The CDC's increasingly desperate fight to shield vaccine injuries from public scrutiny

A Midwestern Doctor Aug 29

Since RFK Jr. became H.H.S. Secretary, my contacts have shared that the CDC (one branch of the H.H.S.) has been the primary government agency sabotaging attempts to Make America Healthy Again. In July, I thus wrote an article on the CDC’s pervasive corruption that highlighted the CDC’s scientific misconduct at a recent ACIP meeting to help create support for controversial changes RFK Jr. would need to enact at the CDC.

Yesterday, that all came to a head as the CDC’s director was fired a month into her job, briefly refused to leave, four other top CDC officials resigned (which coupled with five earlier retirements in March comprised a loss of about a quarter of the CDC’s senior leadership). These actions prompted a media uproar and a hearing to “hold RFK accountable” has already been scheduled for next week.

This is a pivotal moment where RFK needs the public’s support for restoring America’s health, so I believe it is critical to understand the complete context behind what happened, particularly since many of these CDC holdouts have been directly responsible for the mass gaslighting against the vaccine-injured.

The Roots of Evil

One of my major questions in life is if the bad things that happen are a result of a secretive group of bad actors or are simply a naturally emergent phenomenon that would occur regardless of which group was in power behind the scenes.

On one hand, I frequently see policies be enacted in a coordinated fashion that lead to a clear outcome, and then watch as the years play out, that every institution works in unison to ensure that outcome eventually comes to pass. As such, given how repetitive (and hence predictable) this process is, I tend to suspect each one is a deliberate “conspiracy” by a specific group of bad actors.

On the other hand, when I speak to the most informed people I know within the government, I hear things like this:

You can always point a finger at a specific agency or person, but the reality is that as the government gets bigger and bigger, more and more fiefdoms will emerge within it, and those groups will fight for their own interests at the expense of everyone else.

Note: many Federal agencies depend on obtaining congressional funding and, therefore, will engage in stunts to ensure that funding is allocated to them. For example, the CDC will routinely hype up inconsequential “pandemics” each year, as this nationwide drama allows them to obtain more funding. Beyond this motivating the CDC to lie, the need to maintain a guaranteed stream of public and private funding also boxes the CDC into repeating the same (risk-free) narratives ad-nauseam so they do not offend their sponsors. This tendency to habitually repeat industry canards (e.g., that water fluoridation is one of the greatest public health achievements besides vaccines, that chronic Lyme disease doesn’t exist, or that all vaccines are 1000% safe and effective) in turn explains why more and more people are tuning out the CDC.

CDC Corruption

The CDC has enormous credibility among physicians, in no small part because the agency is generally thought to be free of industry bias. Financial dealings with bio-pharmaceutical companies threaten that reputation.—Marcia Angell MD, former editor in chief of the New England Journal of Medicine

In reality, CDC corruption is so pervasive, it’s effectively been legalized. For example, a 1983 law authorized the CDC to accept gifts “made unconditionally…for the benefit of the [Public Health] Service or for the carrying out of any of its function,” and in 1992 Congress established A National CDC Foundation which was quickly incorporated to “mobilize philanthropic and private-sector resources.”

Note: other Federal agencies, including the CIA and the NIH, have similar “non-profit” foundations.^1,2,3

Since inception, the CDC Foundation has been accused of egregious conduct and has received nearly 1 billion dollars from corporate “donors” (criticisms include a scathing editorial in one of the world’s top medical journals). For example, to quote a 2019 investigation:

In 2011….a firm that performs research for the pesticide industry, gave $60,000 to the CDC Foundation for a study to prove the safety of two pesticides. “We have a professional money-laundering facility at the CDC Foundation….They accept projects from anyone on the outside.”

Between 2010 and 2015, Coca-Cola contributed more than $1 million to the CDC Foundation. It also received significant benefits from the CDC, including collaborative meetings and advice from a top CDC staffer on how to lobby the World Health Organization to curtail its efforts to reduce consumption of added sugars.

The BMJ also reported on contributions from Roche to the CDC Foundation in support of the CDC’s Take 3 flu campaign, which encourages people to “take antiviral medicine if a doctor prescribes it.” Roche manufactures Tamiflu, an antiviral medication for the flu [for reference, Roche was able to convince governments around the world to stockpile hundreds of millions of dollars of Tamiflu (an ineffective drug that was never proven to work).

These “donations” in turn often shape the “impartial” guidelines we are expected to follow. For example, in 2010 the CDC foundation created a coalition which received over $26 million from major pharmaceutical companies producing hepatitis C treatments. Shortly after, a committee was created to create new CDC hepatitis C treatment recommendations, and an Inspector General report found many of its members had direct ties to those pharmaceutical companies.

Note: key funders of the CDC foundation (detailed here) include key Democratic political advocacy groups, vaccine organizations such as GAVI and the Gates Foundation, the major vaccine manufacturers (e.g., Pfizer, Moderna, Merck and J&J), and tech companies such as Facebook, Google, Microsoft, and PayPal.

In 2016 CDC employees anonymously complained about this corruption:

It appears that our mission is being influenced and shaped by outside parties and rogue interests…What concerns us most, is that it is becoming the norm and not the rare exception. Some senior management officials at CDC are clearly aware and even condone these behaviors. Others see it and turn the other way. Some staff are intimidated and pressed to do things they know are not right. We have representatives across the agency that witness this unacceptable behavior. It occurs at all levels and in all of our respective units.

Recently, the National Center for Chronic Disease Prevention and Health Promotion (NCCDPHP) has been implicated in a “cover up” of inaccurate screening data for the Wise Woman (WW) Program. There was a coordinated effort by that Center to “bury” the fact that screening numbers for the WW program were misrepresented in documents sent to Congress; screening numbers for 2014 and 2015 did not meet expectations despite a multi­million dollar investment; and definitions were changed and data “cooked” to make the results look better than they were. Data were clearly manipulated in irregular ways. An “internal review” that involved staff across CDC occurred and its findings were essentially suppressed so media and/or Congressional staff would not become aware of the problems.

Finally, most of the scientists at CDC operate with the utmost integrity and ethics. However, this “climate of disregard” puts many of us in difficult positions. We are often directed to do things we know are not right. For example, Congress has made it very clear that domestic funding for NCCDPHP (and other CIOs) should be used for domestic work and that the bulk of NCCDPHP funding should be allocated to program (not research).

Why in FY17 is NCCDPHP diverting money away from program priorities that directly benefit the public to support an expensive [global health] research that may not yield anything that benefits the [American] public?

In February 2019, two Democrat Congresswomen provided the evidence to request a formal investigation of CDC’s interactions with Coca-Cola and its broader corruption. Unfortunately, due to the politicization surrounding COVID, all of this was swept under the rug and forgotten.

Ideology or Corruption?

I also frequently wonder to what degree conduct I find reprehensible is due to corruption or simply ideological fixation.

In the case of vaccines, while clear financial conflicts of interest can be shown in certain cases (e.g., the CDC Foundation), I find the zealous adherence to all vaccines being “safe and effective” tends to be ideological in nature, as believing in vaccines has been instilled as a core belief of anyone affiliated with “science” or “medicine.”

Initially this can be quite subtle, but in time, that ideological bias quickly adds up. This is because most things aren’t clear cut, so depending on what one is biased to notice vs. filter out, one can rapidly be left with a world view where all “the evidence” supports their position, even if a great deal of it does not (which is a major reason why “rational” people can have such diametrically opposed belief systems).

This is a critical to understand as evaluating the actual risks and benefits of a routine vaccine requires you to assess:

•What percent of the unvaccinated population is likely to get the infection.
•What percent of those infected will have a moderate or severe illness.
•How effectively the vaccine prevents those vaccinated from catching the illness or developing moderate or severe complications from it.
•How long the vaccine’s effectiveness lasts.
•How long does it take the infection to become resistant to the vaccine (making it useless).
•What are the consequences of the vaccine triggering a population-wide mutation in the infection.
•Is there a viable alternative to vaccination?
•How likely the vaccine is to cause an acute moderate or acute severe reaction.
•How likely the vaccine is to cause a chronic moderate or chronic severe reaction.
•Who is at risk of having a more severe reaction to the vaccine?

Each of these, let alone all of them, is quite a task to figure out, and as a result most of the relevant points for each of the above simply are not taken into account when deciding upon a vaccine recommendation. Instead, a few marketable points are highlighted and the assessment of the vaccine’s risks and benefits are seen through their lens (e.g., “cervical cancer is deadly” and “the HPV vaccine prevents cervical cancer”), while pieces of evidence which challenge the predetermined conclusion (e.g., evidence of vaccine harm) are dismissed and filtered away.

As a result, many vaccines are on the market where their risks clearly and unambiguously outweigh their benefits, while in parallel, vaccines are viewed as a homogenous entity despite some (e.g., COVID or the HPV vaccines) being much more dangerous and unnecessary than many others. As many people have requested, I have provided a concise summary of the risks and benefits of each childhood vaccine here.

Note: while adherence to abhorrent policies is typically ideological, my sense is that as one goes higher in the hierarchy, the more leaders within the public health field (e.g., the CDC) are consciously aware of what they are complicit in, but nonetheless perpetuate it to protect their power base (whereas those lower in the power structure accede to the dominant narrative as doing anything else often ends careers).

Vaccine Injuries

Because of this “ideological filtration” many everyday proponents of vaccination are completely unaware that vaccines frequently harm people (e.g., with severe neurological injuries). So, when confronted with evidence of harm, they use a variety of excuses to dismiss those injuries.

For example, 4 Democrat Senators who pushed the COVID vaccine had highly unusual neurological injuries all strongly linked to the COVID vaccine, yet none of them have recanted their support for it. Likewise, a Senate aide I spoke to shared that other Senators have had vaccine injuries, but none will publicly admit it, and at best instead have focused on getting treatment for “long COVID” (and emphasized that now it is critical for us to educate the Senate’s vaccine proponents on the reality of vaccine injuries).

As much of the opposition to acknowledging vaccine injuries appears to be psychological rather than financial in nature, Ron Johnson recently used his chairmanship to hold an excellent hearing (I would advise watching) where those who had been injured by vaccines and then abandoned could tell their stories and force the Senators who habitually dismiss the existence of vaccine injuries to be directly confronted with them.

Note: formal hearing like this never happen, as the last one was 25 years ago (for children who developed autism following vaccination), and prior to that those used for 1986 Vaccine Injury Act.

The ACIP

A popular tactic for taking advantage of people is to have an impartial and trusted “third party” implement your policy for you (e.g., funding a “non-profit” with an environmentally friendly name to advocate for polluting).

This tactic is used throughout the medical field (e.g., experts on television, medical journals, guideline committees and patient advocacy groups are often pharmaceutical mouthpieces).

The Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) is the group that advises the CDC on the vaccine schedule, and as you might expect:
•Until RFK’s recent changes, almost every member on it had financial conflicts of interest.
•ACIP almost always votes to add the vaccines presented before them to the immunization schedule.
•ACIP always ignores anyone who presents “anecdotal” evidence of vaccine injuries.
Note: in the one case I know of where ACIP voted against a vaccine recommendation (COVID boosters for adult workers), the CDC simply overruled them.

As such, I noticed a pro-vaccine witness at Johnson’s hearing, who after sharing the tragic story of her infant sister dying from influenza said they testified in front of ACIP, “ACIP listened” and then made infants six months and older all be vaccinated for the flu—despite roughly 100 “flu related” deaths occurring annually in infants, and thousands of complications (including death) in the 6-10 month age range having been reported in VAERS (a system which captures less than 1% of injuries).

I found this noteworthy as:

•This also happened in 2013 with Merck’s expensive meningitis vaccine (less than 1 in a million children die from meningococcal disease each year, and Merck’s vaccine did not cover the primary strain causing deaths^1,2,3), so Merck had two parents whose infants had severe complications from the disease to testify in front of ACIP, at which point it was added to the schedule and funded by the government.

•These anecdotes translating to implementing a (scientifically unjustifiable) policy, while any evidence of vaccine harm never accomplishing the same illustrate how powerful the perceptual filters are in these people and why groups like the CDC and ACIP can routinely recommend vaccines which are hundreds if not thousands of times more likely to harm than benefit the recipients.

Hiding The Data

Evidence based medicine was created as a way to overturn medicine’s dogmatic resistance to abandoning bad medical practices. Unfortunately, before long, industry realized this could be overturned by monopolizing the “best evidence” (e.g., through the medical journals and mass media), hiring experts to promote their evidence, and burying any conflicting evidence as non-credible.

Once this new dogma was established, an even more incredible feat was accomplished—forbidden anyone besides chosen experts from being able to see the raw data which produced that evidence, thereby forcing us to again “trust the medical experts.”

Following this, an even more remarkable sleight of hand was accomplished—instilling a standard where no one besides approved experts could look at the raw data behind the science we base our lives around. As that data is regularly doctored (e.g., we found out through lawsuits the V-safe data the CDC used to prove the COVID vaccines were safe was presented in a misleading manner which hid the innumerable injuries within that dataset). Likewise, while every healthcare authority throughout COVID assured us the vaccines were being rigorously monitored for safety, we never got their data, and eventually through years of work, Steve Kirsch (e.g., through whistleblowers) was able to obtain government datasets showing the vaccines were killing and seriously injuring many people.

Note: this is a key reason why RFK Jr. and NIH director Jay Bhattacharya (to restore trust in science) are pushing for science to return to data (rather than “expert” opinion) determining scientific truth through a variety of initiatives aimed at making data available and scientists being encouraged to attempt to replicate studies so we can determine if their data actually is not valid (as much of the existing scientific literature is not).

ACIP and the CDC

When seeking drug approval or vaccine recommendation, there are several boxes that must be checked to ensure “safe and effective” products reach the public. However, meeting those standards is again quite subjective (e.g., they are used to stonewall alternative medical products from ever being approved). As such, if something supports the medical industry its subjected to minimal scrutiny (e.g., Pfizer was not required to test the vaccine for effects on autoimmunity, fertility or cancer despite these being major concerns from the start).

As such, in ACIP meetings, the CDC, without providing its data, will often give a brief statement asserting the safety and efficacy of a vaccine, which the ACIP takes as a definitive truth regardless of conflicting evidence.

During COVID, the ACIP meetings became a morbid hobby of watching a slow motion train wreck, as we knew nothing we did could derail them pushing the COVID vaccine along, but at the same time, we couldn’t turn our eyes away from it, as we did need to know what depressing vaccine policies were in the pipeline.

Recently, RFK’s new ACIP had their first meeting, where for the first time, the CDC received pushback for their unwarranted claims. Unfortunately, as the CDC had not adapted to this new reality, they continued repeat their playbook, making remarkable claims such as:

•Infants were at high risk of becoming severely ill from COVID despite existing data showing very close to 0 infants are dying from COVID.

•Most positive COVID tests at admission correlated with COVID causing their hospitalization (“86% of adult hospitalizations during that time period were likely attributable to COVID-19”).

•According to the CDC’s private analysis, all datasets show there is no statistical proof the COVID vaccine caused many of the injuries people attributed to it (e.g., death, seizures, strokes, bell’s palsy or any issues in pregnancy such as miscarriages) and that the signals suggesting otherwise in databases we can access are “false positives.”
Note: I was most surprised by the CDC asserting their analysis “proved” the COVID vaccine was not associated with abnormal menstruation—despite numerous studies comprising hundreds of thousands of women finding roughly half experience this side effect.^1,2,3,4,5,6

•That while a risk of myocarditis does exist, the risk is very low, and that 83% percent of those afflicted fully recovered in 90 days. In contrast, a study the CDC failed to mention found that at 12-18 months, 35% reported persistent symptoms, primarily chest pain, palpitations, or fatigue, 13% remained on medication, 8% restricted exercise (mostly self-initiated), and 5.6% required hospitalization.
Note: Ron Johnson’s previous hearing provided proof the CDC deliberately withheld data showing COVID vaccines caused myocarditis to protect the vaccine program.

There were also remarkable admissions such as:

•The CDC still had no explanation for why COVID had evolved into variants that were resistant to the vaccine (a concern from the start, as the vaccine used a single rapidly mutating antigen).

•The CDC had no way to track longterm complications from the COVID vaccine, as over time “more and more confounding variables are introduced” and that the CDC would welcome any advice ACIP had on how those complications could be monitored.

Changes at the CDC

RFK Jr. was appointed to become H.H.S. Secretary under the expectation he would make America Healthy Again by reforming America’s health agencies and scientific apparatus so that they served the people rather than corporate interests. As trillions of dollars are potentially on the line for those industries, they are doing everything they can to undermine RFK’s efforts, and were it not for both RFK’s public support (specifically the MAHA base which is necessary for the midterms) and Trump fully supporting RFK Jr. to “go wild” (particularly on exposing the dangers of routine vaccination), RFK Jr. would not be able to do a fraction of what he is doing now.

Because of this, it was effectively a miracle (I never imagined was possible) RFK was nominated that required all of us to do everything we could to sway the tie breaking senators. However, that hard fought victory required RFK to make numerous concessions to win over the last Senator, and since that time, forces throughout the government and media have been mobilized to stifle any attempts he makes to reform those agencies.

Because of this (and existing Federal statutes), implementing the needed changes can’t happen overnight, which has led to split views on the tactics RFK has taken—with some like myself being astonished at how quickly he is enacting permanent and previously unthinkable changes in the healthcare system (which many members of the medical orthodoxy consider “apocalyptic”), while others are greatly disappointed RFK Jr. has not already done more.

Unfortunately, the extraordinary latitude RFK has did not extend to the CDC, demonstrated by the fact that MAHA’s CDC nominee (Dave Weldon) was blocked by the same Senators who almost derailed RFK’s nomination. Remarkably, in 2023, Biden passed a law (which went into effect in 2025) requiring the CDC director to pass a Senate confirmation, hence making it nearly impossible for an outsider like Weldon to head the agency.

Following this, Trump nominated a new CDC director (RFK publicly endorsed) who easily sailed through a Senate confirmation (and whom MAHA journalists like Josh Walkos highlighted had far too many ties to the pharmaceutical industry). However, after assuming office on July 31, friction emerged (e.g., she tried to get Senator Cassidy involved in her disputes with RFK Jr.), and eventually on August 27, the H.H.S. announced Monarez was no longer with the CDC. Following this, her lawyer immediately issued this public statement:

When asked about this the next day, Trump’s press secretary stated:

Look, what I will say about this individual is that her lawyer's statement made it abundantly clear themselves that she was not aligned with the president's mission to make America healthy again, and the Secretary asked her to resign.

She said she would, and then she said she wouldn't. So the president fired her, which he has every right to do.

Look, if you are doing your job well, and if you are executing on the vision and the promises that the president made to the public…you should have no fear about your job, just do your job. That’s what this president wants to see.

Likewise on Fox, RFK Jr. publicly stated there were serious issues within the CDC: