CDC works in collusion with vaccine manufacturers… can you really trust their “fake science?”

CDC works in collusion with vaccine manufacturers… can you really trust their “fake science?”
Thursday, January 26, 2017


(Natural News) If you’ve ever wondered how the CDC can afford to do all that it does, look no further than the CDC Foundation. The organization describes itself as some kind of liaison between the CDC and the private sector, existing solely for public benefit, but a quick look at their list of corporate partners reveals a much more sordid story; a story of fake science that is being propagated for industry benefit.

While studying the rather lengthy list of corporate donors — who also sometimes collaborate with the CDC on their project — one might notice that many of them are pharma companies, pesticide makers, and biotech firms. And when considering CDC senior scientist-turned-whistle blower Dr. William Thompson’s recent testimony against the MMR vaccine — one corporate partner stands out among the rest: Merck.

Merck is the manufacturer of the MMR vaccine — the very vaccine on which Dr. Thompson alleges he and his cohorts manipulated data and violated study protocols to protect.

CDC obfuscated MMR vaccine and autism link

In August 2014, Dr. William Thompson confessed that he and his colleagues had participated in an act of serious scientific fraud. Ten years prior, he had worked on a study of the MMR vaccine and published the findings, claiming that the vaccine was not linked to autism. (Related: Learn more about autism.)

However, Dr. Thompson now says that he and the other study authors purposely omitted data that contradicted that outcome. Thompson claims that the CDC did find data showing the MMR vaccine demonstrated a statistically significant effect at the 36-month threshold. This shows that the study found a causal connection between the MMR vaccine and autism, but the evidence never made it to publication.

The omitted data revealed that African American males vaccinated before 36 months of age were more likely to develop autism. (Related: Learn more about vaccines at Vaccines.news)

In a statement, Thompson said “Sometime soon after the meeting, we decided to exclude reporting any race effects, the co-authors scheduled a meeting to destroy documents related to the study. The remaining four co-authors all met and brought a big garbage can into the meeting room and reviewed and went through all the hard copy documents that we had thought we should discard and put them in a huge garbage can.”

Thompson knew what they were doing was illegal. He himself noted, “I believe we intentionally withheld controversial findings from the final draft of the Pediatrics paper.” Fortunately, Thompson held onto copies of the original documents that had been disposed.

Dr. Thompson penned a letter in 2002 to the then-CDC Director Julie Gerberding because he was growing very concerned about the MMR vaccine study findings, and wrote to her again in 2004. It would appear that Gerberding did little in regard to Thompson’s concern. Following her time at the CDC, Ms. Gerberding went on to become the executive vice president at Merck.

And of course, Merck isn’t the only company that gives money to the CDC Foundation — and indirectly,  the CDC.  Several other pharma companies like Bayer, GlaxoSmithKline, Sanofi Pastuer, and Pfizer are on the list.

Is ‘fake science’ the norm at the CDC?

When one considers the apparent ties the CDC has to Merck — and countless other corporations — it honestly raises doubts for just about anything the federal agency has put their stamp on. The 2004 “study” features cherry-picked data sets, and reached a conclusion that purposely ignored the facts: it is the epitome of fake science. Evidence was actually destroyed by the government to protect a product rather than the people. (Related: Learn more about misleading information at FakeScience.news)

Their incessant pushing the of the flu vaccine is another example of fake science in the CDC. There is little evidence to suggest that the flu vaccine is beneficial for the average person — and those who need extra protection are unlikely to get it from a vaccine.
The CDC’s webpage on “vaccine effectiveness” claims that studies show the flu vaccine can prevent the flu in 50 to 60 percent of people. However, a vaccine package insert for Flulaval reads,”There have been no controlled trials adequately demonstrating a decrease in influenza disease after vaccination with FLULAVAL.”

The CDC conducts their own studies on these vaccines to see how effective they are. However, these studies are purely observational — which means that no causality can actually be determined. Any number of factors, such as diet, lifestyle, and current health condition, can impact how vulnerable a person is to getting the flu. The agency itself notes that the study results may vary due to differences in design, outcomes measured, and other such tribulations. In other words: the CDC itself does not have an accurate, finite method for testing the actual efficiency of the flu vaccine, they’re just guessing at it.

While observational studies are not necessarily fake science, pretending that observational data is all that is necessary to confer the benefits of something most certainly is fake science.