Skip to Main Content

A doctor at the prestigious Cleveland Clinic sparked an online uproar when he published an article Friday filled with anti-vaccine rhetoric, including the widely debunked claim that vaccines are linked to autism. Physicians took to Twitter to call the article “vile” and “Post-truth medicine” and demand whether the clinic endorsed its doctor’s views.

Dr. Daniel Neides, a family doctor and the director and chief operating officer of the Cleveland Clinic Wellness Institute, wrote on a blog on the news site that preservatives and other ingredients in vaccines are dangerous and are likely behind the increase in diagnosed cases of neurological diseases such as autism — a claim that has long been discredited by researchers.

“Does the vaccine burden — as has been debated for years — cause autism? I don’t know and will not debate that here. What I will stand up and scream is that newborns without intact immune systems and detoxification systems are being over-burdened with PRESERVATIVES AND ADJUVANTS IN THE VACCINES,” he wrote. Adjuvants are added to vaccines to prompt a stronger immune response.


“Some of the vaccines have helped reduce the incidence of childhood communicable diseases, like meningitis and pneumonia,” he continued. “That is great news. But not at the expense of neurologic diseases like autism and ADHD increasing at alarming rates.”

Neides’s wellness institute provides “world-class medical care and quality wellness programs to change unhealthy behaviors and to make healthy life choices,” according to its website. But to the wider medical community, the claims that Neides espoused did not promote “healthy life choices.” Instead, they said these statements were downright dangerous.


Dr. Vinay Prasad, a hematologist-oncologist at the Oregon Health and Sciences University, expressed disbelief on Twitter:

In an email to STAT, Prasad added, “That article … contains many of the tired, unsupported, irrational concerns about pediatric vaccines, as well as generally unsupported thoughts on ‘toxin’ exposure. Frankly, it is a little surprising it is written by a doctor, and not someone on the fringe, who lacks basic science and medical training.”

Dr. Jeffrey Matthews, chair of the University of Chicago’s Department of Surgery, tweeted:

Scientists and doctors were horrified about the misinformation contained in the article, especially given that the source is affiliated with a such a prestigious medical institution. A spokesperson for Cleveland Clinic told STAT on Saturday that Neides “will not be doing an interview.”

“He wrote this opinion piece on his own and it does not reflect the position of the Cleveland Clinic whatsoever, and we strongly support vaccinations and the protection of patients and employees,” said Eileen Sheil, executive director of corporate communications for the medical center.

Many doctors saw the post as an embarrassment for the Cleveland Clinic.

Dr. Benjamin Mazer, a resident physician in pathology at Yale New Haven Hospital who tweeted that the article was “one of the most vile, false things I have ever read by a doctor,” said in an interview that it wasn’t an isolated event.

“This is really part of a larger movement that distrusts mainstream medicine, distrusts mainstream public health, and really trades in conspiracy theories,” he told STAT. “This article is a really prime example of that. It’s just a shame that it’s a physician spreading these conspiracy theories because people naturally trust physicians.”

He was especially appalled at the misinformation that Neides was spreading about hepatitis B vaccines, which, Mazer said, “have prevented thousands of deaths.”

Non-clinicians were just as worried.

“When I see opinion pieces that stoke fears about the truly minuscule amounts of formaldehyde (a naturally occurring metabolite in every one of us) in vaccines or suggest that there is still some ‘debate’ as to whether or not vaccines and autism are linked, it sets off alarm bells and huge red flags in my head,” Michael Wosnick, the former scientific director of the Canadian Cancer Society Research Institute, told STAT by email.

  • Hi Kathryn.
    Projection much?
    Have you contributed anything to the discussion?
    You have called names and bullied.
    Even worse, you have promoted scam artists that are responsible for the deaths and suffering of innocent people.

    If there is anything at all that I have said that you believe is incorrect, please let me know and I’ll clarify.

  • Has anyone else noticed that in every comment section concerning vaccines there’s always one or two who defend every statement the medical/industrial complex of Pharma/CDC/FDA? There are always a few common threads regardless of the name they write under, such as: they denigrate other commenters; they resort to name-calling; they are arrogant; they never have anything to contribute to the dialog; they jump on every comment with their vitriol; their sole purpose seems to be to intimidate and bully others. What do you think motivates such people? If they are so educated and important, why are they spending so much time in the comments section of each and every article regarding vaccine safety? Do you suppose they could be paid shills for the Pharma/CDC/FDA?

    • “If they are so educated and important, why are they spending so much time in the comments section of each and every article regarding vaccine safety? ”

      Because vaccines and immunology are incredibly important factors in the health of a nation. When the dumbest people possible are all quacking in the wrong direction it threatens the immunity of the masses (herd immunity) leaving our nation weakened by disease.

      Thanks a lot for the worthless shill gambit, too. You’re not very good at this.

    • Let’s look at another name: “SAYER JI

      Wow, a blogger with no education in science or medicine.

      Such an incredibly impressive list of “professionals” in that youtube video. You must be so well edumacated, Ms. Cleveland.

    • There was a name in there I hadn’t heard before, which is surprising.

      “Dr. Dan Pompa received his bachelor of science degree from the University of Pittsburgh. He earned his doctor of chiropractic degree at Life University in Marietta, Georgia, where he graduated second in his class.”

      Wow, a chiropractor blathering nonsense about vaccines? Say it isn’t so.

      Oh, that also means he’s not a real doctor.

      Very commonly chiropractors go against the scientific research on vaccinations (and many other things).

  • I apologize for having written the same comment a few times. I have been having computer issues. That “stupid blog” is posting interviews with some of the world-renowned scientists throughout this week. I’ve been reading many of those scientists’ work over the last 30 years and was delighted when during that two hour video they covered information I had not yet heard. What does it say about someone who thinks there is nothing left to learn because they already know it all?

    • Kathryn,
      Hate to break it to you, But that blog is lying.

      Every year, hundreds of the world’s leading scientists on this topic gather to discuss the latest research, but the people on your blog aren’t part of that group. Rather, they’re a bunch of quacks and scam artists that call themselves experts in order to make themselves rich off of the gullible and vulnerable.

      If you believe what they say, you’ll remain misinformed.

    • Yeah, I’m a bit beyond that stupid blog.

      No worries, I only received multiple degrees while doing my research into vaccines.

      What degrees do you get after investing a few minutes on that stupid blog?

    • Let’s point out that that video uses RFK Jr., a known anti-vax clown with no scientific expertise, then the next person listed is Stephanie Seneff, an anti-vax clown who went to MIT for computer science and has no real education in medical science. Then there’s Andrew Wakefield, an unethical troll that ordered dangerous spinal taps on special needs children without IRB approval while accepting funds from lawyers for his “research” that also incorporated manipulated pathology lab reports.

      Shall I go on?

    • Jay, just one of those names would instantly kill the credibility of any source on the topic, but this blog brings several of the world’s worst scammers al into one blog.

      You could play a fun game with it like
      “How many of the following people have had research retracted for fraud?” or “How many have their own online stores where they sell untested and unproven medical devices?”

    • I counted about ten people from the blog who had earned their own spot in the “encyclopedia of American loons”, sharing company with people who believe the earth is flat and deny the holocaust existed.

  • So says you. I already impeached your objection…once. Can easily do it again if pushed to the task. However, there are others, including myself, that have dissenting opinions. Regardless, I don’t really care what you wish to “believe” or dismiss. That is completely irrelevant to this discussion and this entire discussion IMO is a propaganda exercise. Keep people in an endless cycle of argumentative bickering. I could return to this forum in six months and the bewildered herd will still be arguing the same, tire, argumentative points without accomplishing anything. That, I submit, is the definition of “stupid”. Rather, let those who buy into the so-called vaccine science get their vaccinations. Those who wish to exercise their Right to refuse, avoid them. What gives you the right to force a substance into someone’s body against their will? Science? The state? If science concludes that Asians are more intelligent that non-asians, will you use that to discriminate against non-asians? Why not? Science shows they are superior (hypothetical). Please read some Civil War history. I suggest Harry Jaffa Ph.D. (deceased). Understand that your Rights are unalienable. They do not come from science. Thus, no science can take them from those who wish to exercise those Rights. But once again… history also shows us that there are forces at work that will always try to abolish your Rights. And when the engineering of consent fails? The authoritarian arm of the state surfaces. The only Rights you have? Are the Rights you assert.

    • Let me address “informed-consent”. If there is no consent — in other words, obligatory — then there can be no “informed-consent”. Maybe in Common Core circles they will argue otherwise. But once something….anything becomes “obligatory”, your need to know vanishes. Why? Because, like-it-or-not, you’re getting it. Why tell you what you’re getting if you have no power to reject it? Ask any soldier how that works… because they are “government property” and have no civil rights. In the future, it is conceivable that vaccines will be simply labeled “A, B, C…” and so on. Why do you need to know something you have no power to control? I can easily dismiss this topic without ever arguing any science. And if you think science is not “argumentative”, then explain why both sides in a trial or hearing can call “experts” who more-often-than-not, have opposing testimony? I just watched Dr. Henry Lee testify in the O.J. Trial in sworn testimony stating the killer could have left his/her footprints in wet cement … years before the crime occurred. Are you joking? A Ph.D. no less. This vaccine matter is a civil rights issue…under public health cover. Period. Nothing further needs to be said. This article ignores the obligatory nature of vaccines .. and does so for a reason. They do not want to open a discussion on civil rights because it is an argument that can be easily defeated. Controlling the narrative…more PSYOPS.

  • I see the bewildered herd is off in their endless cycle of bickering … What have you accomplished? Nothing. LOLLL. One person calling another an idiot and yet another claiming the “science is settled”. Reminds me of “climate change” PSYOPS. In that case, data was fudged, manufactured or ignored. What makes you think vaccine “science” isn’t the same? This is a civil rights issue under public health cover. Let those who choose to vaccinate do so … and those who choose to exercise their Right not to vaccinate refuse. Leave it at that. It would end this entire PSYOPS exercise in one easy post. But that is not the case. The medical community is hiding behind a totalitarian, fascist Agenda and using irrational fear to engineer consent. Lippmann was right … the bewildered herd indeed. Stay bewildered my friends.

    • “Reminds me of “climate change” PSYOPS. In that case, data was fudged, manufactured or ignored.”

      Typical of the anti-science squad. You have to lie.

      “This is a civil rights issue under public health cover.”

      Supreme Court decided in 1905 that vaccinations are not a civil rights issue, but are a matter of protection for the population. That case has been upheld dozens of times by various courts since then, and is continually referred to by new laws, such as in California and other states.

      Sorry, you don’t have the right to be a disease vector.

    • Anti-science? LOL. Did AIDS research for years and produced one of the most objectively effective treatments. Give me enough $$ .. .and I can give you the results you need, through various mechanisms (plausible deniability being perhaps the most used method). For a review of some SCOTUS opinions, consider the following:

      The Fugitive Slave Law or Fugitive Slave Act was passed by the United States Congress on September 18, 1850, as part of the Compromise of 1850 between Southern slave-holding interests and Northern Free-Soilers. In 1855, the Wisconsin Supreme Court became the only state high court to declare the Fugitive Slave Act unconstitutional, as a result of a case involving fugitive slave Joshua Glover, and Sherman Booth, who led efforts that thwarted Glover’s recapture. In 1859 in Ableman v. Booth, the U.S. Supreme Court overruled the state court

      The United States Supreme Court held (5–4) on 21 January 2010 that freedom of speech prohibited the government from restricting independent political expenditures by a nonprofit corporation. In other words, “Free Speech = $$”.

      Bush v. Gore, 531 U.S. 98 (2000), is the United States SCOTUS decision held that the average citizen has no constitutional right to elect the POTUS.

      So, I suggest you study some history instead of Technocracy and Scientism. The Calif. model for their obligatory vaccine program uses their mandatory child seat restraint law. However, this fails because a car restraint is removed once the subject exits the vehicle. How do you “unvaccinate” a person? You cannot.

      Obviously you take the view that “People = Property” and the state can rationalize any casas belli to remove individual civil rights. Lincoln suspended habeas corpus during the Civil War …but it was restored upon the cessation of hostilities. In the instant matter, there is no compelling state interest to not just suspend a civil right, but to abolish it outright. No declaration of a public health emergency…just an argumentative declaration of a measles “outbreak”. LOL. Japanese Americans were segregated during WWII. But, they were released upon that conflict’s conclusion.

      There is no compelling reason to force anybody to be vaccinated against their consent. That is, if people still have their right to property … their own bodies being the most important piece of property most have. But I admit, there are forces who will remove these Rights for a number of reasons. Tyranny also has a cover story… and fear always drives the bewilderd herd towards authority — not away from authority.

    • “Bush v. Gore, 531 U.S. 98 (2000), is the United States SCOTUS decision held that the average citizen has no constitutional right to elect the POTUS.”

      Another lie, amidst a great many lies.

      You really don’t have a clue, do you?

      “There is no compelling reason to force anybody to be vaccinated against their consent.”

      No, you don’t have a clue. No one is vaccinated without their consent. If you want to go to public schools, you have to follow the rules. Children also aren’t the property of their parents, and sometimes the State does have to step in, again, part of Jacobson v Massachusetts and other laws.

      If you don’t like the laws in the US, you’re free to leave. Maybe you should head on over to that libertarian dream country of Somalia.

    • “So, I suggest you study some history instead of Technocracy and Scientism”

      Nothing like using the word “scientism” and showing everyone how little you understand about science and reproducible research. You’re a child.

    • Here is my proof source in re: Bush v. Gore to totally impeach your frivolous, self-serving objection. IMO, you have a nasty case of “diabolical narcissism”.

      You Rights are did not come from science. Thus, no science can form a foundation to remove any of your rights. This is the old, bankrupt “popular sovereign” argument that allowed slavery be legal in the Western territories if the majority of people just voted for it. Not in the post-Civil War era. You can choose to be a chicken, goat or cow … be my guest. But you have no right to impose your scientific dictatorship upon others. It has nothing to do with science. It is about your Rights (capital “R”). And we fought this battle once before. Your side lost. It is time once again for a “new birth of freedom” and let it begin with vaccines. Using irrational fear to engineer consent is an old propaganda trick (see Edward Bernays, “Propaganda”). Go watch Guy Evans excellent deconstruction of Bernays. Here is the link.

    • On December 12, 2000, in Bush v. Gore the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that “the individual citizen has no federal constitutional right to vote for electors for the President of the United States unless and until the state legislature chooses a statewide election as the means to implement its power to appoint members of the Electoral College” And footnote … Obama is attempting to take the Right of states to control their elections away and place under Federal control…..under irrational fear. Fear = PSYOPS. The only thing we have to fear? Is fear itself.

    • You know what else is really funny?

      That Supreme Court decision only applied to Florida because it didn’t accurately follow Article II of the Constitution.

      And yet you generalize it to everyone in the US.

      Pretty ignorant of you to do that.

    • Article II applies to all states. Not just Florida. And you elect “electors”. There is no direct election of the POTUS. Didn’t we just witness this exercise?

      Regardless, no person, no state, no government has the Right to force vaccinate a person against their will or without their consent. There can be no “informed — consent” when consent is not an option. As I stated earlier, the Civil War and World War II rose to such levels in suspending habeas corpus and impounding Japanese Americans. Both were revered and Rights restored upon the cessation of those circumstances (which, btw, are still argumentative .. there are those today who will argue both acts were in violation of the U.S. Constitution). But you have no problem abolishing civil rights under a mere pretext or cover of public health. Why is that? Could it be that since 911, the new normal is to substitute alleged safety for Rights? Where does it end? In your world, there is no end. And throughout history, regimes have always used bogus arguments to either engineer oppression under some pretext or they simply just impose their will without consent. We fought that battle once before … and will fight it again if need be. A “new birth of freedom” is needed to re-establish civil rights and remove from power those who wish to threaten them. People are not property… and all the rationalizations does not change that. Those who believe absurdities are capable of committing atrocities.

      You cannot force a scientific dictatorship upon the country simply because you have declared yourselves postmodernist “gods” — those who are superior to other and have the power to rule over them. Good luck with that fight. History is not on your side.

    • I’m sorry that you think Robert Kennedy Jr. is a credible source of information on vaccinations.

      Unfortunately, RFK is not a scientist, he’s not even really educated on the topic. His lies have all been debunked, over and over and over again.

      He’ll change nothing, because people like Brian and myself will be laughing at him and showing the research proving that he’s full of nonsense.

  • Niedes is correct. There is good science regarding toxic effects if vaccines. Discussion had been suppressed to the detriment of children’s health. The current CDC schedule is not as safe as some European or alternative schedules.

    • Oh dear. Most European vaccination schedules are almost identical to the USA.

      This is more anti vaccine propaganda from people who don’t know how to fact check their own sources.

    • “There is good science regarding toxic effects if vaccines. ”

      No, there isn’t, actually. This is a complete and utter lie.

      There are a handful of articles posing as science by a handful of anti-vaccination loons that have no expertise in vaccines or health, and none of it has been credible or has stood up to further research by credible researchers.

      I’ll bet you think people like Stephanie Seneff (computer science) are credible? What about Wakefield, the guy that was found to have manipulated pathology reports, mixed up patient files and made up diagnoses to hide his fraud and unethical actions?

    • You are actually quite correct, Mary. In addition to what you contributed, I will add that there is not a single vaccine mandate in Canada. These commenters who wish to deny truth and call us liars know that people only have to go to the CDC and FDA web sites to learn the truth regarding vaccine safety. The VAERS court decisions and amount paid out for vaccine injuries and deaths, the vaccine inserts, and even some information of the flawed studies is on those websites. They label anyone disagreeing with their agenda as “quacks” to discourage others from doing their own reading and learning the truth, but you and I, and many others know that the truth will be victorious.

    • Oh Ms. Cleveland, there is nothing on the FDA or CDC pages that agrees with the anti-vax nonsense. As for the vaccine court, the number of rewards indicates that vaccines are greater than 99.999% safe. That’s better than your own cooking.

Comments are closed.