Claim: CDC covers up research linking MMR vaccine to autism

[Quantumbeliever]

For years, some parents of autistic children and others have made claims that vaccines and autism in their children were somehow linked. The CDC, among others countered that there was no evidence to support such an assertion. The article below references a scientist from the CDC who was recorded by a colleague during a discussion in which they talked about a 2004 study that showed a higher than expected autism rate among certain racial groups who had had the MMR vaccine. His admission (claim) seems to support the parents position. Curious as to how this community sees this. I'm quite disappointed there has been so little media coverage of this admission.
http://jonrappoport.wordpress.com/2014/08/27/the-big-one-cdc-whistleblower-goes-public-now/

 

[Pete Tar]

I'll see your manufactured bunk, and raise you one Snopes, one science-based-medicine, and two respectful insolences.

Here is the whsitleblower's statement.

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE-AUGUST 27,2014

STATEMENT OF WILLIAM W. THOMPSON, Ph.D., REGARDING THE 2004 ARTICLE EXAMINING THE POSSIBILITY OF A RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN MMR VACCINE AND AUTISM

My name is William Thompson. I am a Senior Scientist with the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, where I have worked since 1998.

I regret that my coauthors and I omitted statistically significant information in our 2004 article published in the journal Pediatrics. The omitted data suggested that African American males who received the MMR vaccine before age 36 months were at increased risk for autism. Decisions were made regarding which findings to report after the data were collected, and I believe that the final study protocol was not followed.

I want to be absolutely clear that I believe vaccines have saved and continue to save countless lives. I would never suggest that any parent avoid vaccinating children of any race. Vaccines prevent serious diseases, and the risks associated with their administration are vastly outweighed by their individual and societal benefits.

My concern has been the decision to omit relevant findings in a particular study for a particular sub group for a particular vaccine. There have always been recognized risks for vaccination and I believe it is the responsibility of the CDC to properly convey the risks associated with receipt of those vaccines.

I have had many discussions with Dr. Brian Hooker over the last 10 months regarding studies the CDC has carried out regarding vaccines and neurodevelopmental outcomes including autism spectrum disorders. I share his belief that CDC decision-making and analyses should be transparent. I was not, however, aware that he was recording any of our conversations, nor was I given any choice regarding whether my name would be made public or my voice would be put on the Internet.

I am grateful for the many supportive e-mails that I have received over the last several days. I will not be answering further questions at this time. I am providing information to Congressman William Posey, and of course will continue to cooperate with Congress. I have also offered to assist with reanalysis of the study data or development of further studies. For the time being, however, I am focused on my job and my family.

Reasonable scientists can and do differ in their interpretation of information. I will do everything I can to assist any unbiased and objective scientists inside or outside the CDC to analyze data collected by the CDC or other public organizations for the purpose of understanding whether vaccines are associated with an increased risk of autism. There are still more questions than answers, and I appreciate that so many families are looking for answers from the scientific community.

My colleagues and supervisors at the CDC have been entirely professional since this matter became public. In fact, I received a performance-based award after this story came out. I have experienced no pressure or retaliation and certainly was not escorted from the building, as some have stated.

Dr. Thompson is represented by Frederick M. Morgan,Jr., Morgan Verkamp, LLC, Cincinnati, Ohio, www.morganverkamp.com.

 

[Pete Tar]

For another thing, it hasn't been actually proven that there was any sort of malfeasance or scientific fraud at all, and even Thompson's statement, although it insinuates less-than-rigorous scientific behavior, does not support an accusation of fraud.
Even if it did, accusations are not convictions. Here's the problem. Antivaccinationists, as is usual, are being very selective in what they believe out of this press release.
They trumpet Thompson's statement about the Destefano et al as "proof" that the "CDC lied."
Yet, they're completely ignoring the biggest part of the statement: How massively enormous (or enormously massive) a slimeball Thompson just revealed Hooker to be—Wakefield, too. Thompson has just accused Hooker of having recorded him without informing him, a massive violation of the trust Hooker had nurtured between them.
...
Hooker states that Thompson called him up out of the blue about ten months ago, and both agree that their communications began around ten months ago. So that's probably true.
Both agree that they had many phone conversations over that period of time.
My guess is that Thompson, for whatever reason, called Hooker first, and Hooker reeled him in by offering a sympathetic ear and enthusiasm to reanalyze the data, as well as by playing to his ego and view of himself as a wronged warrior for the truth.
It didn't matter much that Hooker, if his "reanalysis" is to be believed, has the statistical and epidemiological skills of a paper cup.
The two men obviously hit it off, and Thompson confided more and more with him, while Hooker taped it all without Thompson's knowledge. Meanwhile, anyone paying attention to the rumblings of the antivaccine underground knew that Hooker had been claiming he had a "whistleblower" on the inside for quite some time now. Perhaps the CDC found out.
Or perhaps the CDC didn't find out, and nothing more happened other than that Hooker told Wakefield that he had hooked a live one, leading Wakefield to propose making that video, promising not to reveal Thompson's identity, a promise he never intended to keep.
Betrayals within betrayals. This can't all be laid on Wakefield. Hooker played Thompson by recording him, and apparently Wakefield played Hooker by tricking him into doing that video with a promise not to reveal Hooker's identity. Either way, Thompson was played, big time.

Ironically, Thompson's statement was released several hours after we learned that Hooker's incompetent reanalysis had been taken down pending further investigation, with the following notice:

This article has been removed from the public domain because of serious concerns about the validity of its conclusions. The journal and publisher believe that its continued availability may not be in the public interest. Definitive editorial action will be pending further investigation.


http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2...and-the-cdc-whistleblower-issues-a-statement/

 

[Quantumbeliever]

I'll see your manufactured bunk, and raise you one Snopes, one science-based-medicine, and two respectful insolences.

Here is the whsitleblower's statement.

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE-AUGUST 27,2014

STATEMENT OF WILLIAM W. THOMPSON, Ph.D., REGARDING THE 2004 ARTICLE EXAMINING THE POSSIBILITY OF A RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN MMR VACCINE AND AUTISM

My name is William Thompson. I am a Senior Scientist with the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, where I have worked since 1998.

I regret that my coauthors and I omitted statistically significant information in our 2004 article published in the journal Pediatrics. The omitted data suggested that African American males who received the MMR vaccine before age 36 months were at increased risk for autism. Decisions were made regarding which findings to report after the data were collected, and I believe that the final study protocol was not followed.

I want to be absolutely clear that I believe vaccines have saved and continue to save countless lives. I would never suggest that any parent avoid vaccinating children of any race. Vaccines prevent serious diseases, and the risks associated with their administration are vastly outweighed by their individual and societal benefits.

My concern has been the decision to omit relevant findings in a particular study for a particular sub group for a particular vaccine. There have always been recognized risks for vaccination and I believe it is the responsibility of the CDC to properly convey the risks associated with receipt of those vaccines.

I have had many discussions with Dr. Brian Hooker over the last 10 months regarding studies the CDC has carried out regarding vaccines and neurodevelopmental outcomes including autism spectrum disorders. I share his belief that CDC decision-making and analyses should be transparent. I was not, however, aware that he was recording any of our conversations, nor was I given any choice regarding whether my name would be made public or my voice would be put on the Internet.

I am grateful for the many supportive e-mails that I have received over the last several days. I will not be answering further questions at this time. I am providing information to Congressman William Posey, and of course will continue to cooperate with Congress. I have also offered to assist with reanalysis of the study data or development of further studies. For the time being, however, I am focused on my job and my family.

Reasonable scientists can and do differ in their interpretation of information. I will do everything I can to assist any unbiased and objective scientists inside or outside the CDC to analyze data collected by the CDC or other public organizations for the purpose of understanding whether vaccines are associated with an increased risk of autism. There are still more questions than answers, and I appreciate that so many families are looking for answers from the scientific community.

My colleagues and supervisors at the CDC have been entirely professional since this matter became public. In fact, I received a performance-based award after this story came out. I have experienced no pressure or retaliation and certainly was not escorted from the building, as some have stated.

Dr. Thompson is represented by Frederick M. Morgan,Jr., Morgan Verkamp, LLC, Cincinnati, Ohio, www.morganverkamp.com.

Very very interesting. Thx. What's kind if weird is that the first third of the Snopes article is seemingly making the case that the whole thing was an internet hoax, then they confirm Thompsons statement made though his lawyer. From there they basically say that there is no clear cut evidence of any correlation between vaccines and children; only in a very small subgroup (Black kids). One important point is this, Pete: the Snopes article confirms, not denies Thompsons statement. AND in his statement he says, "I regret that my coauthors and I omitted statistically significant information in our 2004..." So whether the correlation is insignificant or not, the Snopes article CONFIRMS that data was manipulated! Of course Snopes leaves that obvious assessment to the reader. In my mind, it is THE salient point! The CDC covered up data. Period. It really doesn't matter if the data was good or bad, it should have been included. When a scientist says, "I regret..." you can be darn sure he feels the same way!

 

[deirdre]

Very very interesting. Thx. What's kind if weird is that the first third of the Snopes article is seemingly making the case that the whole thing was an internet hoax, then they confirm Thompsons statement made though his lawyer. From there they basically say that there is no clear cut evidence of any correlation between vaccines and children; only in a very small subgroup (Black kids). One important point is this, Pete: the Snopes article confirms, not denies Thompsons statement. AND in his statement he says, "I regret that my coauthors and I omitted statistically significant information in our 2004..." So whether the correlation is insignificant or not, the Snopes article CONFIRMS that data was manipulated! Of course Snopes leaves that obvious assessment to the reader. In my mind, it is THE salient point! The CDC covered up data. Period. It really doesn't matter if the data was good or bad, it should have been included. When a scientist says, "I regret..." you can be darn sure he feels the same way!

Thomas says

Reasonable scientists can and do differ in their interpretation of information. I will do everything I can to assist any unbiased and objective scientists inside or outside the CDC to analyze data collected by the CDC or other public organizations for the purpose of understanding whether vaccines are associated with an increased risk of autism

and

My concern has been the decision to omit relevant findings in a particular study for a particular sub group for a particular vaccine.

THe CDC concurs that continued analysis is always welcome

Access to the information on the birth certificates allowed researchers to assess more complete information on race as well as other important characteristics, including possible risk factors for autism such as the child's birth weight, mother's age, and education. This information was not available for the children without birth certificates; hence CDC study did not present data by race on black, white, or other race children from the whole study sample. It presented the results on black and white/other race children from the group with birth certificates.

The data CDC collected for this study continue to be available for analysis by others. CDC welcomes analysis by others that can be submitted for peer-review and publication. For more information on how to access this public-use dataset please go to the this webpage.

Additional studies and a more recent rigorous review by the Institute of Medicine have found that MMR vaccine does not increase the risk of autism.
http://www.cdc.gov/vaccinesafety/Concerns/Autism/cdc2004pediatrics.html

I won't get into Hooker's huge amount of bunk in his "reanalysis" article since it is off topic, but please feel free to start a thread on it!

 

[Quantumbeliever]

I think we should (obviously) be very careful when trying to find the truth. Really all we know is that a scientist has stated, on the record, that he regretted not including certain data in a study.
That doesn't mean the data was relevant, however, if the data was entirely irrelevant, it begs the question: What is the source of his "regret"?
I really don't know what to think. You can bet your boots there will be legal action. Maybe at some point we shall discover the veracity of the report and the importance of the data in question.

 

[Pete Tar]

What do you know about the existence of legal action that you are willing to lose your footwear over it?
What are the details?

 

[deirdre]

Really all we know is that a scientist has stated, on the record, that he regretted not including certain data in a study

whats a bit odd is he specifically says "My concern has been the decision to omit relevant findings in a particular study for a particular sub group for a particular vaccine" when surely this study cant isolate the MMR vaccine from other vaccines received. 70.5% of the 'autism like' cases in the study were between 12-17 months. and even Hookers 'analysis' doesn't show that big a discrepancy between races in that age range. it's weird.

 

[Pete Tar]

Of course, the key finding in Brian Hooker's paper is that Wakefield was wrong. Indeed, in this video, Wakefield even admits that he was mostly wrong about MMR and autism. Let that sink in again. He admits that he was mostly wrong about MMR and autism. OK, he says we were "partially right," but the flip side of that is that he must have been mostly wrong. What do I mean? I'll explain.
...
http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2...ew-wakefield-wrong-about-vaccines-and-autism/

(wordy complex stuff follows)

 

[deirdre]

Of course, the key finding in Brian Hooker's paper is that Wakefield was wrong. Indeed, in this video, Wakefield even admits that he was mostly wrong about MMR and autism. Let that sink in again. He admits that he was mostly wrong about MMR and autism. OK, he says we were "partially right," but the flip side of that is that he must have been mostly wrong. What do I mean? I'll explain.
...
http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2...ew-wakefield-wrong-about-vaccines-and-autism/

(wordy complex stuff follows)

except... Hooker's 'retracted' paper (available here) is so full of bunk itself... but I don't think his bunky retracted paper is on topic. ??

 

[fearmonger]

I disregard anything written by snopes. They've been wrong before not to mention it's a couple of leftist loons.

 

[NoParty]

I disregard anything written by snopes. They've been wrong before not to mention it's a couple of leftist loons.

Who has a better track record than Snopes?

The "leftist" claim is a relatively recent meme, started by people who got angry that Barbara Mikkelson
repeatedly exposed their nonsense. The site is not political, and actually inadvertently pursues far more
"Obama is a secret Muslim" type claims from the right than the left.

Thus, you're obviously free to "disregard" whatever you like...but the reasons you give don't hold water.

 

[deirdre]

I disregard anything written by snopes. They've been wrong before not to mention it's a couple of leftist loons.

if a source given is wrong, it is your job to provide evidence of that. disregarding a specific claim of evidence, based on nothing, is not productive.

 

[NoParty]

if a source given is wrong, it is your job to provide evidence of that. disregarding a specific claim of evidence, based on nothing, is not productive.

Well said, Landru.





Wait a minute...

 

[KalleMP]

I recently read the following in a SubStack post by Meryl Naas and now saw this thread and thought it would be prudent to put in new developments.

WSJ misrepresents the history and hiring of David Geier to unravel CDC's database machinations

It seems the CDC may have known already in 1999 that there was a connection between autism and SOME vaccine.

From a recent comment to a Wall Street Journal article (link and I think the full comment in the post above but behind paywall so I cannot check) RFK Jr. wrote the following.

In 1999, an in-house study of the VSD by CDC showed an alarming and elevated risk for autism and other neurological diseases among children receiving certain vaccines early in life. The CDC in-house researchers found an astronomical increased 11.35x risk in one run of the raw data and reduced that in a subsequent iteration to a still frightening 2.68x increased risk by unethically altering study protocols

It looks like David Geier, Dr Mark Geier's son should soon gain access to the data where the CDC found the association but hampered access to prevent independent study of the data.

CDC has repeatedly claimed to have lost the critical data underlying that research. Those alarming findings prompted CDC to terminate the VSD data sharing program and take draconian steps to prevent outside researchers from ever again accessing the VSD. Beginning in 2001, CDC created an architecture of byzantine rules to block independent scientists from access. CDC also disaggregated the VSD data and put it under control of private corporations to further ensure that it could never be studied by external researchers. In 2002, the U.S. Congress Government Oversight Committee ordered CDC to allow Dr. Geier and his son to access the VSD data, which the agency maintains at enormous expense to the U.S. taxpayers. In extraordinary acts of insubordination, CDC repeatedly refused that Congressional order.

Hiding data seems like a cheap trick and I hope this question gets answered transparently.

Regards

Kalle
--
Helsinki, Finland

 

[Mendel]

RFK Jr. wrote the following.

RFK Jr. is not a credible source.

 

[MonkeeSage]

Hiding data seems like a cheap trick and I hope this question gets answered transparently.

It has been answered transparently. The people claiming a conspiracy theory are the ones who need to provide evidence of their claim.

'There's No Conspiracy': An Inside Look at CDC's Key Vaccine Safety Database — RFK Jr. has made a boogeyman out of the VSD, but it's a critical tool for surveillance
by Kristina Fiore, Director of Enterprise & Investigative Reporting, MedPage Today
May 22, 2025

Frank DeStefano, MD, MPH, was there in the early days of the CDC's Vaccine Safety Datalink (VSD), which first came online in 1990, when the agency convinced four health maintenance organizations (HMOs) to contribute data to assess vaccine safety.

Although DeStefano retired from the CDC about 3 years ago, he used to be the director of its Immunization Safety Office, and led VSD through many waves of vaccine safety concerns, from autism all the way to COVID shots.

"It's a highly established, very talented, highly capable group of researchers that are really dedicated to ensuring the safety of vaccines," DeStefano told MedPage Today. "It's a highly valuable infrastructure to be able to quickly monitor vaccine safety."

That's not exactly how HHS Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. described the VSD in congressional hearings earlier this month.

"There's been a lot of monkey business with VSD, including allegations of fraud," Kennedy said during a Senate hearing last week. "There's so much information that's disappeared from that database."

Vaccine safety experts say Kennedy's assessment couldn't be more wrong, and that the VSD has been one of the most valuable tools for detecting true vaccine-related adverse events in the U.S. And although there was a change, decades ago, in how data were collected and stored, nothing has been hidden from researchers or the public.

VSD was actually borne of a movement to make U.S. vaccine safety surveillance even better, they said.

How VSD Came to Be

In the early 1980s, concerns were growing about rare neurological effects associated with the whole-cell pertussis vaccine, and the anti-vaccine movement was picking up steam -- notably led by a group called Dissatisfied Parents Together (DPT), whose name was a reference to the diphtheria, pertussis, and tetanus vaccine they were chiefly concerned about. (This group today is known as the National Vaccine Information Center.)

This led to an onslaught of lawsuits, which ultimately made vaccine manufacturers nervous and led to vaccine shortages, Walter Orenstein, MD, who was the director of the CDC's National Center for Immunization and Respiratory Diseases when the VSD came online, told MedPage Today. This eventually led to the passage of the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act of 1986, which established the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program (VICP) -- acknowledging that rare adverse events can happen after vaccination, and patients should be compensated, Orenstein said.

The legislation also called for mandatory reporting of adverse events to HHS. At the time, the main reporting system was known as the Monitoring System for Adverse Events Following Immunizations, which was started in the late 1970s but had limitations. It was replaced in 1990 by the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS), which is co-managed by the FDA and CDC.

But VAERS was limited in that it could only be used for hypothesis generation; there was no way it could begin to get at the issue of causality. So DeStefano and other CDC leaders went to bat for the creation of a new type of surveillance system -- the VSD.

A system that could help pinpoint causality would be more useful for determining true vaccine-related injuries, and enable them to become part of the VICP, Orenstein said.

By 1990, the CDC had funding in hand to bring the VSD online. They started with four HMOs: Group Health in Washington, Northwest Kaiser Permanente in Oregon, Northern California Kaiser Permanente, and Southern California Kaiser Permanente.

The advantage of using HMOs? "Primarily, it was because they had computerized records," DeStefano told MedPage Today. "They had a known population ... and they're integrated systems so people would get virtually all their healthcare within the system, from outpatient care to specialty care, to hospitalizations, lab work, and prescriptions."

Over time, the network grew to 11 organizations that contribute data, as well as two that solely provide subject matter expertise. The CDC lists all of the contributing organizations on its website.

How VSD Works

For its first decade, VSD used a centralized database, requiring each institution to send files to the CDC.

But over time, concerns about data privacy increased, DeStefano said, so in 2001 a new system was set up. Since that time, the organizations "maintain their own data, and for each study a protocol is established and the data elements needed to do that analysis are provided by each organization," he said.

"Usually one of the sites takes the lead in doing a particular analysis, and sometimes the CDC may take the lead," he added.

The former was the case for COVID vaccine safety surveillance using the VSD, which was led by one of the Kaiser sites.

The latter was the case for two studies -- one published in the New England Journal of Medicine, and another in Pediatrics -- of vaccines and autism authored by DeStefano and colleagues. The researchers conducted additional neuropsychological testing to make sure patients truly had diagnoses of developmental disorders and autism, DeStefano said.

Over the years, the VSD has helped identify a number of vaccine risks, including a higher rate of intussusception with the original rotavirus vaccine and a higher rate of myocarditis in young men after the COVID shot.

Its "rapid cycle analysis" process detected an increased risk of febrile seizures after the measles-mumps-rubella (MMR)-varicella (MMRV) vaccine compared with MMR alone, according to a 2014 paper in Vaccine. CDC's Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) used the findings to change its recommendations "from a stated preference for MMRV to expressing no preference for MMRV or separate MMR plus varicella vaccination."

This process has also provided reassurance of safety for other vaccines, including seasonal influenza vaccines, the human papillomavirus vaccine, and newer rotavirus vaccines, according to that paper.

Kathryn Edwards, MD, a retired pediatrician and vaccine expert in Tennessee, said Kennedy's comments about data disappearing from the database are likely tied to a misunderstanding about how the CDC's VSD autism studies were conducted.

"The data aren't taken away. You don't delete someone's medical record. All of these data are there," Edwards told MedPage Today. "But what you have to do is classify whether people had the diagnosis or not. You have to come up with a standardized diagnosis."

She said this is essential if Kennedy wants to conduct another study of vaccines and autism appropriately. During the Senate hearing, Kennedy said he brought in David Geier to look at VSD data on vaccines and autism. Geier and his father, the late Mark Geier, MD, have been controversial figures in the medical community for their claims about vaccines and autism.

There are scores of other experts in the U.S. who have studied vaccines and autism all their lives, Edwards noted.

"They want to have answers. There's no conspiracy to keep the truth from people," she said. "I have a grandchild who has autism. Do you think I want to hide things? No. But I don't want definitions that aren't meaningful, and I don't want people who don't know what they're talking about to make the definitions. The whole assessment has to be done skillfully."

Source: https://www.medpagetoday.com/special-reports/features/115717

 

[FatPhil]

I recently read the following in a SubStack post by Meryl Naas and now saw this thread and thought it would be prudent to put in new developments.

Never heard of her, even without the typo, >clickety-click<

The video shows Dr. Meryl Nass, whose medical license was suspended,[*1] by the Maine Board of Licensure in 2022 for spreading misinformation about COVID-19, speaking at a conference held by pandemic and vaccine skeptics in May 2023.

https://www.reuters.com/fact-check/...ess-soft-coup-is-not-who-official-2024-12-24/

[* links to https://web.archive.org/web/2024052...7D5F44C19364CD7&AspxAutoDetectCookieSupport=1 which indeed seems to be evidence of her suspension]

It seems she's not a reliable source of information on medical matters.

 

[John J.]

Hi @Kalle, welcome,
I hadn't heard of Meryl Nass either, but she doesn't seem a very reliable source, and clearly believes in conspiracy theories:
In the Reuters article linked to by @FatPhil, she is quoted as saying, May 2023,

...we are undergoing a soft coup, and the idea is to create a whole new set of laws and ignore the existing human rights laws and other laws under the pretext of pandemic preparedness and the biosecurity agenda.

Over two years later, I can't think of one nation state that is ignoring existing (May 2023) human rights laws "...under the pretext of pandemic preparedness and the biosecurity agenda."
(I will happily be corrected- if someone can state what specific human rights law, in what location, has been ignored for those reasons).

Different sovereign states have different domestic human rights legislation, if they have such legislation.
Similarly, different states have different interpretations, and/ or observance, of international human rights legislation.
See Wikipedia, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_human_rights_law

We know China imposed draconian restrictions on movement in some areas during the COVID-19 pandemic, but China routinely restricts movement of its own citizens, and judicially executes more people than the rest of the world put together.
It has systematically repressed expressions of minority culture, notably by Uyghur people, often using punitive force.
From 1979 to 2015, the Chinese government allowed couples to have 1 child, from 2015 to 2021, two children, since then, 3.
Many people in other nations might consider this an extraordinary infringement of human rights.

Australia, New Zealand and some Pacific island nations imposed strict international travel controls during the COVID-19 pandemic, but it was their sovereign right to do so, and those restrictions have been lifted. Human rights are not under serious systematic threat in Australia or New Zealand.

Temporary limitations on size of social gatherings, and closure of social venues, has precedents in many nations during earlier disease outbreaks and sometimes during wartime. No such limitations, imposed in some nations during the COVID-19 pandemic to restrict or delay spread, remain AFAIK.

Human rights are routinely violated in (and by) some nations, and might be under threat in many others, but not because of pandemic preparedness or because of anything done by the World Health Organisation.

So Meryl Naas' alarming prophecy seems to be wrong.
It's possible her views about vaccines are wrong too.

 

[obiwanbenobi]

Well perhaps the emperor has now thrown out his invisible clothes and is now ordering a new set...

 

[KalleMP]

....
And although there was a change, decades ago, in how data were collected and stored, nothing has been hidden from researchers or the public.
....

Since that time, the organizations "maintain their own data, and for each study a protocol is established and the data elements needed to do that analysis are provided by each organization," he said.
....

Source: https://www.medpagetoday.com/special-reports/features/115717

MonkeySage gave a thoughtful response about the history of the VSD and vaccine harms they have detected. Yet if we are to believe what was written it does seem as if the changes made to how the VSD is managed has made it near impossible for the public to access the data without the expense and overhead of a formal study since the changes around 2001.

The Timing of the change is also interesting, possibly coincidence but also an effective way to hide data, time will tell.

The only data point of interest in my comment was the following:

In 1999, an in-house study of the VSD by CDC showed an alarming and elevated risk for autism and other neurological diseases among children receiving certain vaccines early in life.

The rest was merely context and sources.

Yet excluding MonkeySage's response the only comments were attacks on the messengers and pointing out my confusion with the familiar name Naas Botha. My quote was a quote from RFK Jr. and not Meryl and as he is the SHHS I would hope that he has made some basic checks on the information.

Did such a study occur in 1999? Did it show elevated correlation to autism?

I would be interested in knowing but in no immediate rush.

Regards

Kalle
--
Helsinki, Finland

 

[Mendel]

it does seem as if the changes made to how the VSD is managed has made it near impossible for the public to access the data without the expense and overhead of a formal study since the changes around 2001.

Yes. That's good, because it's the medical data of actual people. Would you be happy to know that anyone could easily look at your medical data?
The access protocols are in place to balance the need for research with the need for privacy [Edit:] and medical confidentiality.

 

[JMartJr]

My quote was a quote from RFK Jr. and not Meryl and as he is the SHHS I would hope that he has made some basic checks on the information.

It seems hard to find grounds for such a hope.

 

[KalleMP]

Yes. That's good, because it's the medical data of actual people. Would you be happy to know that anyone could easily look at your medical data?
The access protocols are in place to balance the need for research with the need for privacy.

You are speculating that access protocols were not in place before 2001, why?
Do you have some indication that private medical data was published before 2001?

I would love it if people would focus on the important issue.

Regards

Kalle
--
Helsinki, Finland

 

[Mendel]

You are speculating that access protocols were not in place before 2001, why?
Do you have some indication that private medical data was published before 2001?

No, the access protocols were in place then. The change in 2001 concerned where the data was held.

Edit: I found that Kaiser Permanente and the FDA have used the VSD to do studies.

The rest was merely context and sources.

You have not given any sources except for Nass's blog post, and her only source is RFK Jr., who's been an anti-vaxxer for decades and did not source anything, either.

You simply have not shown any evidence for your claims.
We don't believe claims without evidence, and neither should you.

 

[Mendel]

WSJ misrepresents the history and hiring of David Geier to unravel CDC's database machinations

Spoiler: RFK Jr's Tweet

Source: https://x.com/SecKennedy/status/1931360039496712222

also reproduced at https://www.sott.net/article/500021...over-lost-vaccine-safety-data-from-CDC-system

Nass quotes RFK Jr.:

Among a long retinue of manufactured impediments, CDC assigned a pair of burly monitors to oversee the Geiers' every movement.

With good reason, as it turned out:

Article:

This letter is to inform you that my office has received reports from the technical monitors that accompanied Dr. Mark Geier and Mr. David Geier on their October 2003 and January 2004 visits to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) Research Data Center) in Hyattsville, Maryland.

In summary, during the first visit the researchers conducted unapproved analysis on their datasets and on the second visit attempted to carry out unapproved analyses but did not complete this attempt. This analysis, had it been completed, could have increased the risk of a confidentiality breach. Before leaving, the researchers renamed files for removal which were not allowed to be removed. Had it gone undetected, this would have constituted a breach of the rules about confidentiality.

Source: https://quackwatch.org/cases/fdawarning/rsch/geier/

Read more details there.

A more complete rundown on the Geier-related claims is at https://sciencebasedmedicine.org/senator-hassan-sets-secretary-kennedy-straight/ , which I recommend reading twice.
Here are snippets from that page concerning their access to the VSD:

Article:

In 2002, after being pressured by Congressman Dan Burton to allow "independent researchers" to study the VSD, Mark and David Geier received approval to conduct their work at the secure Research Data Center in Hyattsville, Maryland. However, that work was cut short after the Geiers committed multiple breaches of research protocol. [see above]

A second trip by Mark and David Geier to the RDC, made in 2006 at the behest of the Petitioners' Steering Committee (PSC) for the Omnibus Autism Proceeding, yielded a similar result.

Source: https://sciencebasedmedicine.org/senator-hassan-sets-secretary-kennedy-straight/

You can find the details, and lots of links to sources, there.

The wikipedia page on Mark Geier also links to lots of sources detailing their legal troubles. For example:

Article:

In 2011, his son David was charged by the Maryland State Board of Physicians with practicing as a licensed physician when he only has a Bachelor of Arts degree in biology, and was fined $10,000 in July 2012.

Source: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mark_Geier

The Geiers broke the rules, running roughshod over the well-being and privacy concerns of others, because they felt justified by their beliefs, which are not based on evidence.

This is the caliber of people you find supporting the anti-vax movement.
Do not believe them without evidence.

 

[Ann K]

My quote was a quote from RFK Jr. and not Meryl and as he is the SHHS I would hope that he has made some basic checks on the information.

No, basic checks on facts are NOT what he is noted for.

The authors of the "Make America Healthy Again" report issued by Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. touted it as a landmark assessment providing "common scientific basis" to shape health policy.

But that "scientific basis" appeared to have errors generated by a likely culprit: generative artificial intelligence.

At least seven of the report's citations were problematic, as NOTUS first reported. Four contained titles of papers that don't exist, and three mischaracterized the articles' findings.

https://www.politifact.com/article/2025/may/30/MAHA-report-AI-fake-citations/

In addition he is replacing experts with ...we don't know what yet..., a thing he explicitly promised not to do in his confirmation hearings.

Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. has fired a panel of 17 medical and public health experts that advised the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention on vaccine policy, and is expected to replace them with individuals aligned with his own vaccine skepticism.
.....
The move comes after Kennedy promised Sen. Bill Cassidy (R-La.) that he would make no changes to the committee in order to secure the senator's support for his confirmation.

https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/politics-news/rfk-jr-fires-cdc-vaccine-panel-1235360211/

Between his current activities and his questionable past, I see no reason to trust what he says. A great number of doctors and medical associations agree with me.

By gutting the expert panel that's advised the government on vaccine policy for more than 60 years, Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. earned the condemnation of virtually every medical society, as well as former public health officials and local practitioners.

https://www.axios.com/2025/06/11/vaccines-public-health-apic-cdc-rfk

 

[RTM]

At best RFK has horrible judgement, at worse he is incredibly dishonest. I listened to the two videos below recently. The first looks at his attitude to the rotavirus vaccine and his claims about it, the fact that people can't figure out where he gets his information is mind boggling. The second video contains some details on his beliefs on the Spanish Flu origins and claims he made about a paper Anton Fauci wrote on Spanish Flu deaths.

Video 1
Video 2

 

[Mendel]

RFK Jr. is not a credible source.

Article:

Here is how Kennedy explained that inconvenient fact:

"They [the scientists at the conference] panicked. They had a 3.5-hour discussion about how to hide this from the public, which I published in Rolling Stone and Salon. Salon later pulled it, said it was taken out of context. Read those quotes in [Seth] Mnookin's book [The Panic Virus : The True Story Behind the Vaccine-Autism Controversy], not even in my article, better yet read the transcripts.​

Here's the short version. There was a day of presentations of data with much questioning and discussion of the meaning of the results. Then the participants were asked to rate the possibility of a causal link (Thimerosal to autism) on a scale of one to six: one being a weak causal link, six strong. From page 189 to 222 of the transcript (remember, RFK says "better yet read the transcripts") you can read of one attendee after another (with just one exception) grading the likelihood of a causal relationship as being either a one or a two. There was only one exception (Dr. Weil) who gave it a four. Guess which one Kennedy quoted.

Please do read the transcript as Kennedy urges. I did. There was no discussion about how to hide anything. If Kennedy really did read the transcript, then he is lying when he says it shows a cover up.

Source: https://skeptico.blogs.com/skeptico/antivaccination_hysteria/

 

[Ann K]

@Mendel
Some of that discussion was irrelevant anyway:

Fact
Thimerosal was taken out of childhood vaccines in the United States in 2001.

• Measles, mumps, and rubella (MMR) vaccines do not and never did contain thimerosal.
• Varicella (chickenpox), inactivated polio (IPV), and pneumococcal conjugate vaccines have also never contained thimerosal.
• Influenza (flu) vaccines are currently available in both thimerosal-containing (for multi-dose vaccine vials) and thimerosal-free versions.

• https://www.cdc.gov/vaccine-safety/about/thimerosal.html

 

[John J.]

...the only comments were attacks on the messengers...

If someone makes an extraordinary claim without checkable supporting evidence, it can be useful to consider:
-Is the source reliable?
-Have they made extraordinary claims before, and if so, were they correct?

Supposing we read the claim,
"I can't reveal the location at the moment, but I've had clearance to report that while I was at a research facility a radio source was detected, producing an apparently structured signal consistent with an intelligent extraterrestrial origin."

If the author was Seth Shostak or Michio Kaku, we might suddenly pay attention. Many of us might eagerly await further news.
If the author was Luis Elizondo or Jaime Maussan, we might not have the same level of interest.

Naas has made extraordinary (and arguably fear-mongering) claims about public health measures before, and has been wrong.
That doesn't mean everything she says is wrong, but if she makes another extraordinary claim, we might pause for thought.

Her substack archive of "Meryl's CHAOS Newsletter" is here, https://merylnass.substack.com/archive.
Many of her strongly-held views , e.g. about the benefits vs. risk of vaccines generally, and anthropogenic global warming, are not supported by data from any nation and are at variance with the overwhelming majority of reliable studies.
Possible reasons for this are:
(1) There is a pan-national conspiracy, involving pretty much all virologists, bacteriologists, epidemiologists, respected medical researchers, the World Health Organisation, meteorologists, climatologists, science/ medicine journal editors and peer-reviewers.
(2) Naas' views about vaccines and global warming are wrong.

Her opinions about preventing disease are bizarre;
from "What's Up With Birdflu?":

A real virus, but there are lots of viruses and we ignore 99% of them, and if we simply ignored bird flu, maybe there would be nothing to worry about?

Influenza can be a killer. Some major influenza strains have been of zoonotic origin- they start in a non-human species but (often due to mutation) cross the species barrier and cause illness in humans. There are major international collaborations in detecting and studying emergent influenza strains, their effects and spread, not least the Global Influenza Surveillance and Response System, administered by the World Health Organisation (WHO).

If a strain of bird flu arose which was more readily transmissible to, and between, humans, there is a problem: We can't realistically control the movement of birds.
Naas' informed opinion is- ignore it and hope for the best; raise fears about effective disease prevention instead.
-Oh, and demonise WHO and pretend it's a bit like SPECTRE in the James Bond films, or a Communist conspiracy.

A quick opinion on the WHO: Like many organisations with a large bureaucratic element, there is undoubtedly waste and grift within WHO. However, the WHO and its workers are largely responsible for the eradication of smallpox; no cases since 1977 and declared extinct in nature in 1979 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smallpox.
This was done by the creation of a surveillance system (of the type Naas doesn't want for bird flu) and systematic vaccination.
Smallpox had a fatality rate of approx. 30%, possibly higher. many survivors were permanently scarred, sometimes blinded.
There wasn't (while smallpox existed in the wild) an effective treatment.

Efforts largely co-ordinated by WHO (but now more commonly run by individual nation's health agencies) have almost eradicated polio in nature, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polio, though it remains in Pakistan and Afghanistan.

In Afghanistan, the Taliban banned house-to-house polio vaccination between 2018 and 2021. These factors have set back efforts to eliminate polio by means of vaccination in these countries.

Vaccine workers were killed. Outbreaks in other nations have occurred with their origins in Pakistan and Afghanistan.

I have some sympathy with the former US government position that they payed a disproportionate amount towards WHO, but proportionate to wealth (size of economy) Germany, Japan and the UK each contributed more than the USA.

The eradication of smallpox, and reduction of polio, has been economically beneficial for every country (let alone the reduction in human suffering).

 

[Mendel]

I have some sympathy with the former US government position that they payed a disproportionate amount towards WHO,

I don't. The people who claim that typically include private payments such as by the Gates Foundation.

Efforts largely co-ordinated by WHO (but now more commonly run by individual nation's health agencies)

For clarification, WHO generally coordinates the efforts of individual nation's health agencies. WHO doesn't go anywhere uninvited, but they provide support when asked, or when they negotiate a reluctant government into accepting it.
(Anti-vax governments used to sometimes be found in Africa. It used to be unthinkable to find one in North America.)

 

[John J.]

(Sorry for going off-thread like an inebriated silkworm)

I don't. The people who claim that typically include private payments such as by the Gates Foundation.

Wikipedia, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Health_Organization

Actually, on thinking about it I might agree with @Mendel, there might be a compelling argument for other nations spending more but that's not the same as a good reason for existing funders to pay less.
Combatting disease, especially infectious illnesses, and mitigating their effects, benefits all of us.

 

[Mendel]

Actually, on thinking about it I might agree with @Mendel, there might be a compelling argument for other nations spending more but that's not the same as a good reason for existing funders to pay less.
Combatting disease, especially infectious illnesses, and mitigating their effects, benefits all of us.

Article:

Assessed contributions (AC) are the amounts each of the 196 Members and Associate Members must pay to WHO on an annual basis. The assessment scale is calculated by the United Nations based mainly on the country's GDP and is adjusted for WHO's membership.

Source: https://www.who.int/about/funding/assessed-contributions

Basically, every country pays proportionally the same. This causes the US to pay more because they're richer. If the US was poorer, it'd pay less.
Edit: I think that's actually the same scale that the UN uses elsewhere for its contributions.

We had a wee bit of discussion on that 5 years ago, at https://www.metabunk.org/threads/covid-19-coronavirus-current-events.11085/post-237328 and following.

 

[KalleMP]

Thank you all for time on this slightly tangential query. I have seen the confirmation I require.

It turns out there was data to review.

It seems sometime in 1999 a study to determine the causality of a/some vaccine/s with autism was undertaken.

The quote below is discussing a meeting in 2000 called the Simpsonwood conference I had not heard of before where 6 participants reviewed data

Article:

Here is how Kennedy explained that inconvenient fact:

​

There was a day of presentations of data with much questioning and discussion of the meaning of the results. Then the participants were asked to rate the possibility of a causal link (Thimerosal to autism) on a scale of one to six: one being a weak causal link, six strong. From page 189 to 222 of the transcript (remember, RFK says "better yet read the transcripts") you can read of one attendee after another (with just one exception) grading the likelihood of a causal relationship as being either a one or a two. There was only one exception (Dr. Weil) who gave it a four. Guess which one Kennedy quoted.

Source: https://skeptico.blogs.com/skeptico/antivaccination_hysteria/

@Mendel mentions that

In 2002, after being pressured by Congressman Dan Burton

the Geier's were given access, that they seem to have abused in their zeal, to some of the data on some occasions in 2003-2006 (approximately).

I believe the amount of information that can be extracted from published sources is limited at this time.

I look forward to a time that the full VSD (and other surveillance) data set/s can be used in suitable studies to try and determine any rates of causality. I think if there is clear evidence one way or the other it should be studied comprehensively and impartially and the public should be TOLD without having to use FOIA requests etc. While a negative correlation would be a great comfort to many any studies might also assist with trying to determine any other root causes.

Regards

Kalle
--
Helsinki, Finland

 

[Mendel]

The quote below is discussing a meeting in 2000 called the Simpsonwood conference I had not heard of before where 6 participants reviewed d

The Simpsonwood Conference is documented on wikipedia.
The first pages of the transcript show that about 50 people attended.
At the end of the conference, these 50 people rated the possibility of a causal link from Thimerosal to autism on a scale of 1 to 6, where 6 would indicate a strong link. But all but one attendee rated this possibility as weak (1 or 2).

 

[Ann K]

I look forward to a time that the full VSD (and other surveillance) data set/s can be used in suitable studies to try and determine any rates of causality.

It's been done, time and again. And any discussion (such as at the Simpsonwood conference) that centers around vaccines containing thimerosal are now moot in a time when thimerosal is not being used.

 

[John J.]

There is no evidence of a correlation between autism/ autism spectrum disorder and vaccinations.

E.g., "The myth of vaccination and autism spectrum", Gabis, L.V., Attia, O.L., Goldman, M. et al, 2021, European Journal of Paediatric Neurology, Vol. 36; full text hosted on the USA National Library of Medicine, National Center for Biotechnology Information website https://pmc.cbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8694782/

The paper acknowledges the increased diagnosis of autism in recent years. It discusses studies into the safety of vaccines which include Thimerosal, and those without. No connection between vaccines and increased rates of autism has been demonstrated.

US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), "Autism and Vaccines", 30 December 2024:

Key points

• Studies have shown that there is no link between receiving vaccines and developing autism spectrum disorder (ASD).
• No links have been found between any vaccine ingredients and ASD.

Vaccine ingredients do not cause autism
Thimerosal
One vaccine ingredient that has been studied specifically is thimerosal. Thimerosal is a mercury-based preservative used to prevent germs (like bacteria and fungi) from contaminating multidose vials of vaccines. Research shows that thimerosal does not cause ASD...

Since 2003, there have been nine CDC-funded or conducted studies that have found no link between thimerosal-containing vaccines and ASD. These studies also found no link between the measles, mumps, and rubella (MMR) vaccine and ASD in children.

"Do Vaccines Cause Autism?", Debra Bruce PhD, reviewed by Smitha Bandari MD, 22 June 2024 Web MD website:

The research is clear: Vaccines don't cause autism. More than a dozen studies have tried to find a link. Each one has come up empty.
... ...
To see if thimerosal was linked to autism, researchers studied children who received vaccines that contained it. They compared them to kids who received vaccines that didn't. The CDC conducted or paid for nine different studies looking at thimerosal and autism. It found no link.
... ...
What About All Vaccinations Combined?
Researchers have also looked to see if all the vaccines required before age 2 somehow together triggered autism. Children receive 25 shots in the first 15 months of life. Some people feared that getting all those shots so early in life could lead to the development of autism, but there is no evidence that this is true.

But the CDC compared groups of children who received vaccines on the recommended schedule and those whose vaccines were delayed or didn't get them at all. There was no difference in the autism rate between the two groups.

In 2004, the Immunization Safety Review Committee of the Institute of Medicine published a report on the topic. The group looked at all the studies on vaccines and autism, both published and unpublished. It released a 200-page report stating there was no evidence to support a link between vaccines and autism.

The Web MD article starts with some discussion of the medical fraud perpetrated by Andrew Wakefield, who has played a very significant part in the increase of "vaccine hesitancy" from 1998.

In 1998, Wakefield and collaborators published a paper in The Lancet that claimed to find a link between autism and the Measles, Mumps and Rubella (MMR) vaccine.
They held a televised press conference. UK news broadcasters and national newspapers reported Wakefield's claims uncritically.

Wakefield's "results" were not replicated in other studies. He failed to declare that he was payed £400,000 by a lawyer planning to sue MMR manufacturers. It was later found out Wakefield had submitted a patent for a single-jab measles vaccine before campaigning against MMR.
Wakefield conducted colonoscopies and lumbar punctures on his subjects- autistic children- which (1) were not therapeutically indicated, (2) utterly pointless as he was going to use fraudulent data anyway, (3) not submitted for review by an appropriate research ethics committee, as required under UK and EU law. Even in adults who might need these investigations, they can be very painful, distressing and are always uncomfortable. A judge surmised that Wakefield

Gravely abused the children under his care by unethically carrying out extensive invasive procedures (on occasions requiring three people to hold a child down), thereby driving nurses to leave and causing his medical colleagues serious concern and unhappiness

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andrew_Wakefield- but this was in a libel trial (which Wakefield lost). To this day I don't understand why Wakefield wasn't prosecuted for multiple instances of assault on children- very vulnerable children.
The Lancet retracted the 1998 paper in 2010. After a hearing at the General Medical Council, Wakefield rightly lost his medical licence. But the damage was done. See also, Wikipedia Lancet MMR autism fraud.

 

[RTM]

You'd think Wakefield wouldn't be touched with a 10 foot barge pole, but only last month he was interviewed by Michael Knowles of The Daily Wire. I wonder if he'll pop up in other podcasts.

 

[JMartJr]

I wonder if he'll pop up in other podcasts.

Count on it. Old bunkern always comes around again, and for some Wakefield MUST be right because everybody else saying he is wrong proves a massive conspiracy... not that he's wrong.