Dr. Peter McCullough on why the CDC changed its position on vaccines and autism (VIDEO)
12 studies show that "a healthy child born today is healthier if they remain completely unvaccinated"
In this short video, Dr. Peter McCullough explains WHY the CDC changed it’s website claim of no link between vaccines and autism last November.
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.
Studies supporting a link have been ignored by health authorities.
HHS has launched a comprehensive assessment of the causes of autism, including investigations on plausible biologic mechanisms and potential causal links.
Dr. McCullough was interviewed by John Solomon and Amanda Head on Just the News.
6:36 VIDEO:
Speaking about the changes to the CDC’s website back in November, 2025:
Reporter John Solomon:
The studies that for years claimed there was no link between autism and vaccines, that they’re not based on evidence. That is a major backing away from all of those studies that were put in the faces of so many parents over the years.
Solomon introduced Dr. Peter McCullough, saying his research raised concerns about those earlier studies. He asked Dr. McCullough about the changes to the CDC’s website.
Dr. McCullough:
INVALID SCIENCE
Without any press briefing at all, the CDC has made a dramatic change, on their website regarding their statements, and the CDC now says that prior studies that have denied the link between childhood vaccination and autism are not evidence-based. They’re not valid.
And the timing of this is, honestly, very, very consistent with the CDC reading the McCullough Foundation Report. We published the most comprehensive report on autism on October 7, 2025.
It’s already received over 200,000 downloads and reads from the European Commission Preprint Server.
We sent the report to the CDC, HHS, and all the officials, and now three weeks later, the CDC has essentially read our report and knows that they are compelling sources of information compiled that the prior studies were misleading.
There are 29 studies that claim that there was no link between vaccines and autism. NOT A SINGLE ONE OF THOSE STUDIES EXAMINED THE VACCINE RECORD, TALKED TO THE PARENTS, OR EXAMINED THE CHILDREN.
They didn’t have a clear control groups. Now we have well over a hundred studies pointing to the link.
So the CDC and HHS say now they’re going to start their own investigation and we applaud them for doing so.
Amanda Head asked McCullough why such poor science was ever used as a study.
McCullough:
They’re using automated sources of data, and I think, honestly, they’re almost intentionally doing what’s called a type 2 error that is failing to find the the effect when it’s there.
But it’s those studies, Amanda, that Senator Bill Cassidy and Maggie Hussan and Bernie Sanders, they held up at the Senate hearings back when RFK and other went through.
They were holding these up as definitive proof that vaccines aren’t linked to autism.
It’s obvious they didn’t read any one of these studies.
Now there are 12 well done research studies in the modern day showing a healthy child born today is healthier if they remain completely unvaccinated.
John Solomon asked McCullough about the “unholy relationship” between Big Pharma and the regulatory agencies.
REGULATORY CAPTURE
Is there some financial influence that causes these studies to be doctored this or to sound more compelling than they actually are because they’re protecting the people that might one day give them a job?
McCullough:
That’s almost certainly the case. Look at former FDA Commissioner Scott Gottlieb, now on the board of Pfizer, pushing the Pfizer vaccine.
Stephen Hahn, former FDA Commissioner on Flagship that’s a pioneer which is the venture capitalist organization supporting Moderna.
So this corruption is wide open. Vaccines are over a $100,000,000 annual business. More than half of that the government purchases, and there is so much corporate interest in making sure that this vaccine freight train continues on America’s children that they’ll do anything to protect these revenue stream.
Autism skyrocketed after 1986, the Vaccine injury Compensation Act, when the companies incredulously were given immunity from liability.
And mothers and fathers the entire time have said, hey, wait a minute. They’ve seen their born normal convert to an autism phenotype after a big battery of vaccines.
FINALLY, it looks like the CDC quietly is listening, prompted by the McCullough Foundation.
Amanda Head asked Dr. McCullough who parents can trust today.
McCullough:
I think the World Council for Health is a very reasonable organization to look to. They’re an alternative to the WHO. And in 2023, they posted guidance called, Safer to Wait. That is it’s safer to wait on vaccines.
There’s no urgency with a child born today who’s healthy. You simply need the mother, normal breastfeeding, normal infancy and development.
Vaccines are far safer when they’re given later in life, particularly beyond the development, neurological development, immunological development, typically beyond age four. They’re far safer when they’re given individually.
And of course, if the burden of vaccines is less, there’s less chance for side effects.
But a recent paper by Vesuvian and colleagues in Gemma Open Network indicates 60 percent of young parents now are going to skip the vaccine schedule or decline a lot of it.
__________________________________________________________________________
For further evidence of autism cover-up see:
HOW CDC COVERED UP THE AUTISM EPIDEMIC
One in 31 children with autism; 20 years of lies and cover-up
The Autism Cover-Up Must Continue
Please comment, share, restack, subscribe (it’s free)
Leave a comment
Luke 8:17: “For there is nothing hidden that will not become visible, and nothing secret that will not be known and come to light“
Perhaps the most extraordinary feature of modern democracies and democratic republics is the assumption that election or appointment to public office—however narrow the margin of victory—confers upon the officeholder the authority to make medical decisions for the entire population.
That the officeholder—medical doctor or not, and frequently lacking any meaningful research credentials in the matter being decided—is nevertheless regarded by other officeholders and much of the media as possessing near-infallible judgment is among the more remarkable assumptions of modern governance.
That such individuals often present themselves with moral certainty and public righteousness; that they portray their actions as the most compassionate and responsible course under difficult circumstances; and that many citizens sincerely believe them—may indeed contain some truth. But the willingness of so many people to transfer deeply personal medical judgment to political authority raises serious questions about the condition of civic independence and critical thought in modern society.
But to many others, such conduct creates the appearance that these institutions are operating in service to interests other than those of the general public, and that the citizen’s role is reduced largely to observation, criticism, and periodic elections whose practical effect may be limited.