The “Conspiracy Theory” That Was Too Big for the CDC to Cover Up
Remember Pfizer executive Jordan Trishton Walker?
He said, “There is something IRREGULAR about [vaccinated women’s] menstrual cycles,” adding, “people will have to investigate that.”
“Conspiracy theorists” like Naomi Wolf were called “batshit crazy” for noticing what women were screaming from the rooftops.
But the data proves they were right all along:
• 42% of women with regular cycles reported heavier bleeding than usual after vaccination
• 71% of women on birth control experienced breakthrough bleeding
• 66% of menopausal women (who should NEVER bleed) started bleeding again
• And in one major study, 78% of vaccinated women reported some form of menstrual disorder.
What did Rochelle Walensky’s CDC do? They tried to COVER IT UP.
This report reveals how far they went to silence women, bury the evidence, and who profited from it all.
🧵 THREAD
The information in this thread comes from the work of medical researcher @MidwesternDoc. For all the sources and details, read the full 5000-word report here: midwesterndoctor.com/p/where-does-t…
@MidwesternDoc Is the CDC corrupt because of a hidden conspiracy—or is it just the natural result of a bloated government?
One thing is clear… Whether by design or decay, what we’re seeing now is not public health.
It’s systemic rot. And it’s all on purpose.
The CDC doesn’t just promote bad science. It protects bad vaccines at all costs—no matter how harmful they are.
It attacks alternative medicine, gaslights people who have been injured, and pushes ineffective policies like wearing a mask and getting yearly flu shots… all while claiming complete neutrality.
And behind that curtain lies a funding system designed to reward corruption.
Since 1983, the CDC has legally been allowed to accept “gifts” as long as they’re “for the benefit of the [Public Health] Service or for the carrying out of any of its functions.”
What could go wrong?!
By 1992, Congress established The National Foundation for the Centers for Disease Control & Prevention—a backdoor for corporations to literally funnel cash to the CDC.
@MidwesternDoc Today, the CDC has received nearly $1 billion from corporate “donors”, including:
• Pfizer
• Moderna
• Merck
• Gates Foundation
• Google
• Facebook
• Coca-Cola
Ah yes, Coca-Cola “for the benefit of the [Public Health] Service.”
lol.
It doesn’t take a genius to connect the dots. These “donations” weren’t charity. They bought influence.
Roche paid to push Tamiflu, a failed flu drug.
Coca-Cola used the CDC to undermine sugar regulation.
Vaccine makers gave tens of millions to push testing and treatments they profit from—while the CDC wrote the “guidelines.”
This isn’t public health. It’s money laundering in a lab coat.
And it has real consequences for people like you and me.
@MidwesternDoc So how is the CDC responding to the MAHA policies and improvements that RFK Jr. is trying to enact?
It’s pulling all out all the stops to resist anything that may help make America healthy again.
Not exactly the unbiased agency it claims to be.
Some CDC scientists have tried to blow the whistle on the corruption.
In 2016, anonymous employees wrote to leadership exposing data fraud, intimidation, and internal cover-ups—including falsified screening numbers sent to Congress!
That’s huge!
But the review was buried. The lies continued. And the public never heard a word.
Until now.
@MidwesternDoc Want to see the full letter and all the receipts?
So, why exactly does the CDC push dangerous vaccines?
Yes, money plays a big role—but so does ideology.
Among doctors, vaccines aren’t just an aspect of medicine, they’re a belief system.
This blind faith drilled into doctors while in med school leads many to completely ignore evidence of harm—even when the harm is literally staring them in the face.
But trusting something so wholeheartedly without having all of the information (because that’s impossible), just seems to be a human quirk not limited to doctors and vaccines.
Confirmation bias is all around us. I do it. You do it.
It helps to be aware of this very common and very normal condition of being human.
Always remember that you do not and cannot have all of the information. And even if you’ve studied something for years and you feel quite passionately about a topic, you could still be wrong.
Always be open to learning more and shifting your beliefs when they’re challenged.
And always remember that this very normal human thing can be exploited and manipulated.
It’s clear that public trust in medicine and vaccines has been manipulated.
Public health, media, medicine, and society at large are convinced that vaccines are produced safely and tested adequately.
But true vaccine safety requires tough questions:
• What are the actual risks vs. benefits?
• How effective is the vaccine over time?
• What’s the rate of side effects?
• Are the rare deaths from the disease worse than the vaccine injuries?
Unfortunately, no one is asking these questions. Pharma highlights one benefit, the media repeats it, and the CDC ignores the rest.
Some people get richer and more powerful while the rest of us suffer. And some of them are unable to admit let alone see what’s caused their suffering.
This ideology is why so many people—including injured doctors and politicians—won’t admit they were harmed.
It’s why vaccine injuries are dismissed as “coincidence,” “rare,” or “anecdotal.”
And it’s why, to this day, not one Democratic senator has publicly acknowledged a COVID vaccine injury—despite several having obvious neurological issues.
Senator Ron Johnson is trying to change that.
He recently held a hearing giving vaccine-injured Americans the platform they were denied.
One key takeaway?
Many politicians and medical leaders aren’t malicious. They’re just trapped in dogma.
When you expose them to real people and their stores, some begin to wake up.
One of the CDC’s most powerful tools is ACIP—the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices.
This group votes on which vaccines end up on the childhood schedule.
The ACIP makes the public think that there’s an impartial and trusted “third party” checking everything. But it’s a trick.
Here’s the problem with the ACIP:
• Most members have financial conflicts
• They ignore injury reports
• They rubber-stamp every new vaccine
To date, the ACIP hasn’t protected children. It’s just promoting pharma.
Even when evidence of harm is overwhelming, the ACIP doesn’t budge.
But emotional anecdotes from grieving parents in support of Big Pharma’s whims? That gets results.
One woman testified that her sister died of the flu as an infant. Her family lobbied the CDC.
So the ACIP changed flu shot policy—despite flu deaths in that age group being extremely rare.
@MidwesternDoc The Menveo meningitis vaccine followed the same pattern.
To prevent one death, over a million babies had to be vaccinated—at a cost of $100–$500 per child.
The math makes zero sense. Anyone can see that. But pharma-backed parents testified, and the ACIP approved it.
So the ACIP responds to vaccine injury testimonials, right? Well, those are just “anecdotal” stories.
Either you listen to no families and their stories or listen to them all.
You can’t cherry pick traumatic stories just to further your narrative.
Except that’s exactly what the ACIP does.
What a joke.
So, what’s behind this imbalance?
Simple: the entire evidence system is rigged.
And it was designed this way.
Evidence-based medicine was supposed to challenge dogma. Instead, it got hijacked by industry.
Now only favorable studies get published, and inconvenient data gets buried—or never even collected in the first place.
And if data isn’t buried, it’s simply hidden.
COVID exposed this system in real time:
• CDC refused to release its Vaccine Safety Datalink
• Lawsuits revealed that the CDC had evidence of harm—but then lied about it
• Experts claimed the vaccines were “safe and effective,” but they had no data to prove it
We were told to “trust the science.” But trust was just another trap.
Pfizer skipped major safety studies in its vaccine application—and the CDC let them!
Even today, the CDC claims its “private analysis” shows no link between the vaccine and seizures, strokes, pregnancy loss, and abnormal menstruation.
All while denying the public access to the underlying data and ignoring the heaps of evidence and countless stories.
The CDC’s claims that the COVID vaccines were safe and certainly did cause menstrual abnormalities led to the gaslighting of hundreds of thousands of women who knew something was different.
Yet the media, doctors, and millions of people with blinders on told them they were wrong.
Did you know that abnormal menstrual bleeding is one of the most common side effects of the COVID vaccines?
Among 165,000 women, 42% experienced abnormal bleeding. 71% on contraceptives had abnormal bleeding. And shockingly, 66% of menopausal women also had abnormal bleeding!
In a group of 14,153 vaccinated women, 78% experienced abnormal menstrual bleeding.
Non-menstruating women were 2-5 times more likely to bleed. Menstrual bleeding was often extended by 2.5 days.
And it wasn’t just a one time thing. For some women, this went on for months.
How did the CDC, public health officials, and doctors just ignore this?
Another example stands out:
The CDC claimed that 83% of myocarditis patients “fully recovered” in 90 days.
But data showed us that 18 months later, 35% still had symptoms, 13% needed medication, and 5.6% were hospitalized again.
It doesn’t add up.
The CDC buried this data to protect the vaccine narrative.
@MidwesternDoc They even admitted they can’t track long-term complications.
Why?
Too many “confounding variables.”
Translation: they have no plan—and no interest—in finding out how many people were harmed by the COVID shots.
But isn’t that their job?!
Watching ACIP meetings became a grim ritual during COVID.
No matter how absurd the justification, the outcome was always the same…
More vaccines, less transparency. Again and again.
Like a script written in advance.
But for the first time in decades, the script is starting to fall apart.
@MidwesternDoc Thanks for reading! This information was based on a report originally published by @MidwesternDoc. Key details were streamlined and editorialized for clarity and impact. Read the original report here. midwesterndoctor.com/p/where-does-t…
@MidwesternDoc For a deeper dive into what modern medicine has overlooked—or intentionally buried—check out these other eye-opening reports by @MidwesternDoc:
Modern medicine is addicted to the biochemical model of disease because it creates a pipeline for expensive, patentable drugs, and it often leaves patients and their families in the dark, rather than empowered and in control.
It’s not about finding root causes. It’s about finding something you can bill for.
That’s why the industry has spent decades treating Alzheimer’s like a “chemical imbalance” in the brain caused by amyloid plaques—even though hundreds of trials targeting amyloid have failed.
The more the theory collapsed, the harder the system doubled down. Just like cholesterol and heart disease, the medical machine kept pushing the failed model long after it broke.
Tucker Carlson admitted he used to make fun of people who believe vaccines cause autism.
He now describes his behavior as “unthinking, stupid, and reactionary.”
Tucker says people are noticing what Robert De Niro noticed about vaccines before he suddenly abandoned the issue: “There’s something there that people aren’t addressing” with vaccines and autism.
De Niro declared this on “The Today Show” back in 2016. Let the clip roll, and you’ll see it.
Fast forward to today, and it’s hard to believe De Niro actually said what he did on mainstream television.
What’s even harder to believe is just how most of the vaccines used today got approved in the first place.
“Placebo” doesn’t mean what most people think it means when it comes to vaccines.
Once you understand what a vaccine “placebo” is, the way evidence gets buried starts making a lot more sense. 🧵
Something strange happens when people first start looking seriously at vaccine safety data.
They do the research. They find the studies. They bring the evidence carefully into a conversation that feels safe and possible.
But nothing moves.
The other person doesn’t adjust. Doesn’t even get curious. They just double down harder.
Nothing about it feels like a normal disagreement. It feels like something else entirely.
Because it is.
And there’s actually a specific reason for that. A reason that goes much deeper than tribalism.
The reason vaccine orthodoxy functions differently from almost every other medical debate isn’t random.
It’s structural. It was designed and built this way.
To understand why the evidence lands differently here—why the same standards of proof that apply literally everywhere else somehow don’t apply to vaccines—you have to understand what vaccines actually represent in Western medicine.
At the height of COVID, a “crazy” doctor was treating patients with a 99.96% survival rate.
Dr. Zelenko’s protocol was so effective, it sparked a war against HCQ.
They mocked his claims, but they kept coming true. Here’s what he said:
#1 - “Not everyone got the same thing.”
In an interview with Mel K, Dr. Zelenko said, “Some of the lots were 5,000% more lethal than others — or think of it as 50x. So, let’s say one vial killed one person. Another vial killed 50 people.”
“If everyone would have gotten the same thing, it would be a clear correlation that you’re being poisoned, and no one would take it,” Dr. Zelenko concluded. Thus, the answer to why some people took the shot and turned out okay is because “not everyone got the same thing.”
Dr. Zelenko’s bold claim was confirmed in March 2023, when a study performed by Schmeling and colleagues found that 4.2% of the batches accounted for a staggering 71% of adverse events.
In 2015, Scott Adams made a “crazy” prediction that most people thought was impossible.
He said Trump had a 98% chance of becoming president, and he made that call on a single observation.
The winning attribute that made Scott confident in Trump’s victory was his one-of-a-kind persuasion skills.
While political betting markets dismissed Trump’s chances, Adams argued—using his background in persuasion and hypnosis—that Trump was the most psychologically effective candidate in the race and therefore favored to win. He built a massive following by showing how persuasion, not policy, drives political outcomes.
That insight proved correct. But it also revealed something darker. 🧵
After Trump’s victory, Adams pivoted to punditry—and during COVID, even he struggled to see the truth.
Scott strongly endorsed the vaccines, vaccinated himself, and publicly belittled followers who refused. Many later derisively called him “Clot Adams.”
In January 2023, Adams admitted—on video—that he’d been wrong and that the anti-vaxxers were correct. But he framed it as luck: the right people just happened to distrust the government, while “all the data” supposedly pointed intelligent analysts toward vaccination.
That framing matters. It reveals how even skilled observers of persuasion can mistake marketing consensus for truth—and how the same system that manufactures medical certainty also hides the limits of medicine, until reality forces a reckoning.
Last May, Scott told the world something most people never say out loud until it’s unavoidable: he had terminal, metastatic prostate cancer.
He openly stated he planned to use California’s medically assisted dying to reduce suffering.
He also shut down speculation—saying he had already tried fenbendazole and ivermectin and had no interest in continuing them.
The reaction was explosive.
People weren’t just debating treatment choices—they were watching, in real time, what a protracted, modern death actually looks like.
For many, it shattered comforting abstractions about both cancer and mortality.
This 45-second clip with Dr. Peter Hotez is difficult to watch.
A mom from Texas desperately asks him why she keeps getting “really bad” COVID.
She got three COVID shots, took multiple rounds of Paxlovid, but she keeps “getting COVID often.”
Dr. Hotez tells the woman that her repeated COVID infections are basically her fault for skipping boosters.
WOMAN: “I’m getting COVID often. I took Paxlovid the third time, and then a few weeks later I got it again. COVID was really bad on me.”
HOTEZ: “After you had your first two immunizations way back in 2021, did you get boosters regularly?”
WOMAN: “I got one booster, and then after that I stopped getting them.”
HOTEZ: “Yeah. So that’s the reason why you keep up with the boosters.”
The saddest part about this interaction is that the woman was so convinced by Hotez that getting COVID was her fault that she was eager to get another booster shot after the show.
This is an extreme case of medical gaslighting that is easy to spot.
But what about when it’s not?
What about the times you did everything your doctor recommended—only to find yourself worse off than when you started? 🧵
Something seismic has happened to public health in America—and most people haven’t fully processed its scale.
A 2025 JAMA study surveying pregnant mothers and parents of young children found that only 37% fully trusted the CDC vaccine schedule and planned to follow it completely.
Five years ago, a number that low would have been unimaginable.
So what’s causing the drop? And what does it mean?
To understand the big picture and why it matters, you need the baseline.
In 2000, only 19% of parents had concerns about vaccines. By 2009, that number was 50%. And by 2013, 9% had declined all immunizations, while 32% had safety concerns.
The medical establishment found those numbers alarming. But what we’re looking at today is in a different category entirely.
In the 1930s to the early 60s, Americans were convinced smoking was healthy.
Doctors proudly appeared in cigarette ads. “More doctors smoke Camels than any other cigarette.”
The public was given a clear message: If physicians smoked themselves, how dangerous could it possibly be?
At its peak, more than 42% of American adults smoked, with rates among men climbing as high as 57%.
Business was booming. But behind the scenes, tobacco companies already knew smoking was linked to deadly disease.
Internal research pointed to the dangers early, yet the industry spent years funding doubt, attacking critics, and delaying public awareness long enough to keep the machine running.
Then came January 11, 1964.
The U.S. Surgeon General released the report that changed everything: smoking causes lung cancer and other deadly illnesses.
Almost overnight, one of the most trusted health narratives in America began to collapse.
And it wasn’t the only one.
In the 1940s and 1950s, lobotomies were celebrated as a revolutionary treatment for mental illness. Walter Freeman traveled the country performing thousands of “ice-pick” procedures, sometimes in minutes, sometimes on children.
The technique even earned a Nobel Prize.
Years later, it was widely condemned as barbaric, after leaving countless patients permanently damaged.
Today, we look back at both eras with disbelief and wonder how entire generations came to trust ideas that later proved so catastrophically wrong.
But the more uncomfortable question is harder to escape:
How many medical “certainties” we trust today will future generations one day look back on the same way? 🧵
We hold thousands of assumptions we never question.
Most of them are fine. The dangerous ones are the unquestioned assumptions that aren’t.
This is about what it actually looks like to prioritize truth over being right.
Including when that means publicly correcting something you’ve believed for decades.
Let’s start with a story.
For decades, a widely repeated narrative has appeared in critiques of Western medicine:
That 19th century surgeon James Marion Sims performed experimental gynecological surgeries on enslaved black women without anesthesia—using them as test subjects before performing the same procedures on white women, with anesthesia.
It felt obviously, viscerally wrong. Most people never questioned it.
They just react to it.
As it turns out, what the historical record actually shows is considerably different.
The condition Sims treated—vesicovaginal fistula—was devastating and had no cure at the time. Suffering women were desperate for relief and willingly consented to the procedures.
Ether was brand new, highly controversial, and carried real risks. Sims and other surgeons of the era didn’t believe the pain of these specific operations justified those risks—and applied the same standard regardless of the patient’s race.
The women he worked with helped each other through their recoveries, assisted in surgeries, and pushed him to continue when he wanted to stop. He acknowledged his debt to them publicly. He operated at his own expense.
The narrative most people know about James Marion Sims had been assembled to support a political argument, not drawn from the historical record. And in 2018, after significant protest, his statue in New York City was removed.