Controversy Erupts Over Nonexistent Study Cited in CDC Vaccine Report

In a startling revelation, a report on the use of thimerosal as a preservative in vaccines, set to be presented to the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s (CDC) vaccine advisory committee, has been found to cite a study that does not exist. This revelation comes from Robert Berman, a professor emeritus at UC Davis, who was erroneously listed as a co-author of the purported study. The report, titled 'Thimerosal as a Vaccine Preservative,' is scheduled for presentation by Lyn Redwood, a former leader of the anti-vaccine organization Children’s Health Defense.
The controversy centers around a study cited in the report, allegedly published in the journal Neurotoxicology in 2008 and co-authored by Berman. However, Berman has clarified that no such study exists under his authorship. He acknowledged co-authoring a similarly titled study in a different journal, Toxicological Sciences, which reached conclusions contrary to those suggested by Redwood. "We did not examine the effects of thimerosal in microglia," Berman stated, distancing himself from the misrepresentation.
This incident has further fueled the contentious atmosphere surrounding the CDC meeting, already under scrutiny after US Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. abruptly dismissed all 17 members of the previous expert panel, replacing them with eight new members, half of whom have expressed anti-vaccine sentiments. Kennedy, a prominent anti-vaccine activist and founder of Children’s Health Defense, has long advocated for a link between vaccines and autism, despite overwhelming scientific evidence to the contrary.
The meeting, scheduled for June 25 and 26, has drawn bipartisan calls for postponement from Republican Senator Bill Cassidy of Louisiana and Democratic Senator Patty Murray of Washington State. Both senators argue that the meeting should not proceed with an inadequately staffed panel and in the absence of a CDC director. Cassidy, who chairs the Senate committee on health, education, labor, and pensions, emphasized the need for a comprehensive review process.
The implications of Redwood’s presentation are significant, as it contrasts sharply with a separate CDC report that finds no evidence supporting a link between thimerosal-containing vaccines and autism or other neurodevelopmental disorders. The CDC report highlights that 96% of influenza vaccines in the US during the 2024-25 flu season were thimerosal-free, with a marked decline in thimerosal-containing flu vaccines administered to pregnant women. As the debate over vaccine safety continues, the integrity of scientific citations remains paramount in guiding public health policy.
🔮 Fortellr Predicts
Confidence: 80%
The disclosure that the CDC's upcoming report presented by Lyn Redwood cites a study that does not exist is set to trigger a cascade of responses from several stakeholders. Immediate reactions are likely to come from scientific and public health communities, who will demand clarification and rectification from the CDC to maintain trust in public health communications. The controversy occurs amid a politically charged environment, with recent changes in the CDC advisory panel led by figures with historic anti-vaccine leanings amplifying concerns about the objectivity and integrity of public health decision-making. Historically, misinformation about vaccine components like thimerosal has fueled public hesitancy and led to real public health crises, such as outbreaks of preventable diseases. Given the 2025 political context, where the Senate is controlled by Republicans and the Biden administration had previously upheld stringent measures to ensure vaccine safety, this controversy may lead to bipartisan scrutiny of the advisory panel's recommendations. In the short to medium term, policy interventions could emerge, focused on reinforcing the scientific rigor and transparency of public health advisories, potentially culminating in legislative oversight or restructuring of advisory processes. Long-term, the incident could influence public discourse and policies related to vaccine development and approval, potentially impacting vaccination campaigns and public trust in health agencies.