
by
A Midwestern Doctor
August 01, 2025
from
Mercola Website
PDF version
A Midwestern Doctor
(AMD)
is a
board-certified physician from the Midwest and a
longtime reader of Mercola.com.
I appreciate AMD's
exceptional insight on a wide range of topics and am
grateful to share it. I also respect AMD's desire to
remain anonymous since AMD is still on the front lines
treating patients.
To find more of
AMD's work, be sure to check out
The Forgotten Side of
Medicine on Substack.
A Note from Dr. Mercola
about the Author |

The CDC's
Greatest Illusion,
and Why
It's Finally Unraveling.
Built on trust, fueled by silence,
how
carefully crafted narratives, concealed injuries,
and
untraceable conflicts may have kept
America in
the dark for decades.
Story at-a-glance
-
The
widespread promotion of vaccination is predicated upon
having profound benefits and no risks. As vaccines
frequently injure their recipients, sustaining this
paradigm requires suppressing all evidence of vaccine
harm and psychologically programming vaccine supporters
to be incapable of seeing injuries all around them
-
Because of this, Senator Ron Johnson recently held a
historic Senate hearing where discarded individuals with
vaccine injuries could testify on their injuries
-
In
many cases, these promotions have been directly tied to
the CDC taking money from industry. Unfortunately,
despite both CDC employees and members of Congress
demanding investigations, the matter has been largely
swept under the rug
-
The
CDC delegates vaccine recommendations to an impartial
panel of (paid-off) experts who consistently support
vaccination. Recently, RFK Jr. replaced them with
scientists free of conflicts of interest
-
At
the first ACIP meeting, the CDC repeated its existing
playbook, both making a number of truly remarkable
statements defending the COVID vaccine at odds with
public data, while simultaneously admitting they did not
know numerous fundamental questions about the COVID
vaccines that should have been figured out years ago.
Fortunately, times have changed, and many immediately
saw these lies for what they were
|
One of my major questions in life is,
whether 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 comes to pass, and as such, when I see the opening moves, I
tend to assume the ultimate outcome will follow (which, for example,
is why I knew there would be vaccine mandates at the start of 2021
and why
Obama's wars would lead to
a permanent unsustainable flood
of immigrants into Europe).
On the other hand, when I speak to the
most informed people 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.
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. 1
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 that 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," 2
...and in
1992 Congress established A National CDC Foundation, which was
quickly incorporated to,
"mobilize philanthropic and private-sector
resources." 3

Note: Other Federal agencies, including the CIA and the NIH, have
similar "non-profit" foundations.. 4,5,6
Since its inception, the CDC Foundation has been accused of
egregious conduct 7 and has received nearly 1 billion dollars
8 from
corporate "donors" (criticisms include a scathing editorial in one
of the world's top medical journals). 9
For example, to quote a 2019
investigation: 10
"In 2011, a firm that conducts research for the pesticide industry
donated $60,000 to the CDC Foundation for a study to demonstrate 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 (WHO) 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)." 11
These "donations" in turn often shape the "impartial"
guidelines we are expected to follow. 12
For example, in 2010 the CDC foundation
created a coalition that 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
most 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. 13
In 2016
CDC employees anonymously complained about this
corruption: 14
"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 programs
(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 Democratic Congresswomen provided the evidence
to request a formal investigation of CDC's interactions with
Coca-Cola and its broader corruption. 15
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 worldview where all "the evidence" supports
their position, even if a great deal of it does not (which is a
major reason why people can have such diametrically opposed belief
systems).
This is 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)?
-
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").
In contrast, pieces of evidence that challenge
the predetermined conclusion (e.g., proof 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.,
the HPV vaccines) being much more dangerous and unnecessary
than many others.
Note: As many people requested it, I have provided a concise summary
of the risks and benefits of each childhood vaccine
here.
Vaccine Injuries
Because of this "ideological filtration" many everyday proponents of
vaccination are completely unaware that vaccines frequently harm
people (e.g., with
severe neurological injuries).
So, when
confronted with evidence of harm, they use a variety of excuses to
dismiss those injuries.
For example, 4 Democrat Senators who pushed the COVID vaccine had
highly unusual neurological injuries all strongly linked to the
COVID vaccine, yet none of them have recanted their support for it.
Likewise, a Senate aide I spoke to shared that other Senators have
had vaccine injuries, but none will publicly admit it, and at best
instead have focused on getting treatment for "long COVID" (and
emphasized that now it is critical for us to educate the Senate's
vaccine proponents on the reality of
vaccine injuries).
As much of the opposition to acknowledging vaccine injuries appears
to be psychological rather than financial in nature, Ron Johnson
recently used his chairmanship to hold an excellent hearing (I would
advise watching below video) where those who had been injured by
vaccines and then abandoned could tell their stories and force the
Senators who habitually dismiss the existence of vaccine injuries to
be directly confronted with them:
Note: Formal hearings like this never
happen, as the last one was 25 years ago (for children who developed
autism following vaccination), 16
and prior to that those used for the 1986 Vaccine Injury Act.
17
The ACIP
A popular tactic for taking advantage of people is to have an
impartial and trusted "third party" implement your policy for you
(e.g., funding a "non-profit" with an environmentally friendly name
to advocate for polluting).
This tactic is used throughout the medical field (e.g., experts on
television, medical journals, guideline committees and patient
advocacy groups are often pharmaceutical mouthpieces).
The Advisory
Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) is the group that advises
the CDC on the vaccine schedule, and as you might expect:
-
Until RFK's recent changes, almost every
member on it had financial conflicts of interest. 18
-
ACIP almost always votes to add the vaccines presented before them
to the immunization schedule.
-
ACIP always ignores anyone who presents "anecdotal" evidence of
vaccine injuries.
Note: In the one case I know of where ACIP voted against a vaccine
recommendation (COVID boosters for adult workers), the CDC simply
overruled them. 19
As such, I noticed a pro-vaccine witness at Johnson's hearing, who
after sharing the tragic story of her infant sister dying from
influenza said they testified in front of ACIP, "ACIP listened" and
then made infants six months and older all be vaccinated for the flu
- despite roughly 100 "flu related" deaths occurring annually in
infants, 20 and thousands of complications (including death) in the 6
to 10 month age range having been reported in VAERS (a system which
captures less than 1% of injuries). 21
I found this noteworthy as:
-
This also happened in 2013 with Merck's expensive meningitis vaccine
(less than 1 in a million children die from meningococcal disease
each year, and Merck's vaccine did not cover the primary strain
causing deaths), 22,23 so Merck had two parents whose infants had
severe complications from the disease to testify in front of ACIP,
at which point "ACIP listened" and it was added to the immunization
schedule and funded by the government. 24
-
These anecdotes translate to implementing a (scientifically
unjustifiable) policy, while any evidence of vaccine harm never
accomplishing the same, illustrate how powerful the perceptual
filters are in these people and why groups like the CDC and ACIP can
routinely recommend vaccines that are hundreds if not thousands of
times more likely to harm than benefit the recipients.
Hiding The Data
Evidence-based medicine was developed as a means to overcome
medicine's dogmatic resistance to abandoning ineffective medical
practices.
Unfortunately, before long, the industry realized that
this could be overturned by monopolizing the "best evidence" (e.g.,
through medical journals and mass media), hiring experts to promote
their evidence, and discrediting any conflicting evidence as
non-credible.
Once this new dogma was established, an even more incredible feat
was accomplished - forbidding anyone besides chosen experts from
being able to see the raw data which produced that evidence, thereby
forcing us to again "trust the medical experts."
Following this, an even more remarkable sleight of hand was
accomplished - instilling a standard where only approved experts
could examine the raw data behind the science that underpins our
lives.
As that data is regularly doctored (e.g., we found out
through lawsuits that the V-safe data the CDC used to prove the COVID
vaccines were safe was presented in a misleading manner, which hid
the innumerable injuries within that dataset). 25
Likewise, while every healthcare authority throughout COVID assured
us the vaccines were being rigorously monitored for safety, we never
got their data, and eventually through years of work, Steve Kirsch
(e.g., through whistleblowers) was able to obtain government
datasets showing the vaccines were killing and seriously injuring
many people. 26
ACIP and the CDC
When seeking drug approval or vaccine recommendation, several key
criteria must be met to ensure that "safe and effective" products
reach the public.
However, meeting those standards is again quite
subjective (e.g., they are used to stonewall alternative medical
products from ever being approved).
As such, if something supports the medical industry, it's subjected
to minimal scrutiny (e.g.,
Pfizer was not required to test the
vaccine for effects on autoimmunity, fertility, or cancer despite
these being major concerns from the start).
As such, in ACIP meetings, the CDC, without providing its data,
often gives a brief statement asserting the safety and efficacy of a
vaccine, which the ACIP accepts as definitive truth, regardless of
conflicting evidence.
Recently, RFK's new ACIP had its first meeting, where for the first
time, the CDC received pushback for its unwarranted claims.
Unfortunately, as the CDC had not adapted to this new reality, they
continued to repeat their playbook, making remarkable claims such
as:
-
Infants were at high risk of becoming severely ill from COVID
despite existing data showing very close to 0 infants are
dying from COVID. 27
-
Most positive COVID tests at admission correlated with COVID
causing their hospitalization ("86% of adult hospitalizations during
that time period were likely attributable to COVID-19").
-
According to the CDC's private analysis, all datasets show there
is no statistical proof the COVID vaccine caused many of the
injuries people attributed to it (e.g., death, seizures, strokes,
bell's palsy, or any issues in pregnancy such as miscarriages) and
that the signals suggesting otherwise in databases we can access are
"false positives."
Note: I was most surprised by the CDC asserting their analysis
"proved" the COVID vaccine was not associated with abnormal
menstruation - despite numerous studies comprising hundreds of
thousands of women finding roughly half experienced
menstrual issues
from COVID vaccination.
28,29,30,31,32,33
-
That while a risk of myocarditis does exist, the risk is very low,
and that 83% of those afflicted fully recovered in 90 days. 34 In
contrast, a study the CDC failed to mention found that at 12 to 18
months, 35% reported persistent symptoms, primarily chest pain,
palpitations, or fatigue, 13% remained on medication, 8% restricted
exercise (mostly self-initiated), and 5.6% required
hospitalization. 35
Note: Ron Johnson's previous hearing provided proof the CDC
deliberately withheld data showing COVID vaccines caused myocarditis
to protect the vaccine program.
36
There were also remarkable admissions such as:
-
The CDC still had no explanation for why COVID had evolved into
variants that were resistant to the vaccine (a concern from the
start, as the vaccine used a single rapidly mutating antigen).
-
The CDC had no way to track long-term complications from the COVID
vaccine, as over time, "more and more confounding variables are
introduced" and the CDC would welcome any advice ACIP had on how
those complications could be monitored.
Conclusion
During COVID, the ACIP meetings became a morbid hobby of watching a
slow motion train wreck, as we knew nothing we did could derail them
pushing the COVID vaccine along, but at the same time, we couldn't
turn our eyes away from it, as we did need to know what depressing
vaccine policies were in the pipeline.
Now that their halo of objective expertise has at last been broken
(e.g., now only 61% of Americans trust the CDC), 37 we are finally
having a chance to seriously scrutinize their absurd claims, and the
CDC is nearing the day when it can no longer operate as an
unaccountable fiefdom.
Each time we openly discuss their lies, their
power weakens, and I am profoundly grateful to be with each of you
at a time when this monolithic beast can finally be toppled.
Author's Note: This is an abridged version of a
longer article which
goes into greater details on the points mentioned here. That
article, along with additional links and references can be read
here.
Sources and
References
1, 3 The
Brownstone Institute, May 16, 2022
2, 8, 10, 15 Project
on Government Oversight, November 5, 2019
4, 6 Nonprofit
Quarterly, April 13, 2012
5 Children's
Health Defense, March 15, 2022
7 Lown
Institute, November 6, 2019
9 BMJ
2015; 350
11 CRC
Press, August 28, 2013
12 Economic
Times, May 20, 2015
13 A
Midwestern Doctor, October 20, 2022
14 CDC
Spider, August 29, 2016
16 MSNBC,
July 15, 2025
17 H.R.5546
- 99th Congress (1985-1986)
18 WSJ,
June 9, 2025
19 New
York Times, September 24, 2021
20 CDC,
September 5, 2024
21 Grant
ID: R18 HS 017045, (ESP:VAERS)
22 Pediatrics.
2015 Jan 12;135(2):e305-e311
23 European
Centre for Disease Prevention and Control, 2023
24 MedScape,
October 23, 2013
25 A
Midwestern Doctor, October 05, 2022
26 Steve
Kirsch's newsletter, Accessed July 2025
27 Michigan
2020-2025 Death File (Archived)
28 The
EVA project. Women's Health. 2022;18
29 Science,
15 Jul 2022
30 medRxiv
2021.10.11.21264863
31 American
Journal of Obstetrics & Gynecology, Volume 227, Issue 5,
739.e1-739.e1
32 Journal
of Infection and Chemotherapy, Volume 29, Issue 5, 513-518
33 Science
Advances, 22 Sep 202, Vol 9, Issue 38
34, 35 TSN,
July 17, 2025
36 A
Midwestern Doctor, June 05, 2025
37 KFF,
January 28, 2025
|