From Doubt to Trust: How a Few Key Conversations Changed My Mind on Vaccines
I am taking a short break from writing about gardening for a personal essay. I hope you’ll indulge me a bit. The last two weeks have been quite heartbreaking, honestly. And I feel like I need to speak out.
To begin: the myth that vaccines cause autism and other chronic illnesses has been debunked by hundreds — maybe thousands — of peer-reviewed studies. I want to state that very, very clearly before I tell my own story. And I want to emphasize: I am pro-vaccine and fully vaccinated as is my whole family.
But I could have been anti-vax, too.
I got pregnant at the perfect time to fall into the anti-vaccine fire storm, and I could have easily been swept away like so many others into the misinformation vortex.
I first encountered the "theory" that vaccines cause autism in 2000. I was attending my sister's college graduation. As we drove, she mentioned the now completely-debunked Wakefield paper which was making her question vaccines for children.
I looked at her. "Vaccines don't cause autism," I said, shocked.
"I don't know… the research is pretty convincing," she replied.
Two years before, the Lancet published Andrew Wakefield's 1998 fraudulent paper. And from the moment that paper was published it was under scrutiny. And dozens of follow-up studies were done. Nothing. No confirmation. But that didn't keep people from buying what Wakefield was selling – and let's be clear: he was selling.
The paper itself was based in fraud. "In 1996, a man named Richard Barr approached a doctor named Andrew Wakefield with an offer. Barr was a personal injury lawyer with ties to an anti-vaccine group. He offered to pay Wakefield to research a link between the MMR vaccine and autism so that he could use Wakefield's research as evidence in his lawsuits."1
Two years later he published his paper – not a study, a case series about 12 hand-picked children. He proposed that the 8 children who developed autism did so within a few weeks of administration of the MMR vaccine. And that the cause of autism might be latent Measles virus in the small intestine – he was a gastroenterologist, after all.
By 2000 he was already under scrutiny in London and was on his way to losing his medical license and his career, but I didn't know that. In April, 2000 he testified before the US Congress stating his theory and never acknowledging that NO ONE – including himself – had done an actual study that confirmed it.
Paul Offit, the director of the Vaccine Education Center at the Children's Hospital of Philadelphia and a professor of pediatrics at the University of Pennsylvania School of Medicine, was at the hearing in 2000, testifying on behalf of the CDC. He described it this way: "He comes off as someone who's speaking truth to power, and that power is pharmaceutical companies who are never going to be seen as sympathetic. So if you're on the other side, I mean, you're just saying, look, this isn't true. I mean, this isn't causing autism, but you don't have anything to offer. You don't have a clear cause or causes of autism. He does. He's offering parents something, and we're not."2
Wakefield's paper was eventually retracted, and "the final episode in the saga is the revelation that Wakefield et al. were guilty of deliberate fraud (they picked and chose data that suited their case; they falsified facts). The British Medical Journal has published a series of articles on the exposure of the fraud, which appears to have taken place for financial gain."3
My sister is a brilliant psychologist and brain cancer researcher. Along with the entire scientific community, she recognizes Wakefield's fraud for what it is. But that was the first time I encountered his fraud and the idea that vaccines and autism had been linked, allegedly.
It was the first time I saw the blaze Wakefield had set and was fanning. But he had help with his arson – and let's be clear, this was arson.
The Wildfire, the Arsonist, and the Actress
The first paper was in part in service to developing a test from which he and a company he founded projected to make tens of millions of dollars per year. And the test was to be for Crohn's disease. But none of the children in the study had Crohn's disease, it turns out. So Wakefield created a new syndrome which afflicted both the brain and the gut: “autistic enterocolitis.”4
In the end, this had nothing to do with autism. It wasn't about helping families or children or anything other than his own greed. And that's been his pattern ever since. But he has never admitted that he did anything wrong. Never.
In the next few years, the wildfire spread through parenting groups, teacher groups, and blogs. Wakefield's fraud coincided with the rise of mommy bloggers and social media – so what would probably have been a fringe idea, shunted to the tiny realm of conspiracy theory newsletters fervently copied after hours, now spread easily via email and blog subscriptions, Facebook and Twitter.
As a high school teacher, I carried on – relatively oblivious to the forest fire around me.
Then in 2007 actress Jenny McCarthy, an ally of Wakefield, wrote a book in which she blamed the MMR vaccine for her son's autism and turned to "alternative therapies" to treat him including "hyperbaric oxygen chambers, chelation, aromatherapies, electromagnetics, spoons rubbed on his body, multivitamin therapy, B-12 shots, and numerous prescription drugs."5
"Without a doubt in my mind, I believe vaccinations triggered Evan's autism," she said.6
Now, was McCarthy a big enough name to cause Wakefield's work to go mainstream? No, in some ways it already was – especially in autism parent groups. But Larry King and Oprah both featured McCarthy on their shows multiple times. And in the late 2000's Oprah's name was still gold.
So, McCarthy's book became a best-seller and suddenly the forest fire – debunked already in the scientific community – exploded into a fire storm. Parents everywhere asked: Are vaccines causing autism and chronic disease?
By this time, my husband and I were in the middle of what would be a 10 year battle with infertility. Many of our friends had children. They were all vaccinating their children. And a few have autistic children, but not a single one blamed vaccines to my knowledge. And we didn't really even need to talk about it. But the fire raged. It just hadn't reached my secluded network.
When I was teaching I attended a talk by an author and educator whose name I have long forgotten. But their major point has stuck in my head for decades. The guy postulated that from the time parents know that they are expecting a child, they build up ideas about who that child will be – brilliant and athletic and attractive and funny and kind and creative, or whatever their vision of potential might be. But the brutality of parenting is that a child's job is to destroy those dreams – bit by bit – by being the person they actually are. Not their parent's fantasy kid.
In a teaching context this was remarkably handy as I sat with parents who, in the end, were disappointed that their kids weren't working as hard as they could or didn't read as well as they hoped or didn't care about academic success in the way that their parents thought they should. And here's the thing: parental fantasies about kids rarely include evaluations for learning disabilities, IEPs, expensive therapies or alternative schooling arrangements.
And those pieces and so many more may be part of what it is to have a child who is autistic. So despite the fact that questions arose around Wakefield's fraudulent study almost immediately. Despite the fact that he had been fired in 2001 from the Royal Free Hospital School of Medicine having been unable to replicate his research with a larger study sample – because fraud. Despite the fact that he had been completely discredited, Wakefield found a sympathetic ear and community for his quackery in the US including people like RFK Jr. and Jenny McCarthy.7 Because he provided answers — even if they were lies.
And again because this coincided with the rise of internet tools that give anyone and everyone (including me, let's be clear) a voice – Wakefield's debunked and repeatedly disproven ideas festered and flourished so that when a Playboy model bounced on Oprah's couch and sat behind Larry King's microphone, mainstream parents struggling with their own children and imbued with the fears that all parents have, listened. They heard their own fears. They heard a possible solution. And many of them stopped vaccinating their children. Out of fear. Fears that have absolutely no scientific basis – borne out in study after study after study.
But here's the thing: Jenny McCarthy is a mom. She gave voice to those real fears that moms have – and that mom-guilt. Did I do something that caused this? Is it my fault that my child isn't living up to the fantasy in my head? Is it my fault that my child isn't "normal"? Did I have a glass of wine? Or too many Twizzlers? I wasn't sleeping well – did that contribute to this? We mothers have the burden of carrying that child for nine months inside our own bodies – and the perceived responsibility that everything that happens to our body – every mouthful we consume, every sleepless night, every breath of air – may affect our unborn child.
Jenny McCarthy was sympathetic as a mom caring for a child. But being sympathetic isn't the same as being right. And when Oprah allows you to cry on her couch and never really pushes back on the science — because she isn't a scientist nor is she a science-educator – what you really have is two pretty people chatting.
On television, however, two pretty people chatting becomes a whole lot more.
In the midst of all of this soup, enter Dr. Oz. He first appeared on Oprah's show (are we seeing a theme here?) in 2006 and was a frequent guest. Oprah then helped launch the Dr. Oz Show in 2009 – and also signed on to fund and produce the Jenny McCarthy Show the same year.
Me: Having a Baby
I was a busy working woman. I didn't have time to watch these shows, but they were certainly in the social fabric and on social media. He was a doctor. Oprah loved him. Everyone loved Oprah. He must know what he is talking about.
So, when I found myself with a positive pregnancy test in 2010, I immediately received a copy of You: Having a Baby by Dr. Mehmet Oz and Dr. Michael Roizen.
Now, why did two men – a cardiothoracic surgeon and an internist/anesthesiologist – feel qualified to write a book about pregnancy? In a word: patriarchy. Maybe two words: patriarchy and narcissism.
I didn't ask these questions then. I guess I assumed that they were vetted, established experts – or at least their ghostwriter was (because, let's be clear – these guys didn't actually write this book). And I'll be honest: I found most of the book helpful, reassuring, and user-friendly.
But then I came to the section about vaccines. And I blanched.
Their take on vaccinations, tucked in the book's appendix, presented a chart which pitted the American Academy of Pediatrics' recommendation equally against "a reasonable alternative" Dr. Sears' Alternative Schedule and not vaccinating children at all.8
Now, to be clear, these two doctors presented not vaccinating your child as the least attractive option. But it was presented as an option – as if this debate was actually a debate. And that's the danger here. For physicians to present not vaccinating as a viable option – even when presenting the negatives of this approach – it legitimizes refusing vaccinations.
In the chart under "The YOU Docs Take" they write: "Children deserve our protection. All children are at risk from vaccine prevantable disease. Some children are at higher risk. That includes children living in cities who take public transportation, whose parents work in health care, who travel (or whose parents travel), and who live in communities with immigrants."
Look at that last sentence. What child in the US does not fit into one of those categories? Very, very few. But that's not what they say. At all.
They go on: "We also recommend immunization for kids who live around people at high risk for contracting diseases, such as grandparents and those whose immune systems may be compromised; those who spend time with other children, such as in day care; and children caregivers who may be exposed through any of these means."
Again, rather than being blunt – "we can not recommend this option" – they list out conditions under which, frankly, 99.999% of children in the country live. But this circuity of reasoning allows readers to find loopholes – to consider themselves the exception in this language.
Just take a freakin' stand, people! But that's not in keeping with either man's brand.
Calling Dr. Langston
That chart made me mad in my first trimester. In my second trimester, I basically ignored it. I felt great and loved being pregnant. The world was rosy and exciting, and I could do anything. And then, in my third trimester, it made me frantic.
I needed a pediatrician and asked one of the OBs in my practice who she would recommend. Without blinking she said, "If Dr. Langston can take you, see him. He is the best."
Fortunately, Dr. Langston had an opening in his practice – but there was a catch. We had to attend a two hour evening meeting with him first, and it wasn't until 3 weeks before my due date. He held these meetings every other month when he had openings in his very busy practice. We signed up and waited.
In the meantime, the weight of that vaccination chart and the cumulative cultural noise around vaccines suddenly crashed in on me. I spent my days cleaning obsessively which was awesome with my newly-acquired sciatica. And I spent my nights worrying. After ten years of waiting and hoping and longing, would everything be ok with our baby? I had a friend who had had a stillbirth in their eighth month – a story which haunted me as did stories of HELLP syndrome and emergency C-sections and all of the what-ifs that come late in pregnancy.
And then there were the vaccine voices.
All of the San Francisco crunchy moms. A friend and mom of three who had her children on the Dr. Sears schedule. California had a measles outbreak that year. Another friend who said she knew a child with a vaccine injury – though she really couldn't identify what it was exactly. And mommy bloggers who suddenly populated my sphere who shared tips about where and how to get vaccine exemptions so their unvaccinated kids could still go to school. And vaccines. And autism.
It was a confusing stew which was hard to ignore, because my body was priming me to protect that baby from every threat – real and imagined.
I had pregnancy brain. And let me tell you: it is very, very real. But the stereotype of pregnancy brain – that women become dumb and forgetful – is ridiculous and inaccurate (like most stereotypes). My brain was hyper-focused on protection and preservation of this loved and wanted baby at all costs. It was like someone put a pair of hormonal glasses on me at some point in my pregnancy – and all I could see were the dangers, threats, and pitfalls ahead.
In my heavily pregnant state, I tripped and fell down a few stairs at work – stairs I had committed myself to using all the time for that baby. After that, I could hardly walk down the stairs for fear that I would fall again. And I was thankful for an elevator at work. I drove 100 miles between work and home several times each week – always the most cautious driver on the road. I was vigilant about what I ate and drank. Quarts of water every day despite the incessant peeing. Protein, but not too much. So much fruit. That kid was made of nothing but fruit.
And I obsessed about vaccines. I worried about Autism – despite knowing that ASD is largely a genetic condition. I worried about "overloading" the baby's immune system. I worried about a baby screaming during shots. I worried that we didn't know what we didn't know.
And oddly, I also insisted that anyone who was going to meet that baby needed to be vaccinated before he was born. I was only worried about him. I was fully vaccinated. My husband, too. All the grandparents and aunts and uncles got theirs updated at our request. I was just worried about my baby.
My mom, a pediatric nurse, dismissed my worries. "It's the safest thing to do!" she said. My mother-in-law, a public health nurse, listened to my concerns and said, "I know why you are worried, but the measles or whooping cough is much worse than any shot."
Still I worried. Every night I worried. My rational brain said: the science says vaccines are safe. But my vigilant brain said: then why are all of these other people so worried about them?
Finally, it came time for our meeting with Dr. Langston. His office in San Francisco was tiny, and about a dozen hopeful parents sat as he convened the meeting. He said, "We will stay until every question is answered, but I am going to start with vaccinations." And he laid out why, if we were joining his practice as patients, we were partners together and would follow the American Academy of Pediatrics' recommendations – with NO variations unless the health of our children was compromised in some way.
His reasoning?
Protecting other Patients: with a tiny waiting room, he didn't have the luxury of separating well babies from sick children. He described caring for babies with whooping cough – and losing more than one. "I do care for immunocompromised patients," he said, "so your child's vaccinations help to care for the kids in this practice who can't be vaccinated – including your own infants before they are vaccinated." His practice was a community – a smaller part of a larger San Francisco community that had a collective responsibility to each other to prevent the spread of vaccine-preventable diseases.
Time for Parents and Nurses: the AAP vaccination schedule coincides with a regular check-up schedule. To follow another schedule means more appointments which means more kids traipsing through an already small and crowded practice – which means exposing vulnerable children to more germs. And it means more time taken by nurses when giving the shots. "It's just not sustainable," he said. And, he said, people on alternate schedules tend to miss more appointments which causes scheduling problems in doctors' offices making it even harder to get appointments when you need them.
Follow the Science: the biggest reason he gave, though, was that there were not at that time (nor are there now) any studies indicating that the AAP schedule is a problem for children. The concerns about "overwhelming their immune systems" are not based in science. He was very frank: "I know your brains are telling you that this tiny baby needs to be protected. That's because you are good parents. But the culture around you is telling you to be scared of something that isn't real. There are plenty of worries for parenting ahead for you – vaccines aren't one of them."
As a parent and a grandparent, Dr. Langston said that all of his children and his grandchildren were fully vaccinated. And he spoke about the diseases that he had seen eradicated within his own lifetime. He was about the same age as my own parents, and he talked about getting the polio vaccine and how that changed his entire world as a child – removing the fear and anxiety his parents felt each summer when polio returned.
And here's the thing: I'm GenX. We have never known that fear – or we hadn't until COVID. I've never had measles or polio or mumps or rubella. Why? Vaccinations! And now our children don't have to worry about Chicken Pox – and Shingles as adults. Or Cervical Cancer and HPV.
Honestly, it was sitting with Dr. Langston that finally quieted those anti-vaccine voices in my head. He did take time to answer every single question – about vaccines and everything else, too. And I left knowing that our pediatrician would care for my child as he had for his own. And he did. He was a fabulous pediatrician!
Within a year or so of my son's birth, I started to look back on this frenzy of worry in wonder and confusion. Questioning something as important as vaccines is completely out of character for me. But then again so is obsessing about the dust under the refrigerator. My brain was hard-wired to protect that sweet baby that I was carrying, and our culture was telling me that vaccines might be a threat. But the culture was wrong.
And while my child isn't autistic, I know many who are. They are lovely, wonderful people. And I know lots of children who grew up to be lovely, wonderful adults who happen to be autistic, including my own nephews. The scientific consensus is that Autism is largely genetic – perhaps with some other environmental triggers – none of which are connected to vaccines.9
I am absolutely convinced that the women who are in a pregnant-nursing-pregnant-nursing multiple-child hormonal cycle are particularly vulnerable to the misinformation put forth by anti-vaccination grifters like Wakefield and McCarthy. When our hormones and our brains are priming our protective instincts for years, our BS radars break a bit. Not only that, but the anti-vaccine movement and the MAHA movement are intertwined with religious fundamentalism and anti-feminist rhetoric as well. As usual, the grifters prey upon women who are trying to do what is right – selling them a story that their magic beans will keep their children safe.
Of course, I am still hardwired to protect my child. And I am shocked to see how predatory people can be, looking to make a buck off of women and their children. Because – let's be clear – NONE of this is actually about protecting kids. All of these figures are grifters looking to make money and preying upon others to do so.
Follow the Money
Andrew Wakefield and RFK Jr. are predators. They know how women feel about their pregnancies. And armed by patriarchy, stinking of misogyny, they look to lay blame for anything they can upon the women who bear children.
RFK Jr.'s current quest – to blame Autism on Tylenol use during pregnancy despite clinical studies that disprove this hypothesis10 – is nothing but misogyny. And greed. Science doesn't support this conclusion, but he needs to find a "cause" somewhere. So let's blame mothers – people who are already under enormous pressure to be perfect as childbearers and as caregivers. Sure, just pull that out of thin air – with no science to back it up.
But he doesn't need science. In fact, he has nothing but disdain for science. His approach is that of a narcissistic lawyer – he doesn't need to prove scientifically that something is true, he just needs to convince someone that he is right. RFK Jr. has made millions from lawsuits against manufacturers and other large corporations – shifting foci to pad his bank accounts. "His crusades, backed by the power of his name, have earned him tens of millions of dollars."11 But they haven't been in pursuit of truth. Only in pursuit of power and money.
That's the difference between a scientist and a lawyer – and I am not against all lawyers – let's be real. But attorneys like Kennedy are only in pursuit of the win – not the truth.
Are there things to be fearful of in this world? Absolutely. But he found an easy way to line his pocket with anti-vaccine work, and as narcissists do, his work is all about building himself up. It's not in service to others.
The hypocrisy of a man who crusades against vaccines while injecting Botox,12 drinking raw milk,13 and sitting in tanning beds14 is beyond the pale. He may have been a respected environmental attorney at some point, but given his actions in the last twenty-five years – and even the Kennedy family is done with him and have called for him to step down – those days are behind him. He is now, in the words of his nephew, Joe Kennedy III: “a threat to the health and wellbeing of every American.”15
But if he, as the head of HHS, declares that Tylenol causes autism, who benefits? Attorneys like him – and he still holds interest in his law firm – who will sue Johnson & Johnson and other manufacturers of acetaminophen as well as physicians who have been advising women to take acetaminophen for decades. They don't have evidence. They just see dollar signs.
Just like Andrew Wakefield.
And Andrew Wakefield? He is cozied up in Austin, Texas where he speaks at anti-vax conferences and produces anti-vaccine "documentaries." He calls himself a "film director" now. Stripped of his medical license, he was involved with an autism center called the Thoughtful House for years, but they have since parted ways. With his ties to RFK Jr. and the rest of the anti-vax community, he appears to have a very profitable hustle, however. And it is not rooted in science at all. Again, he is another narcissist in pursuit of the payoff.
“I compare him to a supervillain,” Timothy Caulfield, professor of health law and science policy, and author of The Science of Celebrity… Or Is Gwyneth Paltrow Wrong About Everything. “This guy is unbelievably damaging. You almost can’t overstate it, the harm that this individual has done… He is really the new wave of the anti-vaccination hesitancy that’s sweeping the world and is killing people, mostly children. And again, that sounds like an overstatement, but we know it’s true.”16
And if you are grieving what has happened at the CDC, Wakefield's ideas and influence are at least in part behind the absolute decimation of our medical science community. Afterall, he and RFK Jr. are tight.17
My expectations for Jenny McCarthy are lower. I mean, she isn't a physician or a lawyer. She is an entertainer, right? But she is on the branding bandwagon, too, hawking products on her social media accounts weekly. And her vegan makeup line, Formless Beauty, claims to be "formulated 100% vegan, cruelty-free, paraben-free, and gluten-free." Her website claims her makeup line is fragrance free, paraben free, phthalate free, talc free, formaldehyde free, hormone disruptors/pfas free, gluten free." She also endorsed RFK Jr. for president in 2024 and held a fundraiser for him. She preaches the clean food gospel in her spare time – a movement fraught with privilege and at the root of eating disorders for millions of people.
Then there is Dr. Oz. In 2014, just a few years after his pregnancy book was published, Dr. Oz was called before Congress to testify – and get scolded for – his promotion of quackery and weight loss nonsense. And a year later, Dr. Oz's colleagues at Columbia University called for his ouster, writing: "Dr. Oz has repeatedly shown disdain for science and for evidence-based medicine… Worst of all, he has manifested an egregious lack of integrity by promoting quack treatments and cures in the interest of personal financial gain. Thus, Dr. Oz is guilty of either outrageous conflicts of interest or flawed judgements about what constitutes appropriate medical treatments, or both."18
Dr. Oz, whose net worth is in the hundreds of millions of dollars, made most of his fortune via his television show – and earned scrutiny for doing so. "But his show also blurred the line between medical advice and advertising, failing to make clear to his audience just how closely he worked with the companies he pitched… He repeatedly promoted products of questionable medical value and was named in lawsuits that alleged he made misleading claims on the show. Several of the companies he has promoted are structured as multilevel marketing businesses whose practices have repeatedly drawn the attention of federal regulators."19
And of course, in 2022 Dr. Oz ran for the Senate in Pennsylvania – and thankfully, he lost. But now a man who has made a fortune off of selling quack cures and remedies and shilling pseudoscience to the public is the head of Medicare and Medicaid – where he is quietly creating havoc20 and hiding under the cover of RFK Jr.'s destruction of the CDC.
And his investments currently are in conflict with his regulatory duties as the head of Medicare and Medicaid. "He has been paid by medical device firms and health-related ventures, and his money was invested in a dizzying array of businesses. Many of those companies would be affected by any decisions he would make in the government post and many already benefit from agency funding."21
In an enormous position of power, last week Oz backed Florida’s recent move to remove vaccine requirements for school children. He claims that parents aren’t getting medical care for their kids because doctors insist that the kids be vaccinated — like Dr. Langston. But, as he did in his book, his insistence that parents need a choice for their kids puts every child at risk. It’s irresponsible and, frankly, immoral.
Selfish vs. Caring
Vaccine mandates are there because parents don’t always make the right choices for their kids. I mean, I am a well-educated person who loves science, but I had doubts because of the cultural noise around me. Oz is part of that cultural noise — and he is the head of Medicaid and Medicare.
But Oz and Wakefield, Kennedy and McCarthy are also enormously selfish. Not only are they looking to make money off of the people who trust them, but they are emblematic of the depraved selfishness of the anti-vaccine movement. And that was part of my rude awakening: my protectionist instincts turned me into a selfish person, thinking only of MY child — and not about ALL children.
Fundamentally, that is what has been lost here. It’s at the root of the crisis we are in as a country. It’s the Selfish — me me me, it’s all about me and my choices and my rights and my wants — versus the Caring — what do WE need, what is best for all of us, what lifts everyone up. The Selfish position is to decline vaccines out of fear. The Caring position is to get vaccinated because it is better for every one, including the child being vaccinated.
It's not just about vaccines. The Selfish position is to demand that I can have all the guns I want. The Caring position is to advocate for sensible gun control measures to protect our culture. The Selfish position is to deport "illegals" because they are "taking our jobs." The Caring position is to acknowledge that migration and immigration are complicated issues which should be handled with care. The Selfish position can't face the reality of climate change and calls it a hoax because lifestyle changes would be too hard. The Caring position follows the science and knows that sacrifices will be hard, but the alternative is worse. And on, and on, and on…
What does it all mean?
So here we are… I was primed to be at a minimum a vaccine-hesitant mom, and sometimes I listen to everything going on around us and think, "Phew! We dodged a bullet there!" Because we did.
But I think the takeaway here is that human conversations changed that trajectory. Conversations with people who listened to my fears – and who actually knew what they were talking about, too. People who took the time.
But also, at the core of who I am, I love and respect science. I had a great education rooted in real science (especially biology and human anatomy) – despite being a literature person. And I am a reader – of all genres. I am a critical consumer of media – having studied and taught journalism. So I had some key tools in my pocket that many don't. Education is critical! Really, really important. Make your kids take science!
I share my story today, because I am sympathetic to those who are scared. I get it. And if you are an expectant parent or a new parent: know that there are so many out there who have been in your shoes. Who feel the weight of decisions and choices and the expectations of perfection. But hear this: that isn't reality. And vaccination is the safest choice you can make.
We are in a battle for the soul of our country, but this isn't just about the United States. The anti-vaccine sentiment has spread across the globe. Those of us with the privilege of living in a place where polio has been eradicated can't imagine the agony of an Afghan mother watching her child battle polio – and wishing she had access to the vaccine.
So get yourself vaccinated. And your kids. And be loud in your resistance to the destructive force of RFK Jr. and his cronies. They are on the wrong side of science and of history, and their decision-making will have an impact for generations.
1 Rund Abdelfatah et al., “The Anti‑Vaccine Movement,” Throughline, NPR, 13 Feb. 2025, www.npr.org/2025/02/13/1231104444/the-anti‑vaccine‑movement.
2 Rund Abdelfatah et al., “The Anti‑Vaccine Movement,” Throughline, NPR, 13 Feb. 2025, www.npr.org/2025/02/13/1231104444/the-anti‑vaccine‑movement.
3 Sathyanarayana Rao, T.S., and Chittaranjan Andrade. “The MMR vaccine and autism: Sensation, refutation, retraction, and fraud.” Indian Journal of Psychiatry, vol. 53.2, no. Apr-Jun, 2011, pp. 95–96. PubMed Central, https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC3136032/. Accessed 5 September 2025.
4 Trisha Greenhalgh, Jeremy Howick, and Neal Maskrey, et al. “Evidence Based Medicine: A Movement in Crisis?” BMJ, vol. 348, 13 June 2014, g3725, doi:10.1136/bmj.g3725.
5 “Jenny McCarthy,” Wikipedia: The Free Encyclopedia, Wikimedia Foundation, last modified September 10, 2025, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jenny_McCarthy
6 Rund Abdelfatah et al., “The Anti‑Vaccine Movement,” Throughline, NPR, 13 Feb. 2025, www.npr.org/2025/02/13/1231104444/the-anti‑vaccine‑movement.
7 Sophie Lloyd, “Jenny McCarthy, Donnie Wahlberg’s RFK Jr. Endorsement Sparks Fury,” Newsweek, 28 May 2024, www.newsweek.com/rfk-jr-donnie-wahlberg-jenny-mccarthy-endorse-robert-kennedy-jr-instagram-video-backlash-1905163.
8 Mehmet Oz and Michael F. Roizen, YOU: Having a Baby: The Owner’s Manual to a Happy and Healthy Pregnancy (Scribner, 2009), pp. 400, 402.
9 Ashley Bell, “Is Autism Genetic?” UCLA Medical School News, 10 Apr. 2024, medschool.ucla.edu/news‑article/is‑autism‑genetic.
10 NPR, “HHS Responds to Report About Autism and Acetaminophen,” Shots: Health News, 6 Sept. 2025, www.npr.org/sections/shots-health-news/2025/09/06/nx-s1-5532143/hhs-responds-to-report-about-autism-and-acetaminophen
11 Susanne Craig, “How Robert F. Kennedy Jr. Has Turned His Public Crusades Into a Private Windfall,” The New York Times, 16 Nov. 2023, www.nytimes.com/2023/11/16/us/rfk-jr-finances.html
12 Joe Hernandez, “RFK Jr.’s Raspy Voice Is the Result of a Condition Called Spasmodic Dysphonia. What Is It?” NPR, 29 Jan. 2025, www.npr.org/2025/01/29/nx-s1-5279176/rfk-voice-spasmodic-dysphonia
13 Nina Golgowski & Rachel Aroesti, “RFK Jr. Wants to Expand Role of Dairy in Dietary Guidelines. Here’s What the Science Says,” ABC News, 18 July 2025, abcnews.go.com/Health/rfk-jr-expand-role-dairy-dietary-guidelines-science/story?id=123831525. abcnews.go.com
14 Zachary Rubin, MD, “MD Responds to RFK Jr. Leaving Tanning Salon,” Instagram reel, posted 19 June 2025.
15 Politico, “Fellow Kennedys Call on RFK Jr. to Resign as Health Secretary,” Politico, 5 Sept. 2025, www.politico.com/news/2025/09/05/rfk-family-health-secretary-00548624
16 Zoë Beaty, “Elle Macpherson, the Anti-Vaxxer Relationship and the Dark Side of Wellness,” The Independent, 8 Sept. 2024,
17 Sarah Boseley, “How Disgraced Anti-Vaxxer Andrew Wakefield Was Embraced by Trump's America,” The Guardian, 18 July 2018, https://www.theguardian.com/society/2018/jul/18/how-disgraced-anti-vaxxer-andrew-wakefield-was-embraced-by-trumps-america
18 Paula Cohen, “Group of Doctors Call for Dr. Oz to Be Ousted from Columbia University,” CBS News, 16 Apr. 2015, https://www.cbsnews.com/news/group-of-doctors-call-for-dr-oz-to-be-ousted-from-columbia-university/.
19 Jonathan J. Cooper and The Associated Press, “From TV Doctor to Trump Insider: How Dr. Mehmet Oz Built His Empire and Found Political Power,” Fortune, 20 Nov. 2024, https://fortune.com/2024/11/20/dr-oz-mehmet-medicaid-medicare-donald-trump-net-worth-cabinet/.
20 Callum Sutherland, “Medicare’s New Prior Approval Pilot—What You Need to Know,” TIME, 5 Sept. 2025, https://time.com/7313351/medicare-prior-authorization-pilot-states-concerns/.
21 The New York Times, “Dr. Oz’s Financial Ties and Conflicts of Interest Raise Concerns Ahead of Medicare Appointment,” The New York Times, 24 Feb. 2025, https://www.nytimes.com/2025/02/24/health/dr-oz-medicare-finances-conflicts.html.