Shut Up and Obey: The Medical Cartel Just Took Out Another Threat to Their Monopoly.

The abrupt withdrawal of Dr David Weldon’s nomination to lead the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) highlights the ongoing political and financial entanglements that shape public health policy.

Weldon, a former congressman and internist, was informed just twelve hours before his scheduled Senate confirmation hearing on 13 March that his nomination was being pulled due to insufficient support.

The decision, reportedly made by the White House after realising they lacked the votes, raises critical questions about the rigidity of political gatekeeping in public health leadership.

Lacking senate support

Robert F. Kennedy Jr., a vocal advocate for public health reform, was “very upset” by the decision. Kennedy had strongly supported Weldon’s nomination and likely saw this last-minute reversal as yet another example of how the establishment protects its own interests.

Weldon himself elaborated on the abruptness of the withdrawal, saying, “Twelve hours before my scheduled confirmation hearing in the Senate, I was told that my nomination was being pulled.”

The political arithmetic was simple.

With 12 Republicans and 11 Democrats on the committee, the loss of one Republican vote was risky. Losing two would ensure failure, as all Democrats were expected to vote against him, prompting the White House to pre-emptively withdraw the nomination.

Vaccine questions and political orthodoxy

Weldon’s nomination was doomed by concerns over his past inquiries into vaccine safety. As he explained in his statement, he was repeatedly accused of being ‘anti-vax,’ despite never claiming that vaccines cause autism.

In today’s political climate, however, even a small, measured scepticism about certain vaccines is enough to disqualify someone from holding public office.

The issue of whether vaccines cause autism is considered settled by the medical establishment. As Senator Bill Cassidy stated during Jay Bhattacharya’s confirmation hearing, conducting further studies on the matter would be “wasting” resources on research that already confirms what we know.

While this argument has some merit (since research funding is finite and often squandered), Bhattacharya countered with a crucial point: vaccines are a public health intervention, and the public must have confidence in them.

If people do not trust the data, then the government has a responsibility to present more evidence to convince them. Refusing to engage in further study only fuels scepticism and deepens public distrust.

The Wakefield factor

Another key reason for the controversy surrounding Weldon was his past interactions with Andrew Wakefield, a former British doctor whose work linking the MMR vaccine to autism was widely discredited by the medical establishment.

Wakefield has since become one of the most vilified figures in medical history, and any association with him is considered political (and scientific) suicide.

As Weldon revealed in his statement, he communicated with Wakefield at the time to better understand the issue.

“He agreed with me that we have to vaccinate our kids for measles. He thought the solution was to give the vaccine at a slightly older age, like they do in many European countries,” Weldon wrote.

Weldon also recounted how Wakefield collaborated with respected virologist Dr. John O’Leary to study biopsies from children with inflammatory bowel disease who had received the MMR vaccine.

“The live virus in the vaccine was supposed to be weakened, and not cause illness,” Weldon wrote. “[But] I had looked at his biopsy micrographs and his PCR findings. It certainly looked to me like the vaccine particles were causing the problem in these children.”

It was enough for Weldon to believe it warranted more research, and he wanted to know why O’Leary eventually withdrew his findings.

Weldon recalled a phone call in which O’Leary—without saying it directly—suggested that he had withdrawn his findings because of external pressure, having to consider both his career and his young children.

Weldon expressed doubts about the CDC’s transparency when it came to representing the studies on vaccines and autism.

“The CDC was accused of changing the protocol and data analysis until the association went away,” Weldon wrote. “Clearly Big Pharma didn’t want me in the CDC investigating any of this.”

Weldon’s engagement with Wakefield’s research, regardless of its credibility, was likely seen as a death knell for his nomination to lead the CDC.

Influence of Big Pharma and political patronage

Weldon believes his nomination was sabotaged by the pharmaceutical industry.

He wrote that Big Pharma was likely behind it, as they are the most powerful lobbying organisation, giving millions of pounds to news agencies, magazines, and websites, funding research, and paying off politicians and even some doctors.

“For any news outlet or organisation to take on Big Pharma could be suicide,” Weldon wrote.

It’s no secret that the pharmaceutical industry exerts tremendous influence over Congress. Senator Cassidy, who played a key role in blocking Weldon’s nomination, has received significant contributions from pharmaceutical companies, casting doubt on his impartiality in healthcare decisions.

Historically, the Republican Party has resisted major healthcare reforms, often siding with corporate interests. However, as a new faction within the party pushes for alternative approaches to public health, the old guard—composed of “bought and paid-for” politicians—continues to resist change.

Given these factors, it’s reasonable to question whether Senator Cassidy’s actions are influenced more by his pharmaceutical donors than by a genuine commitment to improving healthcare for all.

The backfire effect

Ironically, the effort to prevent Weldon from leading the CDC may have the opposite effect of what its architects intended. The establishment’s fear is that vaccine scepticism will grow if someone with Weldon’s history is given a position of power.

Read more