These guys did a good thing on vaccines recently. It's important that we acknowledge it.
Dr. Marty Makary and Dr. Jay Bhattacharya stood up for vaccines inside Robert F. Kennedy Jr.'s HHS. Whatever else they've gotten wrong, we must recognize when they get something right.
When we name names around here, it’s never an ad hominem attack. Criticism comes with receipts. We judge actions far more than we judge people.
Sure, over time, certain individuals earn a reputation, warranting special attention and reproach. But there’s a point to all of this, beyond the thrill of administering a well-deserved verbal skewering: I want otherwise potentially reasonable people who have done unreasonable things to shoulder some cost.
My goal is for them to stop and think.
This only works, however, if I’m also willing to praise those same people when they do something good. That’s especially true when the relevant actions are risky to them. That’s exactly what happened this week.
Reuters reported that Dr. Marty Makary and Dr. Jay Bhattacharya pulled HHS Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. away from a cliff on US vaccine policy in at least two instances.
Dr. Makary and his deputy, Dr. Tracy Beth Høeg, managed, according to Reuters, to “steer the health secretary away from the extreme path” on the changes to the pediatric vaccine schedule last year. In that context, their aiding and abetting of the unfortunate changes that were made (before a court blocked them), while still troubling, might now be understood as harm reduction.
Separately, Dr. Bhattacharya convinced Kennedy that the NIH need not spend $5 billion on a desperate attempt to link vaccines and autism.
Standing up for vaccines is, in Secretary Kennedy’s HHS, a fireable offense. So, these were important contributions, worthy of acknowledgment and praise. Brave actions are all the more important to highlight.
So, I wanted these guys to know that I appreciated what they had done, even if I’ve spent considerable time criticizing other things they’ve done. (Heck, I’ve even published research responding to some of their nonsense.) In fact, it is precisely our prior disagreements that make this type of recognition exceedingly important.
Here’s the email I sent to Dr. Makary yesterday, with whom I had a cordial (and often warm) rapport prior to his service as FDA Commissioner from 2025-2026:
Nicely done, Marty. I always give credit where credit is due, and if you managed to steer Bobby away from that cliff, then we are in your debt.
Jeremy
And here is the email I sent to Dr. Bhattacharya, with whom I have had far less congenial interactions (including sparring on podcasts, in the pages of The Wall Street Journal, and somewhat relentlessly here at Inside Medicine):
Hello Jay,
Credit where credit is due. Assuming this story is right, you did a very good thing here, and I am always willing to recognize good work, even from those with whom I have other disagreements.
Well done.
Jeremy
Have they replied? Not yet.
Will they? Probably not.
Does that mean I should not have sent the emails? Absolutely not.
I sent them these emails because it was the right thing to do.
Why upgrade to Inside Medicine?
“He’s very thoughtful and careful. He doesn’t just blast out against something; he gives it a fair evaluation and makes a helpful and useful comment. So he’s emerging as one of the most respected medical public health commentators.”
—Dr. Anthony Fauci
If you value independent reporting and analysis that follows the evidence wherever it leads, please consider upgrading to a paid subscription. Your support makes Inside Medicine possible. Thanks!
Trust me, my emails to Marty and Jay were not some attempt to curry favor with powerbrokers in this administration. That ship sailed approximately one femtosecond after President Trump’s inauguration.
Nor does this mean forgiving other sins. Did Dr. Makary and Dr. Bhattacharya Hindenburg themselves on Covid-19 vaccine policy and mRNA research funding, to name just two? They sure did. But just as I want public officials to pay some cost when they make grievous errors (especially unforced ones), I want those same people to reap some social and professional benefit when they perform admirably under pressure. Doing so incentivizes future good work. Indeed, if people conclude they’ll be vilified regardless of what they do, they’ll have little motivation to take personal or professional risks in defense of public health.
You only make peace with your enemies.
I asked two experts who were quoted in the Reuters story for their views on this. Vaccine researcher and pediatrician Dr. Paul Offit called the story “a glimmer of hope.” (That said, he added that in this administration, he has a “very low bar” for what he considers to be doing “the right thing.”)
Vaccine law expert Professor Dorit Reiss said that it’s important to accept people back into the fold once they acknowledge past mistakes. “If they really want to fix things and come back, that’s great. We can’t change the past, and if you want to help things, you’re on my side,” she told me.
That’s not easy for some people, including in academic or policy circles. Many people would like cancellation to be a one-way trip. Righteous indignation feels good. I certainly indulge in it. But it’s counterproductive when someone’s pendulum is on the backswing, towards science.
Professor Reiss says, and I agree, that “People screw up,” and that we have to give some grace at times. “If we don’t accept people who come back, it undermines the cause. I’ve accepted people who were full anti-vaccine activists back,” she said.
Does one good story mean a free pass on a slew of other misdeeds? Surely not. But if we do not water a garden when it is finally producing, we risk contributing to a painful drought.
Comments? Questions? Ideas? Venting? Please share your views in the Comments section.
Thank you for reading! If you have information about any of the unfolding stories we are following, please email me or find me on Signal at InsideMedicine.88.
Kudos to you Dr. Faust! I too have a personal policy of acknowledging good things! I feel it is an obligation for anyone who is a vocal critic to be just as vocal with praise when it is earned! A great policy to do this publicly. They won’t respond but that does NOT mean the message was lost or unappreciated!
I appreciate this information. It's hard to see the distinction at my level between harm reduction and harm for harm's sake. I also greatly admire your messages directly to them. I hope inspires more of the same careful action. It should go without saying but I'm saying it anyway - I miss having science lead federal health.