CDC Whistleblower Statement Confirms Data Manipulation Around MMR

This statement was released by Dr. William Thompson through his attorney just now.

It is being spun by both sides because it is a mixed bag, with some dog bones for the pro-vaccine set, such as a sudden, oddly placed lecture on how much Dr. Thompson believes in vaccines in general.

It seems to me, bottom line, the point of it is this: CDC manipulated data around MMR and autism in a critical study.

To wit:

“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.”



Why would the CDC omit data?







  1. When I initially left a comment I appear to have clicked on the -Notify me when new comments
    are added- checkbox and from now on every time a
    comment is added I get four emails with the exact same comment.
    Is there a way you can remove me from that service? Kudos!

  2. Caleb Trevithick says:

    From Dr. Thompson’s statement:
    “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.”

    Considering the flip-flop of apparent personal conviction, this sounds like nothing short of a bribe.

  3. Flahute says:

    Come on, this is classic. It appears to be yet another textbook case of defaming the messenger (Hooker) and massaging/suppressing the message (Thompson walking back his intent- vaccines don’t cause autism). Celia, of all people, probably recognizes this technique. Maybe Thompson’s lawyer is playing both sides- reveal a bit but mostly indicate that Dr Thompson was duped (didn’t know he was recorded) and/or stands by vaccines. This way everyone everyone gets something and can parse out information in statements or spin. Anyway, by suppressing community commons-public domain information and more objective research, CDC and public health officials have, for years, effectively controlled, managed and massaged their message (vaccines don’t cause autism). I didn’t think they would also be so brazen as to actually ‘massage’ the data….

    This is the kind of thing that WikiLeaks, DemandProgress, Anonymous, etc have been trying to fight for awhile. Hooker’s simply taken the process out a bit further by using FOIA channels to obtain the critical data. The fact that Thompson provided it to him, consulted with him and had some ongoing interest in addressing CDC’s currently perverse paradigm is somewhat encouraging.

    Further, Dr Hooker has been on this for considerable time as well- writing extensively and rather eloquently about DeStefano’s and Price’s (Destefano collaborator) ‘work’. Hinjen and DeSoto (2013) Statistics textbook devoted a chapter outlining DeStefano/Price 2009-2013 papers (essentially containing the same dataset) as a classic case in data biasing- essentially they gamed the study to obtain the results they wanted or needed. Cochrane reports (2005) also identified bias in Destefano’s 2003 paper as well. Thus, there’s a bit of a

    Why did the journal retract the article and likely bow to economic forces and why the curious doublespeak by Thompson?

    Because this kind of information essentially threatens moneyed, powerful interests and exposes them to many interesting legal (and ethical) questions. Also, this may be the result when publicly-funded research becomes essentially privatized and, rather than objective science truly resulting, becomes fundamentally beholden to the funding group(s). This is how tobacco science operated for 50 years. So, because we as a society have rolled back basic research funding and government size- essentially privatized many things that perhaps should have much tighter oversight and/or control, remain in the public domain, etc; we’ve essentially traded objective, easily obtainable information for some measure of false security, limited information access, and acquired a misplaced trust in the system. Unfortunately the system has become corrupt and we, as a society, mostly remain clueless about how to fix it. However, at least folks like Ms Farber are keeping the hot poker of integrity to the rear ends of
    those that need it.

  4. Flahute says:

    Come on, this is classic. It is yet another textbook case of defaming the messenger and suppressing the message. Celia, of all people, probably recognizes this technique. By suppressing community commons-public domain information, CDC and public health officials effectively control, manage and massage the message. This is the kind of thing that WikiLeaks, DemandProgress, Anonymous, etc have been trying to fight for awhile now.

    The journal where Hooker’s (2014) study was published has ‘retracted it’; this is no different from what was done with Wakefield’s autism (1998) and Seralini’s glyphosate papers. The journals bowed to economic (ie, funding, advertising, research, editorial) pressures to basically suppress publicly funded and properly conducted scientific research findings. Why? Because they essentially threaten moneyed, powerful interests and exposes them up to many interesting legal questions.

    Anyway, back to the issue at hand
    A data bias was identified in a Cochrane report (link below) back in 2005 about DeStefano’s (2003) original work. So there was a suspicion or recognition long ago that this DeStefano et al. paper was flawed.

    Further Hinjen and DeSoto (2013) used DeStefano’s and Price’s varied papers (2009-2013) and their data (same data set) to determine that they were guilty of data bias and improper design. When your study is used in a statistics book as a classic example of data bias and improper statistics, that can’t be a good thing. Thus, DeStefano et al have a ‘track record’ of manipulating their data to get the results that they want (or need). In this case, it plays towards factors employing large scale (enforced) vaccination as a public health strategy. This likely sits well with the groups funding this ‘research’ as these groups also likely profit from both vaccine sales _and_ varied chemotherapeutic aids to control the adverse effects.

    Hooker has long been critical of DeStefano’s work (link below). Since his 2014 paper, which began this latest CDC spin cycle, has been ‘retracted’ by the Journal, I thought it might be helpful to post a link.

    Cochrane 2005 :;jsessionid=6FE0084412306C5E4EE4D7C16F32E848.f02t02

    Hooker 2013 criticism:

    DeSoto/Hinjen 2013: ng_case_of_over_matching_.pdf

    Hooker 2014 paper:—2047-9158-3-16.pdf

Speak Your Mind