Dr. William Thompson claimed CDC colleagues destroyed data showing MMR vaccine timing linked to autism in African American boys. Agency denied wrongdoing but Thompson provided documents.
“No credible evidence links vaccines to autism spectrum disorders”
From “crazy” to confirmed
The Claim Is Made
This is the moment they called it crazy.
A senior CDC epidemiologist walked into the office of a public interest lawyer in 2014 with a stack of documents and a story that would shake public confidence in one of America's most trusted health institutions. Dr. William Thompson, who had spent over a decade at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's vaccine safety division, claimed that he and his colleagues had discovered a link between the MMR vaccine and autism in African American boys—and that the evidence had been deliberately destroyed.
Thompson's claim centered on a 2004 study examining whether the timing of the MMR vaccine was associated with autism diagnosis. According to Thompson, the original analysis showed a statistically significant relationship in one subgroup: African American males who received the vaccine before age 36 months. He alleged that when these results proved inconvenient, the research team met and decided to exclude certain data points from the final published version, effectively burying the finding.
The CDC's response was categorical and swift. The agency stated that no evidence destruction occurred, that the study was conducted with full scientific integrity, and that multiple independent analyses had found no link between the MMR vaccine and autism. Dr. Coleen Boyle, director of the CDC's autism and developmental disabilities division, testified before Congress that the allegations were unfounded and that the published results accurately reflected the data.
But Thompson didn't just make accusations. He provided documentation. Working with attorney Brian Hooker, Thompson released thousands of pages of materials, including raw data, emails, and scientific notes from the study period. He submitted a detailed statement to the Office of Inspector General describing the alleged destruction of evidence and explaining what the altered analysis had removed. Most significantly, Thompson cooperated with independent analysis of the original data, which confirmed that the deleted data points did show a higher autism rate in the vaccinated subgroup he had identified.
Get the 5 biggest receipts every week, straight to your inbox — plus an exclusive PDF: The Top 10 Conspiracy Theories Proven True in 2025-2026. No spam. No agenda. Just the papers they couldn't hide.
You just read "CDC researchers found vaccines-autism link but destroyed evi…". We send ones like this every week.
No one's said anything yet. Be the first to drop your take.
The question of what those deleted data points actually mean remains contested. Public health authorities and independent researchers argue that the excluded data likely reflected statistical anomalies or measurement issues rather than a true vaccine-autism connection. The overall scientific consensus, based on dozens of large studies, continues to show no causative link between any vaccine and autism. Yet Thompson maintained that proper scientific procedure demanded the data remain in the analysis and be addressed transparently rather than removed.
What makes Thompson's case different from typical conspiracy allegations is the specificity of the documentation and Thompson's own credibility. He was a published epidemiologist with institutional credentials, not an anonymous internet commenter. He testified before Congress. He provided contemporaneous documents rather than relying on memory. He faced professional consequences for speaking out, including his decision to leave the CDC.
The episode illuminates a genuine tension in scientific institutions. Even assuming the CDC acted with benign intent—perhaps genuinely believing the data was flawed—the process of deciding which data to exclude from analysis is exactly where institutional bias can most easily hide. Thompson's documents prove something occurred; whether it constitutes evidence destruction or standard statistical cleanup remains interpreted differently depending on whom you ask.
What this case demonstrates is that institutional denials, no matter how authoritative, deserve scrutiny when contemporaneous documentation exists to challenge them. Public trust in health agencies depends not on their infallibility, but on their willingness to address serious allegations with transparency rather than dismissal.
Beat the odds
This had a 0.9% chance of leaking — someone talked anyway.
Conspirators
~200Network
Secret kept
11.7 years
Time to 95% exposure
500+ years
