In the annals of public health, few dogmas have been more fiercely guarded than the CDC's ironclad mantra: "Vaccines do not cause autism." It was the sacred cow of paediatric medicine, trotted out to silence sceptics, fund boosters, and reassure frantic parents. For three decades, it was presented not as a hypothesis, but as gospel, backed by the full weight of federal authority and a chorus of institutional endorsements. Dissenters? Labelled quacks, conspiracy theorists, or worse.
Then, on November 19, 2025, the CDC's website flickered. The page on vaccine safety now reads: "The claim 'vaccines do not cause autism' is not an evidence-based claim because studies have not ruled out the possibility that infant vaccines cause autism." No fanfare. No press release. Just a quiet edit, buried in the fine print of a federal webpage, that effectively retracts the absolute denial. The header still says "Vaccines do not cause autism"* — the asterisk a fig leaf, explained away by a "Senate agreement" to keep the old language. But the body? It admits the truth: the science was never conclusive. The possibility lingers.
This isn't a victory lap for we of the vaccine-sceptical crowd. It's a confession that the case was always open, and that the "lie," as McCullough calls it, was a house of cards built on inadequate evidence, selective studies, and a refusal to look too closely at the data. Coming just three weeks after the McCullough Foundation's landmark report, it feels like cosmic timing: a 300+ study behemoth that dares to ask the questions the establishment dodged for decades. As Dr. Peter McCullough, John Leake, and Nicolas Hulscher laid out in their impromptu press conference, filling the void left by the CDC's silence, this reversal isn't closure. It's an invitation to reopen the book.
For context, rewind the tape. The Institute of Medicine (IOM) kicked it off in 1991: "No data were identified" linking DPT vaccines to autism. By 2012, even they hedged: "Inadequate evidence to accept or reject" a causal tie to DTaP shots. Fast-forward through AHRQ reviews in 2014 and 2021: same song, different verse — "insufficient evidence" to rule it in or out. No full-throated denial, just a polite "we don't know — yet."
Enter the McCullough Foundation's October 28, 2025, report: Determinants of Autism Spectrum Disorder. This isn't some fringe pamphlet; it's a synthesis of over 300 peer-reviewed studies, zeroing in on 136 vaccine-specific ones. The verdict? Of those, 107 suggest a positive link between early, clustered childhood vaccines (or their excipients like aluminium) and autism or neurodevelopmental disorders, while a measly 29 find neutral or no association. Crucially, none have ever tested the full cumulative paediatric schedule, the real-world barrage of shots infants endure. The report calls vaccination the "most significant modifiable risk factor" for ASD, pointing to mechanisms like neuroinflammation, mitochondrial dysfunction, and genetic vulnerabilities that could turn a routine jab into a neurological tripwire.
Sent straight to HHS, it landed like a grenade. And weeks later? The CDC's pivot. Coincidence? In a world where RFK Jr. now helms HHS, maybe not. But the timing screams: the emperor's new clothes are threadbare, and someone finally said it out loud.
The backlash has been swift and predictable. NPR calls it a "revival of debunked myths." CNN decries "false claims." The Washington Post laments agency "turmoil." Even Sen. Bill Cassidy, who greenlit RFK's confirmation, is fuming. Fair enough—the old line was a cornerstone of trust in vaccines. But let's not kid ourselves: those "debunked" studies? Many were narrow, like the infamous Danish MMR paper, which looked at one vaccine, not the schedule. And as the CDC now admits, no gold-standard trial has ever "ruled out" causality for the full cocktail.
This update isn't endorsement of a link, it's intellectual honesty. It nods to parental testimonies (those "regressions" McCullough highlights), mechanistic plausibility (e.g., aluminium's role in brain inflammation), and the yawning gaps in safety data. For families like the thousands who've watched their kids vanish into ASD after a well-baby visit, it's vindication. For science, it's a reset: stop dismissing; start investigating.
McCullough's presser, streamed to fill the CDC's void, hammered this home. With Leake and Hulscher at his side, he saluted the foot soldiers: Brian Hooker at Children's Health Defense, Sherri Tenpenny, Aaron Siri, Del Bigtree, RFK Jr., and the army of parents who never bought the gaslighting. "This is the first time," McCullough said, "a major U.S. health authority has formally recognized that its prior denial was not evidence-based." Historic? Absolutely. But it's also a flare: the issue isn't settled. It's simmering.
This crack in the dam exposes deeper rot. For 30 years, the CDC wielded certainty as a cudgel, marginalising voices like Andrew Wakefield and funding studies that conveniently avoided the schedule's synergies. Now, under RFK's gaze, we're promised scrutiny, not paranoia, but rigour. Independent audits of vaccine trials. Longitudinal studies on cumulative exposure. Parental input in safety protocols.
Critics howl "anti-vax apocalypse," but that's fearmongering. The question is: At what dose, for whom, and with what safeguards? If aluminium or adjuvants tip vulnerable kids (those with mitochondrial issues) over the edge, we owe it to them, and to public trust, to know.
The McCullough report isn't the final word, it's a catalyst. Experts like those in a forensic audit of the paper raise valid quibbles on methodology. But the core claim holds: we've never tested the full load. That's not conspiracy; that's science 101.
This reversal doesn't "prove" causation. It proves the debate was never dead. Time to revive it, rigorously and without fear.
https://www.thefocalpoints.com/p/cdc-retracts-30-year-vaccines-dont