Building Bridges, Not Divides
A Response to the MAHA Report from Parents Who Are Also Scientists
We all want the same thing: to keep our kids healthy and safe. Like the authors of the MAHA report*, as parents and scientists, we believe in transparency, rigorous science, informed consent, and putting children's health first. We agree that parents deserve complete information about medical interventions, that safety monitoring systems should be robust, and that open scientific discussion strengthens public health policy.
The question isn't whether we should scrutinize vaccines—we should, and we do. The question is how we interpret the evidence and what it tells us about protecting children's health in 2025. Let’s discuss…
*Note: This article responds specifically to pages 63-65 of the report.
The Story Behind the Numbers
Yes, children today receive more vaccines than previous generations. But this isn't the result of reckless expansion—it's the story of scientific triumph. Each addition to the vaccine schedule represents a disease we can now prevent, a child spared from suffering, a family spared from heartbreak.
A visit to early 20th-century cemeteries offers a sobering perspective: before vaccines, families commonly lost children to diseases we now routinely prevent. Families would not count the number of children they had until vaccine-preventable diseases like measles and smallpox had gone through their household. The expansion of the vaccine schedule reflects our growing ability to protect children from more infectious diseases than ever before.
International Perspectives: Different Approaches, Shared Goals
Countries take varied approaches to childhood vaccination, reflecting different epidemiological contexts, healthcare systems, and policy frameworks. Rather than viewing these differences as cause for alarm, we can learn from the various strategies while recognizing that each reflects careful consideration of local health needs:
United Kingdom: In the UK, childhood vaccinations are strongly recommended by the National Health Service (NHS) and the United Kingdom Health Security Agency. Currently, the UK childhood vaccination schedule begins at 8 weeks of age and continues through adolescence. Infants receive a series of vaccines, including the 6-in-1 (protecting against diphtheria, tetanus, whooping cough, polio, Hib, and hepatitis B), rotavirus, pneumococcal, and MenB vaccines. At 1 year, children receive boosters and additional vaccines like MMR (measles, mumps, rubella) and Hib/MenC. At 3 years and 4 months, they get a 4-in-1 booster and a second MMR dose. From age 12, adolescents receive the HPV vaccine, and at 14, the 3-in-1 teenage booster and MenACWY vaccine. Additionally, the COVID-19 vaccine is available and recommended for anyone ages 6 months to 74 years with a weakened immune system. The vaccination program is voluntary, and parents retain the right to choose whether or not to vaccinate their children. However, high uptake is encouraged to protect both individual children and the wider community.
United States vs. European Approaches: The U.S. vaccine schedule starts sooner and includes more comprehensive protection, while many European neighbors start later with fewer vaccines. In comparison to European countries, the U.S. childhood vaccination schedule begins at 2 months and includes a broad range of vaccines such as Hepatitis B (starting at birth), DTaP, polio, MMR, varicella, rotavirus, and HPV, with COVID-19 vaccines also recommended. Denmark’s schedule starts at 3 months and includes DTaP-IPV-Hib, pneumococcal, MMR, and HPV, but does not routinely include Hepatitis B or rotavirus. Across Europe, schedules vary by country, but most include early protection against DTaP, polio, Hib, pneumococcus, and MMR, with HPV vaccine offered in adolescence. Overall, the U.S. schedule is generally more comprehensive and starts earlier.
School Vaccination Requirements: Several European countries do require certain childhood vaccines for school entry, though the specific requirements vary. According to the European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control (ECDC), 12 EU/EEA countries have required vaccination policies for at least some childhood diseases. These requirements often apply to vaccines like MMR (measles, mumps, rubella), DTaP (diphtheria, tetanus, pertussis), and polio, and are typically enforced as a condition for school or daycare enrollment. Countries with such mandates include France, Italy, Hungary, Latvia, and Slovenia, among others.
Why the different approaches? The U.S. vaccine schedule differs from other countries for a variety of reasons. The U.S. tends to take a more proactive stance on individual protection, while many European countries place greater emphasis on population-level risk. European countries may also focus more on cost-effectiveness, particularly those with publicly funded healthcare systems. For example, the UK had historically determined that giving the varicella (chickenpox) vaccine to all children would not be cost-effective for their system, although this policy is changing after reviewing evidence from other countries. Differences in disease burden also shape decisions; for example, the U.S. faces higher rates of hepatitis A, therefore the U.S. recommends hepatitis A vaccination for all children at age 12-23 months. Finally, variations in vaccine access, regulatory timelines, and how vaccines are delivered all contribute to differences in national schedules.
Addressing Safety Concerns with Rigorous Science
As the childhood vaccine schedule has expanded, concerns have been raised about the depth of scientific investigation into potential links with chronic disease, vaccine injury, and the transparency of the decision-making process. These concerns merit careful examination, and they have been extensively studied through decades of rigorous research. However, it would be both misleading and irresponsible to ignore the overwhelming scientific consensus and the robust safety systems in place.
Clinical Trial Design and Safety Protocols: While calls for more rigorous clinical trial designs are understandable, they overlook the extensive safety protocols already in place for vaccines. Contrary to claims that many vaccines lack inert placebo controls or long-term monitoring, new vaccines are routinely tested in randomized, placebo-controlled trials, especially when no prior vaccine exists for the disease in question. These trials often include large sample sizes and are followed by robust post-licensure studies and surveillance systems, such as the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS) and the Vaccine Safety Datalink (VSD), which monitor for rare or long-term adverse effects.
Moreover, ethical considerations sometimes preclude the use of inert placebos when an effective vaccine already exists. In such cases, new vaccines are compared to existing ones to avoid withholding protection from participants—a standard practice in clinical research ethics. While continuous improvement in trial design is always valuable, the current vaccine approval and monitoring systems are already among the most rigorous in medicine, balancing scientific rigor with ethical responsibility.
Comprehensive Safety Surveillance Systems: The U.S. employs multiple overlapping safety systems to monitor vaccines. VAERS serves as an early warning system where anyone—healthcare providers, patients, or family members—can report potential adverse events following vaccination. This open reporting system is valuable for detecting unexpected safety signals, but it's important to understand its limitations: VAERS cannot determine causality, and reports don't necessarily mean the vaccine caused the event. Additionally, VAERS doesn't collect all the variables needed for proper epidemiological analysis.
This is why VAERS works alongside more robust systems like the Vaccine Safety Datalink (VSD) and the Clinical Immunization Safety Assessment (CISA) Project, which can conduct controlled studies to investigate potential safety signals identified through VAERS. Healthcare providers are legally required to report certain adverse events, and the CDC and FDA have expanded public access to VAERS data to improve transparency. While no system is perfect, this multi-layered approach provides comprehensive vaccine safety monitoring.
The Vaccine Safety Datalink in Detail: While VSD data are not fully open-access, this is primarily to protect patient privacy and ensure data integrity, not to limit scientific transparency. External researchers can access VSD data through formal collaboration with the CDC or VSD sites, and the system has produced hundreds of peer-reviewed studies that are publicly available.
Moreover, the VSD is specifically designed to minimize confounding and bias through advanced epidemiological methods, including self-controlled case series and rapid cycle analysis, which allow for real-time safety monitoring and robust comparisons. Although the VSD is optimized for detecting short-term adverse events, it has also contributed to studies on longer-term outcomes when feasible, and it works in tandem with other systems to ensure comprehensive vaccine safety surveillance. The VSD is a scientifically rigorous, evolving system that balances data security with public health transparency.
Regulatory Framework and Accountability
The National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act: The National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act (NCVIA) of 1986 was enacted to address a growing crisis in vaccine availability caused by a surge in lawsuits (many of which were frivolous), not to shield manufacturers from scrutiny. It created the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program (VICP)—a no-fault system that ensures individuals harmed by vaccines receive compensation without needing to prove negligence, while also maintaining a stable vaccine supply.
The claim that this framework disincentivizes safety is misleading. In fact, the law mandates ongoing safety monitoring, including the development of safer vaccines and the reporting of adverse events through systems like VAERS. The Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) is supported by independent advisory bodies such as the National Vaccine Advisory Committee (NVAC) and the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP), which provide oversight and transparency in vaccine policy decisions. While there have been criticisms about reporting practices and these systems can always be improved, these do not negate the fact that the U.S. vaccine safety system is multi-layered, independently reviewed, and continuously updated to reflect the latest science and public health needs.
Professional Standards and Scientific Inquiry
Maintaining Scientific Freedom While Ensuring Quality: Claims that physicians are being silenced for engaging in open scientific discussion misrepresent the intent behind professional standards. Physicians and scientists are not discouraged from conducting risk-benefit analyses or studying adverse reactions—in fact, such inquiry is central to evidence-based medicine. What is discouraged, as outlined by the American Medical Association (AMA), is the deliberate spread of disinformation that contradicts established scientific evidence and endangers public health.
The AMA's policy aims to protect the integrity of medical practice by ensuring that licensed professionals uphold standards grounded in peer-reviewed research and clinical consensus, not personal opinion or unverified claims. Far from stifling science, this approach reinforces the importance of rigorous, transparent, and ethical research, which is essential for maintaining public trust and improving health outcomes.
Moving Forward Together
The expansion of childhood vaccination reflects one of medicine's greatest success stories. Rather than viewing this growth with suspicion, we can celebrate our increasing ability to protect children from serious infectious diseases while continuing to strengthen safety monitoring and transparency.
Both vaccine advocates and those raising concerns share the ultimate goal of protecting children's health. The scientific community takes safety concerns seriously—that's why we have multiple overlapping surveillance systems, rigorous clinical trial requirements, and ongoing research into vaccine safety and efficacy. These systems aren't perfect, but they represent some of the most comprehensive safety monitoring in all of medicine.
By focusing on rigorous science, transparent communication, and respectful dialogue, we can address legitimate questions while maintaining the public health gains that have saved countless lives. The path forward requires neither blind acceptance nor unfounded skepticism, but careful evaluation of evidence, continuous improvement of safety systems, and honest acknowledgment that vaccines, like all medical interventions, carry both benefits and risks that must be thoughtfully weighed.
Our children deserve nothing less than our most thoughtful, evidence-based approach to protecting their health and future. In an era where infectious diseases that once claimed young lives are now preventable, we have an unprecedented opportunity to safeguard the next generation—an opportunity built on decades of scientific advancement and rigorous safety monitoring.
Stay Curious,
Unbiased Science
P.S. Want to support our work? The best way is to subscribe to our Substack and share our content. While all our articles are always completely free to read, paid subscriptions help sustain our in-depth reporting on public health and science topics. Thank you for considering it!
 | A guest post by
|
 | A guest post by
|
 | A guest post by
|
What do we say to the children in the placebo cohort as they lay dying? Sorry, kid. You lost the lottery.
Don’t drink the Koolaid! Governmental health agencies and medical journals are not free to follow the science when they are controlled by big pharma. Dr Marcia Angell, who spent twenty years working at the New England Journal of Medicine, the last as editor in chief, said “It is simply no longer possible to believe much of the clinical research that is published, or to rely on the judgment of trusted physicians or authoritative medical guidelines. I take no pleasure in this conclusion, which I reached slowly and reluctantly over my two decades as an editor there.” To put it bluntly, the whole public health system has been corrupted by big pharmaceutical companies whose ultimate aim is profit, not health.