose?

I get why people are confused! The recommendations depend on a mix of immunology, evolving epidemiology, and individual risk factors. It’s complicated—but that doesn’t mean the information should be hard to access.

Fortunately, Katelyn Jetelina at Your Local Epidemiologist put together this fantastic FAQ that answers many of these questions in a clear, digestible way. I highly recommend checking it out and sharing it—I helped review it myself. As measles spreads, accurate information is more important than ever!

The NIH Abandoned Vaccine Acceptance Research. We Won’t.

As measles continues to spread—overwhelmingly among unvaccinated communities—the NIH’s decision to cut funding for vaccine confidence research is not just baffling; it’s dangerous. Earlier this week, I shared my frustrations and concerns. As the days passed, the damage reports kept coming in. Many outstanding researchers—both well-established and those just beginning promising careers—saw their work on improving vaccine uptake canceled overnight.

The frustration, anger, and sense of defeat are real. But so is the resilience.

One thing is clear: we will not wait years to continue this critical work again.

We must find new funding sources, build alliances beyond traditional federal funding, and refuse to stay silent about the harm these decisions will cause. The work can’t stop—we will adapt, persist, and move forward.

Community Immunity is a newsletter dedicated to vaccines, policy, and public health, offering clear science and meaningful conversations for health professionals, science communicators, policymakers, and anyone who wants to stay informed. This newsletter is free for everyone, and I want it to be a conversation, not just a broadcast. I’d love to hear your feedback, questions, and topic suggestions—let me know what’s on your mind! And if you find this valuable, please help spread the word!

Thanks for reading Community Immunity! Subscribe for FREE to receive new posts and support my work.

Hi community,

Something different for a short midweek post—something that’s been weighing on my mind, and likely on yours too.

Thanks for reading Community Immunity! Subscribe for free to receive new posts and my weekly newsletter.

Last week, I wrote an Opinion Letter in The New York Times to shed light on the human cost of reckless federal funding freezes and indiscriminate cuts across the nonprofit, science, academic, and health sectors. These actions don’t just harm vital programs and the people who rely on them—they inflict deep and lasting damage on the dedicated professionals who make these programs possible: teachers, nurses, nonprofit leaders, community health providers, social workers, researchers, public health professionals, disaster relief workers, and many more. Abrupt cuts don’t just disrupt services; they inflict moral injury on some of the most selfless individuals in our society—the very backbone of our communities.

Colleagues and friends have asked why I wrote this letter. My answer? For me, silence was no longer an option.

In a recent JAMA viewpoint article, Dr. Steven Woolf reflects on the shockwaves sent through the scientific, medical, and public health communities by the administration’s early executive actions. In response, some institutions will remain silent to appear nonpartisan, while others will attempt to find bipartisan solutions on issues like opioid addiction and chronic disease. Some programs are avoiding controversy by removing sensitive language or reframing initiatives in ways that align with political realities—strategies that, in some cases, may be necessary and even effective.

But Woolf poses a critical question:

“Is there a bridge too far—a point where it is no longer appropriate for medicine and public health to accede? How do we know where to draw the line, and when it is time to resist?”

I’ve been thinking about this a lot lately, as I’m sure many of you have as well. When must I stand my ground and vocally oppose policies or misinformation that threaten community health? This is not a question I take lightly. I deeply respect diverse viewpoints and value partnership. I also recognize that speaking up—especially in today’s climate—can come at great personal and professional risk. But as a physician, I also have a moral and ethical duty to speak out when policies jeopardize the well-being of my patients and communities.

To condone policies that I believe will compromise health—or to remain silent and look away—is to be complicit in putting our community’s health at risk. Policymakers may ignore our voice and expertise, but that does not excuse us from the duty to warn against actions and policies with the potential to harm.

Speaking up can be confident without being combative—rooted in respect, nuance, and an openness to diverse perspectives. Advocacy is most effective when tailored to the right audience, delivered with tact, and grounded in shared values, no matter how small. The goal isn’t just to highlight problems but to find meaningful solutions.

So, where is the line?

For me, it’s when the most vulnerable—such as children, who cannot advocate for themselves—are put at risk. When those with little agency to defend themselves are harmed, such as the millions of children and families facing the real possibility of losing comprehensive healthcare coverage, that is where I draw the line.

And, as Dr. Woolf emphasizes, science must be the guiding principle—not blind allegiance to the term, but a commitment to rigorous, peer-reviewed, evidence-based research. When the evidence clearly shows that a policy threatens public health—such as the disruption of vaccination services and the intentional, unfounded erosion of vaccine confidence from health leaders—that is where I draw the line.

The line may be different for each of us, but when it is crossed, silence is not an option.

Below is my letter to The New York Times.

"Sweeping federal funding freezes and indiscriminate cuts that affect schools, community health clinics, research centers, nonprofits and other public service organizations have grave consequences — not just for those they serve but also for the dedicated individuals within them.

Beyond job loss and uncertainty, these actions inflict moral injury by stripping people of their ability to serve their communities and leaving them feeling anxious, exhausted and helpless.

As a community health researcher and a nonprofit leader, I have seen this distress firsthand. As a pediatrician, I've experienced the same moral injury, sometimes unable to provide the care that my patients and families need because of factors outside my control.

For many, this work is often more than just a job; it is a calling they've pursued, often at great personal cost. When that calling is unjustly taken away, burnout, cynicism and despair follow.

To address this problem, our nation's leaders must recognize and acknowledge how brash and chaotic actions can affect those at the front lines — some of the most altruistic and dedicated individuals in our communities, who are critical to the fabric of our society.

Necessary reforms, such as reducing redundancies and inefficiencies in federal programs and contracts, must be thoughtful and targeted, ensuring that these individuals and their vital work are valued and protected.

While funding can be restored and organizations rebuilt, the distress suffered by people who serve our communities may take generations to heal."

The challenges facing nonprofit, public health, science, healthcare, and academic organizations are greater than ever. Where do you draw the line? When is it necessary to speak out, and when is it best to step away? I’d love to hear your thoughts.

Community Immunity is a newsletter dedicated to vaccines, policy, and public health, offering clear science and meaningful conversations for health professionals, science communicators, policymakers, and anyone who wants to stay informed. This newsletter is free for everyone, and I want it to be a conversation, not just a broadcast. I’d love to hear your feedback, questions, and topic suggestions—let me know what’s on your mind! And if you find this valuable, please help spread the word!

Thanks for reading Community Immunity! Subscribe for free to receive new posts and support my work.

This week in public health and vaccins, a canceled FDA meeting, a measles-related child death, and controversy over a flawed COVID-19 vaccine study made headlines, alongside concerns about HHS transparency and NIH website outages. A CDC statement on vitamin A for measles treatment sparked debate over potential misinterpretation, with experts emphasizing that it should never be seen as a vaccine alternative. Meanwhile, vaccine misinformation continues to spread—even into veterinary medicine—raising concerns about its impact on both human and animal health.