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

By: admin

admin — Sat, 25 Jun 2011 01:49:05 +0000

Thanks for the update Marissa.

By: Marissa

Marissa — Fri, 24 Jun 2011 14:51:30 +0000

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.

By: concerned parent

concerned parent — Sat, 24 May 2008 23:00:23 +0000

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.

By: Jim Witte

Jim Witte — Fri, 23 May 2008 05:50:34 +0000

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.

By: concerned parent

concerned parent — Sun, 20 Apr 2008 21:55:24 +0000

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.

By: Schwartz

Schwartz — Tue, 05 Feb 2008 04:01:55 +0000

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.

By: George

George — Sun, 03 Feb 2008 02:13:13 +0000

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.