Parents: Does the CDC Think We are Stupid?

January 31, 2008 by
Filed under: CDC Watch 

sheeple1.JPG

Why else would the CDC supply the parents of America with dumbed down information that contradicts their very own guidelines on how to distinguish trustworthy information from mere opinion? Here are the guidelines from the CDC on evaluating information found on the Internet.

The CDC on trustworthy information.

What is the scientific evidence for claims made? The original source of facts and figures should be shown. For example, the Web site should provide citations of medical articles or other sources of information. You should be able to distinguish facts from opinions. Also, facts are more reliable if they come from a published scientific study on humans rather than from unpublished accounts or from reports of a single person or of animal studies.

When it comes to information for parents, the CDC motto is clearly: “Do as I say, not as I do.”

Click to see the pages that tell parents: “What Would Happen if We Stopped Vaccinations”

Here is a sample quote:

In the U.S., up to 20 percent of persons with measles are hospitalized.

Reference to scientific evidence? Original source of facts and figures? A way to distinguish facts from opinions? Did this statistic come from a published scientific study?

Page after page of frightening statements about death and disease and not a single citation. Nary a reference to be seen.

We’ve searched high and low, to and fro, through the parent pages on vaccination and we can’t find any citations at all for the information provided. To make things worse (much worse) when we check the CDC’s own statements against their own materials provided for doctors and other medical professionals, also known as “The Pink Book”, it turns out…that the CDC are telling…lies! That the CDC is telling parents tall tales about the dangers of disease and the effectiveness of vaccines. Shocking, isn’t it? The CDC turns out to be the very people they are warning us to watch out for; people presenting uncited, unsupported, undocumented, unsigned, false material to the public. Whew! Plus they are doing all this with our tax dollars.

A shining example of blatantly false material is what the CDC tells parents about Hepatitis B: Parent’s Page

In addition, approximately 33,000 children (10 years of age and younger) of mothers who are not infected with hepatitis B virus were infected each year before routine recommendation of childhood hepatitis B vaccination.

Let’s compare the CDCs statistics from The Pink Book: The Pink Book Chapter on Hepatitis B

The incidence of reported hepatitis B peaked in the mid-1980s, with about 26,000 cases reported each year.

Okay, this might work if the majority of cases were in children under the age of 10, but look at this:

Before routine childhood hepatitis B vaccination was recommended, more than 80% of acute HBV infections occurred among adults. Adolescents accounted for approximately 8% of infections, and children and infants infected through perinatal transmission accounted for approximately 4% each.

Four percent of 26,000 is 1,040 cases per year. This is not even remotely close to 33,000 children infected per year. Plus they are stating that these 33,000 children were not born from infected mothers, but caught Hep B just wandering around. I wonder if they just pulled this number out of the air? But, as I pointed out earlier, there are no references or citations or links to data on the parent pages, so we can’t find out where they got this number.

The Centers for Disease Control were absolutely correct when they said this:

What is the scientific evidence for claims made? The original source of facts and figures should be shown. For example, the Web site should provide citations of medical articles or other sources of information. You should be able to distinguish facts from opinions. Also, facts are more reliable if they come from a published scientific study on humans rather than from unpublished accounts or from reports of a single person or of animal studies.

Memo to the CDC:
Please give us the scientific evidence. Please show us your source for facts and figures. Please tell us when you are talking facts and when you are handing out opinions. And we’d love to know which scientific studies you are basing your facts on, too. And then we’ll be able to figure out if you are telling the truth or telling us lies. Right now we’re leaning towards lies…

Next time: Measles: The Grim Reality

Comments

9 Comments on Parents: Does the CDC Think We are Stupid?

  1. George on Sat, 2nd Feb 2008 7:13 pm
  2. Hmm. I read some of the CDC pages and they sounded okay, but now someone has pointed out the lack of references they look sort of wonky.

  3. Schwartz on Mon, 4th Feb 2008 9:01 pm
  4. Bravo!

    Someone else who noticed the same thing I did 6 years ago when I first researched vaccines at the birth of my daughter.

    No credible evidence for the risk of death or disability from disease + no credible evidence for the risk of contracting the disease in my location + no credible evidence for the risk of death or disability from the vaccine = ability to weigh the benefits against the risks.

    At least the Canadian immunization guide quotes a lot more references (I live in Canada). Unfortunately, they all reference the initial pharma funded safety and efficacy trials. Alas, most of these are not easy to get for the lay person, and although they are helpful, I would prefer some “real” safety followup information.

  5. concerned parent on Sun, 20th Apr 2008 2:55 pm
  6. I too have noticed this “information gap” between literature intended for medical professionals and literature intended for parents and other “lay” people. Ditto on the CDC Pink Book v. general public info pages. There’s an especially large gap (or actually chasm) between the Vaccine Information Statements superficial risk “disclosure” and the vaccine package inserts risk disclosures. Financial investment risk disclosure requirements are much more stringent. Why are investor assets more protected than childrens’ health? There’s a need to education people about this information gap and about where they can find information that hasn’t been dumbed down for the general public. It is very disheartening, to say the least.

  7. Jim Witte on Thu, 22nd May 2008 10:50 pm
  8. Three words: “Congressional” “Hearings”.. “NOW!!!!”

    Surely the GAO should be interested in the mis-use of tax-dollars to LIE to the American public.. Especially since CDC is under the Executive Branch IIRC – that ol’ “separation of powers” thing that is quickly and quietly going the way of the Dodo bird)

    Of course, that is kind of assuming that any parent actually *reads* the CDC stuff.. Unfortunately, I fear too many do.. I’m SURE that ABCs website links directly to the page – ABC seems particularly bad about lying about this stuff (is the an under-the-table payment/quid-pro-quo for the Eli Stone fiasco?

    Disgusting. When is someone going to say “vaccine-gate”? It’s time I think.

  9. concerned parent on Sat, 24th May 2008 4:00 pm
  10. There is an article in the current edition of Time magazine (June 2, 2008) entitled “How Safe are Vaccines?” that contains this statement: “CDC officials estimate that fully vaccinating all US children born in a given year from birth to adolescence saves 33,000 lives, prevents 14 million infections and saves $10 billion in medical costs.” It is impossible to decipher what this means without additional information. Of course there are no citations. Do they mean 33,000 lives saved over a 15 year period (birth to adolescence)?? That would equate to 2,200 deaths per year. If so, they must be basing their estimate on 1950′s data, because according to the CDC’s own data the US vaccine-preventable infectious disease death rates have been nowhere near 2,200 since the early 1950′s. They cannot mean 33,000 lives saved annually. There are not 33,000 children dying in the US each year from vaccine-preventable infectious diseases.

    (Compare this to the 26,440 adverse events reported in VAERS for 2007 alone. Don’t forget it’s estimated that only about 10% of the total number of vaccination adverse events get reported.)

    The article also trots out the typical misleading graph starting in 1950 instead of 1900, which would paint a very different picture of the impact of vaccination on disease rates.

  11. Marissa on Fri, 24th Jun 2011 7:51 am
  12. I’m not sure if this has changed since you published this post in 2008, but there actually are references to scientific studies on at least some of the pages on the CDC’s vaccine information website. They do not reference any studies that disagree with their findings, which makes their site biased at best. Their studies were also all commissioned by the CDC. http://www.cdc.gov/vaccinesafety/Concerns/sids.html using just SIDS as one of the possible side effects that the CDC wanted investigating. If they really felt we could make informed decisions on our own, why wouldn’t they also link to studies that showed a correlation, even if not a causation that contradicts their findings? Why can’t we be trusted with all of the information?

    http://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/spec-grps/parents.htm#question
    Their “risks of not getting vaccinated” links to a New York Times article without any citations for its claims.

  13. admin on Fri, 24th Jun 2011 6:49 pm
  14. Thanks for the update Marissa.

  15. jacob on Wed, 15th Aug 2012 1:58 pm
  16. If there isn’t a source page, contact them and they will probably send all of their sources. Just because they aren’t listed doesn’t mean they don’t have them.

  17. Boss on Wed, 15th Aug 2012 2:47 pm
  18. Did you read the quote from the CDC saying that unsourced material is untrustworthy?

    If they have good sources for their stats, they should be able to link them, just as we do. Come on, if a little tiny blog with no funding at all can source their data, the CDC with the U.S. government behind them certainly shouldn’t wait to be asked before they substantiate their statements.

© 2010-2014 Inside Vaccines All Rights Reserved -- Copyright notice by Blog Copyright