Please read the first post.
The thing is that you guys are promoting manipulative journalism. In this case, the goal is benign, but it's corrosive in the end. It makes people trust news sources even less to have such bald non-stories that should have never seen ink in the first place become news for days on end. And then Democracy dies in darkness or whatever.
Again, this guy simply did something as an adult that his mother disagreed with. Every reporter that interviewed him or wrote about the non-story needs to find another occupation. They're simply not in the news business. They're in the advocacy business. In this case the test is rather stark. There is no news to be found here.
Manipulative journalism is the only thing that can work on people who have been manipulated. Scientific evidence is not going to convince those people that vaccination is a good thing, because otherwise they wouldn't be against vaccination in the first place.
Books and movies have lots of stories that deal with the moral dilemma of a protagonist having to bend or break rules as it is the only way to achieve a positive result (such as a detective using illegally obtained evidence to nail down a criminal). Being okay with people being manipulated into acceptance that vaccination is a good thing doesn't mean that one would be okay with manipulative journalism in all possible instances.