At the request of the interviewee, identifying details have been removed and a pseudonym used due to concerns about professional and personal repercussions in the current political climate. “Dr. Michael Reid” is a fictitious name for a retired CDC physician with decades of experience in immunization policy and vaccine safety.

On November 19, the longstanding statement on the website of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, that “vaccines do not cause autism,” was abruptly rewritten to claim this conclusion is “not evidence-based.” The change—ordered directly by Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr.—bypassed the CDC’s scientific clearance process and appeared without the knowledge or involvement of the agency’s autism researchers, vaccine-safety experts, or senior scientific leadership. What occurred was not a routine update but a political intervention inserting Kennedy’s personal views into what has long been one of the nation’s most authoritative public-health resources.

The manipulation of CDC communications coincided with the quiet installation of Dr. Ralph Abraham, an outspoken critic of established vaccine science, as principal deputy director of the agency. Abraham, who lacks training in epidemiology, infectious disease, or scientific-agency management, now occupies the position that will soon wield de facto control of CDC once the acting director’s temporary authority expires.

Scientists outside the administration have warned that the implications are profound. Dr. Alycia Halladay, chief science officer of the Autism Science Foundation, described the website change as a “hijack” of the CDC platform—an insertion of politically motivated language that reopens long-settled scientific questions and risks fueling misinformation. She cautioned that this kind of interference will shape upcoming deliberations by the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) on vaccine ingredients and could introduce selectively interpreted or flawed analyses into the policymaking process. “People are going to die because they will look at that website and think vaccines can cause autism,” she warned.

Against this backdrop, the World Socialist Web Site reached out to a retired CDC physician with decades of experience in immunization policy and vaccine safety. Speaking under conditions of anonymity, the expert—identified here by the pseudonym Dr. Michael Reid (MR)—offers an unfiltered perspective on how the guardrails that once protected scientific integrity at the CDC have been dismantled and what the consequences may be for the national immunization program.

Benjamin Mateus: Dr. Reid, you spent many years helping shape the CDC’s vaccine safety work and communicating that science to ACIP and the public. When you look at the November 19 change to the CDC’s autism-and-vaccines webpage, what stands out to you as someone who understands how these decisions are normally made?

Michael Reid: The way that change occurred was completely opposite to the usual procedures at CDC for updating a scientific webpage—especially one dealing with vaccines and autism. Normally, several groups would be involved. The center that houses autism expertise would review the content, as would staff in the Immunization Safety Office. Both groups would need to sign off.

After that, the draft would be reviewed by the Office of the Director and the Office of Science because of its importance. Only then would it be cleared and posted on the website. My understanding is that none of those clearances happened. This change was initiated by HHS, not CDC. It’s the exact opposite of how scientific information is normally vetted and communicated by the agency.

BM: You have long worked on vaccine-preventable diseases. Could you take a moment to introduce yourself more fully and briefly describe the type of work you led on vaccines during your time at CDC?

MR: Sure. I’m a physician trained in the United States and board-certified in pediatrics, but I’ve spent the bulk of my career in public health. Early on, when my children were young, I did research and part-time contract work at CDC. My wife also worked in public health, and because of our careers we spent several years in overseas postings, where I worked with international partners on immunization and infectious disease programs.

When we returned to the United States, I joined the national immunization program at CDC and worked there for many years. That was the domestic vaccine program. I had extensive experience working with the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP), participating in and helping lead work groups, and helping guide policy changes across multiple childhood and adolescent vaccines. I was involved in responding to major outbreaks of vaccine-preventable disease and in the evaluation of new and existing vaccine recommendations.

By the time I started at CDC, most of the core childhood vaccine policies had already been finalized, but I contributed to the work of documenting disease trends and maintaining the high coverage needed to sustain elimination goals and prevent resurgence.

Toward the end of my career, I took part in more senior-level ACIP activities, including work related to identifying and supporting committee candidates, and I worked closely with professional societies on ACIP issues. So I have had a great deal of experience in how vaccine policy is supposed to be developed and maintained.

BM: The CDC has always operated at the intersection of science and politics, but historically there were guardrails that protected scientific communications from political interference. When you see changes like this, what does it suggest about how those guardrails are functioning now at the agency?

MR: They’re not functioning—at least not in the area of vaccine policy decision-making. That has been obvious essentially from the moment RFK Jr. took over as HHS Secretary. It’s well illustrated by the firing of [CDC Director] Dr. Monarez and the subsequent resignations of three very senior CDC leaders. All of them stepped down because a line was crossed: policy was being made by ignoring scientific evidence rather than using it.

They described the shift as turning evidence-based policymaking on its head—making the decision first and then finding the “science” to justify it. I can’t recall the exact wording they used, but that was the essence.

BM: Somewhat putting the horse before the cart.

MR: Yes—things have changed very dramatically.

The procedures laid out in the ACIP charter—which is still posted on the website—make it difficult to read now, knowing how far we’ve strayed from them. The committee used to follow a systematic approach to evaluating evidence: the quality of the evidence, the strength of the evidence, vaccine benefits, potential harms, societal values, programmatic considerations, cost–benefit issues. All of those elements were reviewed in depth.

These topics were handled in work groups made up of ACIP members; CDC subject-matter leads, because you need that expertise; and liaison representatives from groups such as the American Academy of Family Physicians, the American Academy of Pediatrics, and the obstetrics societies, depending on the issue. State public health program staff also participated to provide on-the-ground perspectives.

The work groups would review evidence over many months—sometimes a year or two—before bringing material to the full ACIP for discussion and a vote.

When urgent issues arose, such as large outbreaks among adolescents and young adults, we still operated within that framework. On an expedited basis, data were presented to ACIP, and the committee voted on targeted recommendations for outbreak control—not for routine use. Even urgent decisions unfolded over weeks or months, not days.

What’s happening now is extremely different. If you watch the ACIP meetings this year, they are not reviewing the full body of evidence. The work groups do not function the way they did before. My understanding is that for the upcoming meeting, there is just one work group—focused on hepatitis B vaccine ingredients and the routine childhood schedule from birth through age 18. Previously, you would have had several interacting work groups handling different parts of that discussion.

CDC experts are no longer systematically involved in the work groups. Increasingly, they are not being listened to at all. And my understanding—though this won’t be confirmed until the meeting—is that CDC staff are not even being invited to present at the December session.

BM: That’s catastrophic.

MR: Yes, it is. And my understanding—though we’ll know more soon—is that CDC staff were not asked to provide written briefing documents either. At the June meeting, they prepared briefing materials; one document was posted on the website but then taken down during the meeting. Still, staff presented and were asked questions. At the second meeting, no documents were prepared, but staff still presented. For this upcoming meeting, the understanding is: no documents and no presentations. Nothing.

BM: It sounds like a spectacle rather than a scientific forum.

MR: That’s exactly what it has become. And the media have actually done an excellent job covering that shift. Ahead of the meeting, some state health departments are already issuing preemptive health alerts. New York State and the Northeast Health Coalition have both released statements emphasizing how critical the birth dose of hepatitis B vaccine is, and that it should always be given within twelve hours of birth.

This kind of preemptive messaging before an ACIP meeting is unprecedented.

BM: You’re still in touch with colleagues through the CDC Alumni Network. What are you hearing about morale inside the agency and how scientists are coping with the pressures on vaccine programs and on CDC’s overall functioning?

MR: The Alumni and Friends group is made up of hundreds of former staff who care deeply about CDC. Many of us remain connected to people who still work there. Morale is unbelievably low. It’s absolutely appalling. Many people who could afford to retire, or who were within ten years of retirement, have already stepped down. Others—much younger—have left because they could not cross certain ethical lines.

One of the early resignations over ACIP issues came from Dr. Fiona Havers, a senior CDC physician who led COVID-related surveillance work. She saw firsthand that she could not align with the new directives being pushed and stepped down.

[Dr. Fiona Havers is an infectious-disease physician and long-time CDC medical epidemiologist who led the agency’s RESP-NET hospitalization surveillance team, which tracks hospitalizations for major respiratory viruses, including COVID-19, influenza, and RSV. With more than a decade at CDC, the data gathered by here surveillance team informed vaccine policy across multiple ACIP meetings and contributed to numerous peer-reviewed studies and MMWR reports. Havers resigned from CDC in June 2025, shortly after all 17 members of ACIP were dismissed by Kennedy. On her resignation, she explained that she no longer had confidence that the surveillance data her team produced would be used objectively or evaluated with scientific rigor to guide vaccine policy. Her departure, widely regarded as a major loss of institutional expertise, underscored growing concern that U.S. vaccine recommendations were being shaped by political directives rather than evidence-based review.]

People don’t want to go to work. They feel unsupported. And the shooting outside the agency earlier this year made things far worse. There was no acknowledgment from Kennedy at HHS, or the White House, even though a police officer died protecting the agency. It was devastating.

BM: He (Kennedy) had gone fishing, right? Literally—he went on a fishing trip during the crisis.

MR: Yes, he had gone fishing, and it took him more than a day to say anything. It was appalling. A police officer died protecting the agency. It was shocking.

BM: Returning to the wording on the webpage—the new CDC language suggests that the evidence “cannot rule out” a link between vaccines and autism. From an epidemiological standpoint, what does that framing get wrong?

MR: You can never prove a negative in science. You couldn’t prove that drinking milk doesn’t cause autism. That’s not how scientific reasoning works. You set up a null hypothesis—in this case, “vaccines do not cause autism”—and you design studies to try to reject that hypothesis.

What Secretary Kennedy and others often do is cherry-pick low-quality studies and claim those suggest a link. Meanwhile, twenty to thirty high-quality studies across multiple countries show no evidence of an association.

At some point, continuing to imply uncertainty becomes misleading and wastes time and resources that should go toward researching real, potentially preventable causes of autism.

BM: Let me build on that. If routine childhood vaccination were to decline even twenty to thirty percent, what would the United States face in terms of outbreaks?

MR: We would see the return of diseases that have been kept at bay for decades: measles, pertussis, Hib, pneumococcal disease, meningococcal infections, varicella. During my pediatric training, I cared for children with Hib sepsis—epiglottitis, meningitis—as well as pneumococcal and meningococcal sepsis. These are devastating diseases.

Pediatricians today, including my son who practices in the United States, have never seen Hib illness or meningococcal sepsis. But he does see whooping cough, and he has evaluated suspected measles cases this year. He has called me saying, “This child really looks like measles.” It is tragic to see these diseases return.

Right now, there have been about 1,750 measles cases this year—the highest number in 30 years. That is due to declining trust in vaccination and importations of measles from overseas. Once endemic transmission was eliminated in the United States, importation became the only way for measles to occur. If those importations land in communities where vaccination coverage is dropping—as happened this year in Texas, South Carolina, Utah, and in Arizona, where an outbreak of more than two hundred cases is ongoing—you get outbreaks, hospitalizations, and deaths. Very high coverage of MMR vaccine, about 95 percent, is needed to stop measles cases from spreading because it is so incredibly contagious.

There have already been four measles deaths this year: three from current outbreaks, and one from subacute sclerosing panencephalitis in a child who contracted measles during infancy and died ten years later. Very little attention has been paid to that case, but it is important. That child was too young to be vaccinated. As a society, we protect babies under one year of age by maintaining very high vaccination coverage in the surrounding community.

We are also seeing a lot of whooping cough. There was a third infant death last week—Kentucky, I believe. If vaccination declines, we will see more measles, more pertussis, and—tragically—we may again see Hib and other terrible diseases return.

[Routine childhood vaccination in the United States includes a series of scheduled doses from birth through adolescence to protect against 14 diseases—beginning with the hepatitis B vaccine at birth, followed by multiple-dose series for diseases such as diphtheria, tetanus, pertussis, polio, Hib, pneumococcal disease, measles, mumps, rubella and varicella. High coverage is essential to prevent outbreaks, because these pathogens spread quickly in under-immunized communities.]

We’ve already seen a vaccine policy shift with the MMRV vaccine. It’s not catastrophic because other options exist, but it sends a confusing message—implying that we had not been clear in its previous guidance when, in fact, it was clear. With MMRV, we recommended that parents use MMR and varicella separately for the first dose, but allowed families to choose the combination vaccine if they preferred one shot. About fifteen percent of parents made that choice.

Now, that choice is gone. Parents who preferred the combination vaccine cannot get it for a three-year-old even though the risk of febrile seizure is not elevated at that age. The vaccine is not available or not recommended for children under four, even for a second dose in an outbreak.

All of this contributes to confusion and declining trust. One of the most demoralizing things for CDC staff is that the secretary is using CDC’s name to make these changes—altering the website, changing recommendations—and the public believes CDC scientists are doing this. They are not. The scientific staff would not have made these changes. The work they used to do is not being presented accurately to the public anymore, and the consequences are going to be real: more illness, more hospitalization, and deaths from diseases we know how to prevent.

BM: The attack that HHS is carrying out on vaccines seems multi-pronged. Vaccine hesitancy is only one piece of it. The revised webpage also raises questions about adjuvants and “contaminants,” and ACIP appears poised to take up those issues as well. That raises two major concerns: first, the impact on vaccine production—what will be allowed going forward—and second, attempts to reopen legal liability pathways that had previously been closed to protect vaccine supply. Could you speak about these issues?

MR: The Vaccine Injury Compensation Program was created because, in the early 1980s, manufacturers were considering leaving the market altogether. There were lawsuits over the DTP vaccine, some involving adverse events that were perceived—sometimes incorrectly—as being caused by the vaccine. Manufacturers were already working on safer formulations, but the legal climate made it too risky to stay in the market. The Compensation Program stabilized the situation by balancing risks and benefits and ensuring a fair process for families while keeping manufacturers engaged.

Secretary Kennedy and those advising him to seem to focus exclusively on risk—risk of the vaccine—without acknowledging benefits or weighing the two together. That is a fundamental distortion of how vaccine policy is evaluated.

Now, with threats to “break up” the MMR vaccine and renewed attacks on ingredients such as aluminum—which is an essential adjuvant that strengthens the immune response and allows vaccines to use smaller amounts of antigen—they are raising expectations that cannot be met. You cannot simply remove adjuvants or dismantle combination vaccines. Changes like that would require many years of research and clinical trials.

Take MMR as an example. There are no single-antigen measles, mumps, or rubella vaccines licensed or manufactured in the United States today. There is no alternative. If people lose trust in the combination vaccine, they simply won’t be vaccinated against measles, mumps, or rubella at all.

Manufacturers don’t need to continue making MMR to stay in business. If the political environment becomes hostile enough, they may decide to withdraw the product rather than undertake the enormous cost and complexity of developing new single-antigen vaccines. And even if they attempted to do so, the clinical trials could not easily be conducted in the U.S., because these diseases no longer circulate widely. Trials would have to be done overseas—and even that would be challenging.

For combination vaccines more broadly, the implications are staggering. Dismantling them would fundamentally destabilize the entire childhood vaccine platform.

And if autism were added to the Vaccine Injury Compensation Program—which is what some in the administration are hinting at—the program would essentially be bankrupted. You would see the same dynamic we saw in the 1980s: manufacturers withdrawing, vaccine supply collapsing and families left unprotected. The Compensation Program was built precisely to prevent that scenario. Undermining it now would bring us right back to the brink.

BM: We can be blunt. Even though Kennedy keeps saying, “I’m not taking your vaccines away,” he’s using every tool available to make sure these vaccines either cannot be produced or that the systems needed to deliver them become impossible to operate. Legally, logistically, and scientifically, he’s creating conditions where vaccines may nominally “exist,” but in practice, there would be none left to give. Is that essentially what you’re saying?

MR: Yes. I still find it hard to imagine that scenario materializing, but it is a serious concern. And in a more subtle way, I think he is trying to move all vaccines from clear recommendations to so-called “individual decision-making.” Under the traditional ACIP process, if the benefits clearly outweighed the risks, then a recommendation was made. That meant everyone in that age group or risk group should receive the vaccine. It was a strong, evidence-based signal to physicians and the public that experts had thoroughly reviewed the data.

If the risks outweighed the benefits, the vaccine was not recommended or was removed from the market. That happened with the first rotavirus vaccine, which was withdrawn after a serious adverse event was detected by the Vaccine Safety Datalink. CDC mobilized extremely quickly to conduct a large case-control study of a rare event, and the vaccine was removed.

When the balance of risks and benefits is less clear—like HPV vaccination for adults 30 to 45 years old—the recommendation becomes “individual decision-making.” That’s appropriate in those limited circumstances.

BM: Dr. Reid, regarding David Geier—could you speak about his role and what concerns you see in his involvement? 

[David Geier and his father, Dr. Mark Geier, became prominent in the early 2000s for promoting discredited theories linking vaccines—especially thimerosal-containing vaccines—to autism. Multiple courts, medical boards, and scientific reviews found that they manipulated data, used flawed statistical methods, and misrepresented their findings. Mark Geier’s medical license was suspended or revoked in several states for unethical practices, including administering unproven and dangerous “treatments” to autistic children; David Geier, who is not a physician, often presented himself in ways that implied scientific or medical authority he did not possess. Their analyses were repeatedly rejected by federal courts (including the vaccine court), public-health agencies, and independent experts. Under Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr., David Geier has now been brought into the federal system as a contractor working within HHS’s immunization safety apparatus—reportedly alongside other Kennedy-aligned staff in the Immunization Safety Office. In this role, he has been granted access to the CDC’s Vaccine Safety Datalink (VSD), a sophisticated and highly sensitive database that requires deep epidemiologic expertise to analyze correctly. Given the Geiers’ long track record of data manipulation and predetermined conclusions, granting him VSD access raises profound concerns about the misuse of federal vaccine safety data for political ends.]

MR: David Geier has been working in the vaccine “safety” arena for decades now. We were very aware of his work. Many at the Vaccine Safety Office had dealt with it directly. His work has been completely discredited. He is not licensed as a physician, and frankly, the medical and scientific communities have moved on because his claims never held up.

Under Secretary Kennedy, he has been revived and brought back as a contractor—either within CDC’s Office of Vaccine Safety or more accurately within HHS. And yes, he is now re-analyzing data from the Vaccine Safety Datalink.

The VSD is an extremely complex dataset. CDC was initially cautious about broad outside access because they knew that unless someone truly understood the structure, variables, and surveillance methods, they would almost certainly misinterpret the data. CDC was always willing to teach researchers how to use it properly. The concern was, and is, exactly this: individuals like Geier, who have a well-documented history of manipulating data to fit preconceived narratives, will use the VSD to “find” whatever they want to find. And that is almost certainly what he is going to do.

BM: Any final thoughts for the public, given your vantage point and expertise?

MR: Trust in vaccines has already declined since the COVID pandemic, and it’s falling further because of the confused and misleading messaging coming from the secretary of Health and Human Services. With this latest change to the CDC website, information about vaccines that appears to come from CDC can no longer be trusted—not because of the scientists, but because their work is being overridden.

I strongly encourage people to consult their healthcare providers or their state health departments for reliable guidance. Providers remain the best source of accurate, science-based information. And I have the utmost confidence in organizations like the American Academy of Pediatrics and others to continue offering sound scientific recommendations.

BM: That’s very sobering guidance.

MR: I think other areas of CDC have not been affected to the same degree. But with the changes to the website, it is now very difficult to say that CDC guidance on vaccine policy can be trusted.

BM: With respect to the CDC as a whole, I understand that Dr. Ralph Abraham has been appointed by HHS as deputy director of CDC. He is an extremely controversial figure—a medical doctor, not board certified—who has aligned himself closely with Kennedy’s MAHA agenda. His record as Louisiana’s surgeon general and as the owner of pharmacies that dispensed unusually high volumes of opioids in an impoverished district raise serious concerns. What are your thoughts on his becoming the senior figure at CDC at a time when the Director’s position is effectively being held by proxy?

MR: Although he does have some public health background and experience running a public health agency, many of his prior actions are very concerning, as you noted. He does not appear to be supportive of vaccines. In Louisiana, he halted state mass vaccination campaigns for seasonal flu and other respiratory illnesses. He reportedly said he did not recommend COVID-19 vaccines because he preferred natural immunity. Consistent with that statement, he prescribed ivermectin for COVID treatment, even though studies have confirmed that ivermectin is not an effective treatment for COVID.

I have serious concerns that he will align with RFK Jr. on vaccine policy and support weakening the U.S. vaccination program, particularly through an ACIP that is now aligned with the secretary. This shift replaces scientific evidence in determining policy with allowing politics to dictate the policy and shaping the science around it.

I don’t know all the ramifications of appointments like this. I’m not familiar with every hiring mechanism. Some positions are less secure than the GS-series civil service roles, meaning they can be more easily terminated or not renewed. And this appointment was made by an acting director, which adds another layer of complexity. But the implications for CDC’s scientific integrity are deeply worrying.

BM: Dr. Reid, thank you so much for your candid replies. I hope we can speak again very soon.