Will the CDC Now Concede to Falsifying Vaccine Nearly All of Safety Science Results ?
Brian Deer reveals cherry-picking in the Destefano et al. study. As an outside observer, who is not at all a scientist, he tries to pacify. He fails.
Rumors are swirling that under Robert F. Kennedy Jr’s leadership of the US Department of Health and Human Services, the CDC may acknowledge significant flaws in its vaccine safety research - and perhaps an agenda to mislead the public on the safety of childhood vaccines in the CDC’s recommended childhood immunization schedule. If true, this revelation would call into question decades of public health policies predicated on these studies, shaking the foundations of institutional trust. Coupled with ongoing concerns about media complicity and the influence of powerful global elites, this potential concession could represent a watershed moment for public accountability in science.
What’s at Stake in a CDC Concession?
The allegations aren’t new. Critics have long pointed to troubling practices, such as withholding inconvenient data or dismissing adverse results as “implausible.” Most infamously, whistleblower Dr. William Thompson claimed that critical subgroup data was omitted from the 2004 DeStefano study on the MMR vaccine.
Journalist Brian Deer, a polarizing figure in vaccine reporting, recently admitted that the now infamous DeStefano study "withheld Black subgroup data," dismissing the findings as “implausible.”
“And although quite what he told them is lost down rabbit holes, Mr Kennedy later went public saying “the senior scientist” at the CDC confessed “we lied about all of our science.” That wasn’t true either. One mid-rank researcher among its 10,000 staff had slammed a badly designed study from which Black subgroup data was held back as implausible. “Reasonable scientists” might differ, he conceded.”
The problem with him watering down the importance of Thompson’s confessions are manifold: 1. Thompson revealed that ALL vaccine safety studies done or contracted by the CDC were subject to a sanitation committee, 2. Very few of the 10,000 staff at the CDC were involved in the study, or even knew about it; 3. Thompson himself had hands on the data, was directed by Coleen Boyle to change the study design based on age groups; he told his boss Destefano he had to report it to the Institutes of Medicine (IOM), and was put on leave so Destefano could strip the results and change the PowerPoint file and present the results to a critical IOM committee; 4. “Reasonable scientists” do not put each on leave for mental evaluation when they know they analyzed the data multiple times to try to make an association go away and failed; 5. We already have all the evidence and receipts. 6. We now will control who also sees the facts, data, files, etc… 6. Deer’s assessment of plausibility decades later does not trump facts and data.
Deer’s candid acknowledgment adds unnecessary weight to concerns that scientific transparency was compromised to protect policy goals. Because plausibility does not trump data, and his palliative representation does not reflect the degree to which those data were analyzed, and re-analyzed, and the study design modified arbitrarily in search of a way to destroy the association between on-time MMR vaccination and risk of autism. Such actions by Deer only serve to further undermine vaccine confidence and the very foundation of evidence-based medicine.
If the CDC concedes that they first tried to cherry-pick results, then removed the results completely, and acted in bad faith, the repercussions will ripple through the scientific, legal, and media landscapes:
Scientific Integrity: Public health institutions must reckon with how manipulated or incomplete data informed decades of vaccine policy. This could lead to broader calls for independent oversight in public health research, or a complete shift in how vaccines are studied altogether. This will lead to inquiries into other areas where narrative seems to trump reality in the reporting of results.
Public Trust: Trust in vaccines, already eroding in some quarters, may reach new lows. We are at a watershed moment; this is a crisis that demands immediate, honest communication.
Legal Ramifications: Families who suspect vaccine injuries were dismissed based on compromised studies may seek justice through wholescale reform of the NVICP and the 1986 act.
The Media’s Role: Watchdogs or Compromised Players?
If children’s health was not at stake, it would be laughably obvious that those who stand to profit from vaccines cannot bring themselves to be objective on vaccine safety. Instead, it’s painfully obvious. The mainstream media’s response to vaccine safety concerns has often been one of dismissal and ridicule. Outlets like The Guardian and the BBC, both of which receive significant funding from the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation (BMGF), have faced criticism for their lack of investigative rigor. For example:
The Guardian’s “Global Development” series acknowledges support from the BMGF, raising questions about editorial independence.
BBC Media Action also receives substantial BMGF funding, prompting similar concerns about its ability to cover vaccine-related topics impartially.
The result is an environment where dissenting voices are labeled as “anti-science” or worse, effectively stifling meaningful debate. Alternative media, such as GB News, offers some refuge, but it too faces challenges in providing unbiased coverage.
The public must demand greater transparency in media funding and more rigorous scrutiny of public health narratives. The stakes are too high for anything less.
Global Influence and Closed-Door Agendas
The CDC concession, if it happens, must also be viewed in the broader context of global policymaking. Recent meetings between UK Prime Minister Rishi Sunak, Chancellor of the Exchequer Jeremy Hunt, Bill Gates, and BlackRock CEO Larry Fink have raised eyebrows. What was discussed in these closed-door meetings remains unclear, but the implications are deeply concerning.
With Gates’ significant financial influence over public health initiatives and Fink’s dominance in global finance, such gatherings demand transparency. Public health policy should serve the people, not private interests.
What Brian Deer’s Admissions Mean
Brian Deer’s acknowledgment that data was withheld in the DeStefano study provides a critical lens through which to view vaccine safety concerns. By framing the exclusion of “Black subgroup data” as a defense—claiming it was “implausible”—Deer inadvertently strengthens critiques of public health research practices.
This admission highlights the urgent need for independent reviews of vaccine safety studies. It also raises a fundamental question: How many other studies have omitted or manipulated data to achieve desired outcomes?
See: Hooker B, Kern J, Geier D, Haley B, Sykes L, King P, Geier M. Methodological issues and evidence of malfeasance in research purporting to show thimerosal in vaccines is safe. Biomed Res Int. 2014;2014:247218. doi: 10.1155/2014/247218. Epub 2014 Jun 4. PMID: 24995277; PMCID: PMC4065774. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/24995277/
Moving Forward: A Call for Accountability
A CDC concession would represent a seismic shift, but it must be the start—not the end—of a broader reckoning. To rebuild trust and ensure public health policies are grounded in truth, the following steps are essential:
Independent Investigations: Vaccine safety studies must be reviewed by unbiased, independent entities free from government or industry influence.
Transparency in Media Funding: Outlets receiving funding from entities like the BMGF must disclose how this impacts editorial policies.
Restoration of Scientific Integrity: Public health institutions must prioritize honesty and transparency over political expediency and profits.
The Road Ahead
A CDC concession, if it occurs, will validate the concerns of many who have long questioned vaccine safety science. But it will also deepen societal divisions and erode trust in institutions. The path forward requires unprecedented transparency, accountability, and a commitment to rebuilding public trust. Anything less risks further polarizing an already fractured public health landscape.
For those of us who have fought for years for open discourse and reality-based policy, this moment is a vindication—but it’s also a sobering reminder of the work to be done to dismantle the house-of-cards-narratives.
It’s time for the public to demand the answers we deserve. The health of future generations depends on it.
The CDC will only concede at the point of a gun, a gun loaded with multi-billion-dollar lawsuit bullets.
RICO!