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.
Holistic Autoimmune He...
Buy New $21.99
(as of 04:31 UTC - Details)
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).
The Ultimate Guide to ...
Best Price: $6.35
Buy New $8.99
(as of 08:51 UTC - Details)
• 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).
