Using "Ctrl+F" for Survival and Defending MMR Vaccines
PLUS: This week's vaccine and public health headlines
Hi community!
I’m David Higgins, a pediatrician, preventive medicine specialist, researcher, and dad. This newsletter is where I share clear science, smart policy, and meaningful conversations about vaccines and public health. If you haven’t already, hit the button below so you don’t miss a weekly update.
Let’s jump into it…
What You Need to Know This Week
Last week was spring break for my kids, so if I missed a major headline in the vaccine or public health world, now you know why. This week’s post is a bit shorter but still packed with important updates and a reflection I hope you’ll sit with.
The ACIP meeting is back on: After being postponed in February, the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) is now rescheduled for April. This is good news, but questions remain about how the committee’s role will function under the current health administration. I wrote last month about why this committee matters so much.
Measles Update: Measles cases continued to climb, with the CDC reporting 378 total cases in the U.S. so far this year, already surpassing the 285 total cases reported in 2024. At least 95% of these were in people who were either unvaccinated or unsure of their vaccination status. As I told the media this week: "When vaccination rates drop in a community, it is not a question of if, it's a question of when measles is going to come because it is so incredibly contagious"
mRNA vaccine research on the chopping block: At least one NIH-funded grant focused on mRNA vaccines has been terminated, and researchers fear this is only the beginning. The pressure on mRNA technology doesn’t end there. Multiple states have introduced legislation this year to ban mRNA vaccines or even criminalize physicians who administer them. This is deeply troubling. mRNA technology was central to the COVID-19 vaccines that saved millions of lives, and it holds promise not just for future vaccines but also for cancer treatment and other medical breakthroughs.
Match Day! It’s not about vaccines, but worth noting, Friday marked Match Day, when thousands of future doctors across the country opened envelopes to learn where they’ll spend the next 3–5 years training. It’s a moment filled with joy, anxiety, relief, and tears (both the good and bad kind). A wild, emotional, unforgettable ritual—I still remember mine like it was yesterday, even many years later.
“Ctrl+F” As a Survival Tool
Lately, researchers, public health professionals, nonprofit leaders or anyone trying to secure federal funding have been using Ctrl+F not to locate key data or citations but to search for words to erase from grants, manuscripts, presentations, and applications. Words that, if found, could jeopardize their ability to receive funding for critical work.
Words like “vaccine hesitancy,” “mRNA vaccine technology,” “barriers",” underserved”, and even “women” and “disabilities” are vanishing from research, not because they lack scientific merit, but because their inclusion risks cancellation.
This is not paranoia. Funding that includes these terms has already been abruptly cancelled. For instance, as I wrote in a newsletter last week, any language suggesting an NIH grant aims to “improve vaccine interest and commitment” has already led to immediate defunding of projects.
Some of these defunded projects didn’t even have a focus on improving vaccine uptake. In this piece in The Washington Post, Dr. Nisha Acharya at UCSF shared her story of the NIH cancelling her grant because she used the word “vaccine hesitancy” once in a summary of her project and “vaccine uptake” twice. She wasn’t even studying how to address vaccine hesitancy or increase uptake.
Entire areas of public health research are being erased—not through debate or scientific inquiry, but with the quiet strike of a delete key.
For those involved in any type of work that receives federal funding, Ctrl+F has become a survival tool. We comb through grant applications, removing once-standard terminology, fearing that including them could mean automatic rejection. We revisit already-approved grants, hoping they won’t be flagged and revoked.
We can sometimes replace these words with vague, less politically charged substitutes. I have even heard from colleagues who tried to change the font type on their applications to avoid AI algorithms. However, for many researchers, these terms define entire fields of inquiry. Their work cannot simply be rewritten; it is being erased.
And even for those whose research remains, new layers of scrutiny (read: censorship) are being applied. Last week, ProPublica reported that employees at the National Cancer Institute (a branch of the NIH) were advised to flag manuscripts, presentations, or communications for heightened “scrutiny” if they addressed 23 “hot-button” issues, including vaccines, fluoride, peanut allergies, and autism.
Among my colleagues, the responses include anger, frustration, and fear. Some are ready to speak up and defend their work, while others feel paralyzed and hopeless. Many are afraid to say anything publicly for fear of losing their careers, more funding, or the ability to provide for their families.
Some are considering leaving research altogether. Not because their work lacks value but because they can no longer see a future for it in a system that erases it with a keystroke.
The tragedy of Ctrl+F is that it reveals, in stark, digital clarity, the erasure of scientific inquiry. Science isn’t disappearing in a fiery purge but in censored terms and targeted funding cuts.
And the irony, of course, is that reality doesn’t care what words are banned.
Measles doesn’t care about NIH grant funding policies before it spreads relentlessly among unvaccinated people.
Disinformation doesn’t vanish just because research on how to address it is defunded.
Cancer is not going to pause its relentless march while work on innovative treatment platforms like mRNA technology is frozen.
Censoring the word “equity” doesn’t erase the fact that real health disparities exist in all of our communities.
The consequences of abandoning evidence-based research will not be theoretical. They will play out in preventable outbreaks, unnecessary suffering, and lost lives. And sadly, the most marginalized communities will bear the brunt of it.
The Fight for Evidence-Based Research
For those of us still determined to conduct this work, one thing is clear:
We cannot wait around for years until we can once again do this vital work.
We must find new funding sources, build alliances outside traditional institutions, and refuse to stay silent. Non-federal organizations must step up to fill the gap.
The public must demand accountability from leaders who claim to be restoring free speech while conducting one of modern history’s most aggressive scientific censorship campaigns.
We must also share stories broadly with the public about how this work's abrupt, unfounded cancellation harms every American.
And yes, we will keep hitting Ctrl+F to preserve vital research because we refuse to allow it to be erased.
MMR Vaccines Do Not Cause Autism—the Evidence is Overwhelming
In case you missed it, I teamed up with an immunologist (
), an epidemiologist (), and a public health scientist () at to break down decades of research, dozens of studies, and data from millions of children that show MMR vaccines do not cause autism.
Last week, I also joined two fellow public health and infectious disease experts for a media briefing on measles hosted by SciLine, a program of the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS). We shared insights in brief conversations with a moderator and answered journalists’ questions on key topics—ranging from symptoms and prevention to the broader public health response to ongoing outbreaks.
If you missed it, you can watch the full SciLine briefing here.
Despite the overwhelming evidence already available, the CDC under new health leadership is planning a large-scale study on this already-settled question. This isn’t healthy skepticism—it’s science denialism. I recently explored why this approach is dangerous and counterproductive here.
On a related note, I was deeply moved by a powerful piece in The New York Times by Holden Thorp, editor-in-chief of Science and a professor of chemistry and medicine at George Washington University; who is also autistic. Reflecting on the enduring harm of vaccine misinformation, he writes:
“One thing that unites both of these camps [in the autism community], however, is a disdain for the persistence of the debunked claim that autism is a result of vaccination.”
One last thing. I want to discuss issues you care about. Take this quick poll and let me know what you want me to dive into deeper.
Thanks for being part of this community. Let’s keep pushing for truth, compassion, and science that saves lives—together.
-David
Do You like this newsletter?
Then you should subscribe here to never miss an update and share with others:
You can also follow me on Substack Notes, LinkedIn, Instagram, and Bluesky.
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!