Why Pharma Must Rethink How It Explains the Vaccine Schedule—Not Just Defend It
News this week—like this STAT story on the expectation that Robert F. Kennedy Jr. will push to change the childhood vaccine schedule—is putting intense new scrutiny on the recommended vaccine schedule for children. Policymakers are openly debating changes, and pharma companies face a new communications challenge: How to address questions about the schedule without reinforcing mistrust.
The Roots of Skepticism Run Deep–and Broad
Skepticism about the vaccine schedule isn’t just for the fringe. According to a recent Washington Post/KFF poll, about four in 10 parents believe children get too many vaccines, and one in three say vaccines are given too young. These doubts show up across political and educational backgrounds, demonstrating a broad current of uncertainty that’s far from the “anti-vax” stereotype.
This skepticism is grounded in a deeper narrative: that pharma is driven by profit, not public health. Many believe that maintaining chronic illness is ultimately more lucrative for pharma than curing disease outright. In this climate, calls to reexamine the vaccine schedule sound reasonable to a wide audience, not just conspiracy theorists.
So, when pharma responds with “trust the science” or appeals to authority of the CDC’s past recommendations, these messages often fall flat—or worse, appear dismissive.
Don’t Dismiss Reasonable Doubt. Engage It.
While it may be tempting to presume questions about the vaccine schedule mostly come from a radical fringe, we’re increasingly seeing this isn’t the case. The recent polling shows that many thoughtful, well-educated parents and clinicians simply want to understand why so many vaccines are recommended so early. Dismissing or minimizing these concerns as “anti-vax” misses an opportunity to reshape the conversation and build real trust.
How to Respond: Explain the Why Behind the Schedule
The solution isn’t to double down on warnings about the dangers of deviating from recommendations. Instead, pharma must be transparent about the rationale for the schedule as it exists now. Why are certain vaccines given at specific ages? The right framing isn’t about why NOT to “space out” vaccines; it’s about why X age is a critical opportunity to receive Y vaccine – and why Z months later it’s valuable to get a booster.
A Lesson from Rare Disease: Specifics Build Trust
We saw this dynamic in our work on a treatment for a rare genetic disease. When the treatment became available for babies as young as 12 months, the original assumption was that families would embrace earlier intervention. Instead, both parents and doctors were hesitant. Generalized statements like “earlier is better” were easy to dismiss: Waiting until the child is 5 or 6 is still plenty early… Emotional appeals risked insulting audiences and making them dig in their heels: I’m questioning whether we should hold off on treatment BECAUSE I’m trying to decide what’s best for my child, no company could claim to know better than me.
What did work? Tying what the treatment helps with to what’s happening in a child’s physical development at 12 months—and why intervening at that age in particular matters. That transparency helped parents understand the rationale and see the value in beginning treatment earlier.
The Bottom Line
Pharma’s challenge is not to warn about the dangers of questioning the schedule, but to clearly articulate why the schedule is what it is today. As the data shows, skepticism is mainstream, and the most effective way to build trust is through openness and specificity—not appeals to authority. The lesson from our rare disease experience is clear: When you explain the reasoning, you give people something real to believe in.
If you found this helpful, let’s connect and continue the conversation.
You Might Also Like
