A Free Now Foundation Exclusive
Is there a connection between vaccines and autism? According to two unnamed sources who spoke with Reuters, the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) is planning a large-scale study into the long-debated question. Color me surprised. Who would have thought that after decades of unwavering certainty from experts, the CDC would actually take another look?
Of course this groundbreaking revelation comes as Secretary Robert Kennedy Jr. is now overseeing the CDC from his role at HHS, ensuring that every rock is turned upside down—even the ones scientists kicked aside long ago. While former Congressman Dr. Dave Weldon’s nomination as CDC Director was pulled just hours before his Senate confirmation hearing this week, and now public health expert Dr. Susan Monarez awaits confirmation, the wheels of investigation are already in motion under Secretary Kennedy’s authority.
“As President Trump said in his Joint Address to Congress, the rate of autism in American children has skyrocketed. CDC will leave no stone unturned in its mission to figure out what exactly is happening. The American people expect high-quality research and transparency, and that is what CDC is delivering,” HHS spokesman Andrew Nixon confirmed to ABC News.
The Experts Protest, Again
Naturally, the response from medical organizations was yet another Groundhog Day for the American public. The collective gasp of outrage echoed across major institutions, all faithfully repeating the same worn out and threadbare lines: “Vaccines have been thoroughly researched,” “Vaccines have been proven to be very safe and effective,” “Decades of research and hundreds of scientifically sound studies show no link or association between vaccines and autism.”
Ah, yes. The experts who have never been wrong before. The same ones who, over the years, changed their tune on lead in paint, DDT, smoking during pregnancy, and, let’s not forget, the opioid crisis after Purdue assured the FDA that their pain pills were not addictive. But on the topic of autism, the experts are 110% certain—because out of the 15 pathogens infants and toddlers are vaccinated for–injections comprising more than 100 ingredients–there are two gold standard CDC-funded mercury studies from 2003 and a single MMR study in 2004. That’s it. The nation’s health department has only looked at one combo vaccine and one ingredient for their roles in causing autism.
Of course, all other government-funded autism research has been crystal clear and was obviously money well spent. Researchers have confidently linked over 1,000 genes to autism, so they’re getting close! Just another 999 to eliminate, and we’ll finally know for sure. But in the meantime, they’re hedging their bets on proven factors such as old moms, old dads, teen moms, black and Asian moms born outside the U.S., poor moms, and wealthy parents. They have narrowed it down to basically everyone.
Americans Have Financed Junk Science
All of the CDC’s scientific studies claiming to disprove the link between vaccination and autism are simply abhorrent. When research shows that vaccines cause autism, researchers use fraudulent methods to show the exact opposite result. CDC’s mission is not to determine if vaccines cause autism. It’s to prove they don’t.
What about the results of the gold standard studies I mentioned above? They’ve been annihilated by the true experts. Let’s take a look at the “rock-solid” CDC research papers published more than two decades ago.
The 2003 Verstraeten Study: The Lone Mercury Study is Scientific Quicksand
The website 14 Studies referred to this piece of work as, “A disaster. The most widely quoted study, and the only study ever done with American data on American children, reached a neutral conclusion, asked the wrong question, and the author left to join a vaccine company before its publication. And, the world’s most incriminating and public ‘secret meeting‘ calls the entire study into question.” Even a former CDC Director recently called this study “unhelpful and potentially misleading.”
For years, health officials waved this study around like a magic shield, reassuring parents that vaccine thimerosal mercury preservative was safe. But then a government-appointed panel declared there were “serious problems” with how the CDC conducted its research. Translation? The study was garbage, and now even the experts admit it.
So, what exactly was wrong with this never-to-be-questioned study? For starters, it relied on flimsy, inconsistent data from different HMOs, where autism diagnoses weren’t standardized. And it conveniently excluded 25% of children in the database—because why let messy real-world numbers get in the way of a good conclusion? SafeMinds flagged these issues years ago, but when Lyn Redwood brought her concerns directly to Dr. Verstraeten himself in 1999, the response was crickets. After years of gaslighting the public, the expert panel finally recognized that the study’s findings were neutral and in need of follow-up. “Neutral” is a creative way to describe a study whose early data reportedly showed a clear link between mercury exposure and neurodevelopmental disorders—before it was “adjusted” beyond recognition.
But here’s the best part: despite this mess, the Verstraeten study was still used as one of five key studies to prove there’s no link between thimerosal and autism in the 2004 Institute of Medicine (IOM) report. What happens when you build your entire argument on a foundation of scientific quicksand? You get a whole lot of very confident public health officials with absolutely no credibility when parents start asking real questions.
The 2003 Madsen Study: Half of the “Control Group” Were Vaccinated
The Madsen study is a fine example of how to design a study in a way that ensures you’ll never actually find what you’re supposedly looking for. Dr. Peter McCullough’s Substack on Madsen reveals that more than half of the children deemed unvaccinated for the MMR in the control group actually had medical records showing they’d received it.
While the Madsen researchers evaluated the MMR vaccine and autism risk using Danish health records, Dr. McCullough reports that only 40 out of 422 autism cases had their diagnoses verified. Plus, the study didn’t attempt to compare MMR recipients to completely unvaccinated children. Instead, they looked at kids who had skipped the MMR at 15 months and excluded toddlers who received an MMR at 16 months.
Then it got better: while the Madsen authors claimed 18% of the children in their study had missed their MMR shot at 15 months, another study found that 55% of these unvaccinated kids actually did receive the shot—just not properly recorded in the Danish system. Oops. So, both groups were essentially MMR-vaccinated, meaning the study compared MMR-vaccinated kids to MMR-vaccinated kids and then triumphantly declared no difference. Genius. No true control group of fully unvaccinated children, no independent review of all autism cases, and completely unreliable vaccine status data.
The 2004 Thompson Study Erased Kids After The Fact
Dr. William Thompson co-authored this CDC study of school children in Atlanta, investigating whether the age of MMR vaccination correlated with autism diagnoses. The answer—for black children, at least—was a resounding yes. Thompson didn’t want to present that information to hostile autism parents and sought guidance from CDC management. Their solution was to make the findings go away. Keep in mind that the study was already completed.
How do you make black children in Atlanta disappear from a study? By requiring their mothers to produce a Georgia birth certificate on short notice. 41% of the moms could not, so the study authors pulled their data from the study, and with them went the impact of the MMR findings.
Dr. Coleen Boyle praised the MMR in front of Congress in April 2002, and this Atlanta study has since been used countless times to prove that the MMR vaccine does not cause autism.
In 2014, Dr. Brian Hooker analyzed the raw data from the Thompson-CDC study, showing a 236% increased risk of autism—until the CDC forced the journal to retract it, citing “harm to the public.”
The CDC later justified its post-facto birth certificate requirement by claiming it allowed researchers to assess autism risk factors like maternal age, education level, and gestational age. Let’s not forget: birth certificates don’t contain this information anyway. Not in the year the kids in the study were born (around 1997), and not ever. Here, take a look at a 1997 Georgia birth certificate:
Do you see a place for mother’s education? I don’t. Perhaps this info was on the long form stored by the CDC but parents don’t keep the long form. So why did the CDC need birth certificates when they already own the database the long form birth certificates were stored in? The mental gymnastics required to justify this are absurd.
Vaccinated vs. Unvaccinated
A true vaccinated vs. unvaccinated study—where children who received zero vaccines are compared to fully-vaccinated-on-time children–is the final frontier that public health has studiously avoided for the past 40 years.
The most obvious question our government should have asked decades ago is, “What are the outcomes for children who have received zero vaccines?” How simple is this question? CDC claims its researchers can’t perform a vaccinated vs. unvaccinated study because, “It would be unethical to deprive children of vaccines.” Luckily there’s no need to deprive any child of vaccination against their parents’ wishes when, every year, the parents of more than 40,000 newborns voluntarily forgo all infant vaccination.
Yet, for nearly two decades, any attempt to reexamine the topic of vaccines and autism has been met with the same chorus of indignation: “How dare you question settled science?” But when autism rates continue to climb, and millions of families still wonder why, perhaps the real waste of money isn’t in funding a new study—it’s in refusing to do real science in the first place.
While the CDC gets going, we have independent studies with designs that give us more reliable and scientifically significant findings. Look for Part 2 as we materialize the elephant that big pharma has been hiding in the middle of the room.
Levi Quackenboss arrived on the medical freedom scene in 2015, launching one of the most viral blogs in the history of the movement. Whether it's distilling the science, explaining legal strategy, or motivating thousands of people to carry out calls to actions, LQ can be counted on to tackle issues with ferocity and humor.
When such a cataclysm stoking fear, uncertainty and economic catastrophe has been inflicted so publicly, on so many naïve ~ trusting citizens, the tricky matter of SUNK COSTS comes into play. This becomes particularly awkward in this era of “All is Recorded – Nothing is Lost”. Before the “Internet-Forgets-Nothing” era, and the imposition of damning medical records, a slippery “medical expert” or “expert scientific authority” could simply hidey-hide behind the Three Stances, as reputedly elaborated by Arthur Schopenhauer: #1: “This is fake and scurrilous misinformation and is too dangerous not to be suppressed vigorously … (Then, when doubt persists, evidence piles up and just won’t go away) #2: “Yes, yes, it may have a slight basis in fact but the data is trivial and incomplete, and the conclusions misleading … (Then, when the steamroller gets up a head of steam and rolls along) #3: “Of course it is true – this is self-evident and I always stated such, as anyone intelligent who reads my papers will have concluded.”
FAUCI: FEET TO THE FIRE