Vaccines,government misbehavior,and the medical profession

For several years, and particularly since the COVID-19 pandemic began, there has been growing distrust around the world about vaccines. That distrust is leading to outbreaks of various diseases. ¹ One of those recent outbreaks—a measles epidemic in the US centered in Texas—provides an opportunity to examine how, when the government fails in responding appropriately to an epidemic, the medical profession itself may have an important role to play, one tied to the fact that it is indeed a profession.

In June of 2025, the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) released data showing that “[t]here have now been more measles cases in 2025 than in any other year since the contagious virus was declared eliminated in the United States in 2000.” ² The outbreak had begun in Texas in late January, in a region where vaccination rates lagged “significantly below federal targets.” ³ In February, as the concern about the outbreak grew, there was also concern about the fact that Robert F. Kennedy Jr. was then confirmed as the head of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. Kennedy has long been known to be a critic of many vaccines.

Events since the outbreak began have supported the concerns about what Kennedy would do in his new role. In an interview on Fox News in early March, he “suggested that measles vaccine injuries were more common than known, contrary to extensive research,” “asserted that natural immunity to measles, gained through infection, somehow also protected against cancer and heart disease, a claim not supported by research,” and “cheered on questionable treatments like cod liver oil, and said that local doctors had achieved ‘almost miraculous and instantaneous’ recoveries with steroids or antibiotics.” ⁴ He “described vaccines as a personal choice that must be respected, then went on to raise frightening concerns about the safety of vaccines.” He “suggested that severe symptoms mainly affected people who were unhealthy before contracting measles.” He “spoke enthusiastically about unproven treatments for measles, and said that [the government] would study them.”

What action might the government have undertaken if it were less concerned with ignoring the facts relating to measles and vaccines? In 2018–2019, there was a measles epidemic in an area of New York State northwest of New York City. ⁵ It centered around an ultra-Orthodox Jewish community that was wary of outside influences. In response to the outbreak, “public health officials swung into action.” A total of 40,000 fliers were printed in multiple languages, warning of the dangers to children from not being vaccinated. Meetings were set up with religious leaders and pediatricians to make sure that the message about vaccinations got through to parents. In one county, more than 50 schools were put under “exclusion orders,” which meant that even if an unvaccinated child had a religious exemption, they would not be allowed to attend school until the vaccination rate reached an acceptable level.

This type of response is obviously very different from what has been seen recently in Texas. And there clearly have been adverse health consequences to children as a result of Kennedy’s comments, and the failure of the government to be doing what it normally would do in response to this type of epidemic. As of mid-March of 2025, some doctors were noticing a drop in the number of patients showing up with measles symptoms, and that those who did show up were sicker than had been seen previously. ⁶ Apparently, many of those patients were instead going to a “pop-up clinic” nearby. A doctor in that clinic was known for giving patients alternative remedies, such as cod liver oil and vitamin C. That doctor produced a podcast that discussed the dangers of vaccines, and the clinic had a party line that “reject[ed] central tenets of medicine, like the idea that germs cause certain diseases.” Even as many in the community went to that doctor for treatment for measles, on his podcast, he hosted multiple speakers who “minimized the dangers of measles and spoke instead about the benefits of being unvaccinated and the risks of rare vaccine injuries.” ⁷ Kennedy had even spoken with that physician—as he highlighted on a Fox News interview—to find out “what is happening on the ground.” ⁶

These events pose a question: what, if anything, is the appropriate role of the medical profession in responding? In attempting to answer that question, it helps to understand one of the key characteristics of a profession: it is built around a knowledge base shared by its members, and precisely because of that, it is intentionally given substantial independent authority with regard to the practice of that profession. Independent, in terms of our concerns, means that it is the profession that gets to be in charge of determining “standards of care,” and not the government. ⁸ This is the case as a matter of both ethics and law, in numerous countries around the world.

To make this more concrete with an example: if, after a snowstorm, someone falls while walking on the path up to a homeowner’s front door, the decision on whether the homeowner did not adequately shovel the path will not turn on whether that homeowner met the standards imposed by some particular group of Expert Snow Shovelers. On the other hand, physicians, as members of a profession, are deemed to possess special knowledge and training with regard to that profession. And they are indeed held to a special standard as a result: a standard determined by the profession. So, a physician who removes a patient’s gallbladder will be required to adhere to medical standards for performing that surgery.

Notice what doesn’t appear in articulating that concept: any role for the government in setting the standard of care (at least, in most circumstances ⁹ ).

All of this has a natural and appropriate application to instances in which the government is behaving badly, as is taking place in the Texas-based measles epidemic. Whatever Kennedy might say or do as Secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services, the one thing in general that it does not do is change the medical profession’s standard of care with regard to vaccination. His actions may make it much harder to get parents to vaccinate their children—including by perhaps eliminating government payment for vaccines, or even taking certain vaccines off the market—but it nonetheless remains the obligation of physicians to use the knowledge of their profession to give appropriate advice to their patients and their parents.

And whatever might be the usual response of the profession with regard to upholding these standards, that response becomes all the more important when other parts of the system—in this case, the federal government—are failing to do their duty. Physicians, as individual health care providers, and the medical profession as a whole, need to be especially assertive in overcoming incorrect health care messages (including outright lies) relating to the benefits of being vaccinated.

What might this involve? Among other things:

Pediatricians talking with the parents of their patients: These doctors should make it clear that, for those living in the heart of the outbreak, the best thing for their children, and also in terms of the welfare of other children in the community, is for children to get vaccinated. They should clearly correct any misinformation on which the parents may be basing their decision-making.

And there is no need to be meek (such as following Kennedy’s passive-aggressive message, where he bends over backwards to make it clear that no, people certainly shouldn’t be making vaccination decisions based on advice from him ¹⁰ ) in delivering this message. Show some emotion! A physician is correcting a misunderstanding that could lead to serious health consequences—even sometimes death—to many children. That is a good thing. (Personally, I think parents’ failure to provide appropriate health care to a child should far more often be considered child abuse. But that issue goes beyond the scope of this article, which is about what members of the medical profession can themselves accomplish. Child abuse issues would require the involvement of the government—and in this case, in particular, the Texas government. Good luck with that.)