We’re honestly surprised to be writing this, but our answer is that there are many parts of the CDC website that we don’t think you should use right now. We’re not saying you can’t trust anyone at the CDC, but you should be using caution and care with their website.
Here’s why:
The CDC website was recently revised to contradict the scientific consensus, which is that there’s no evidence of a link between autism and vaccines. This has caused an uproar among scientists and advocates, and called into question whether the CDC website has lost credibility.
What the CDC website says now: “Studies have not ruled out the possibility that infant vaccines cause autism.”
What it said earlier last week (accurately): “Studies have shown that there is no link between receiving vaccines and developing autism spectrum disorder (ASD). No links have been found between any vaccine ingredients and ASD.”
To be clear, the science on autism and vaccines has been consistent for years. This is a messaging change that directly contradicts the available data.
For us at ZHH, and anyone else that has relied on the CDC website for gold-standard science and guidance over the years, this is concerning.
For now, we’ll avoid using any CDC and HHS webpages that veer toward the political - anything that mentions vaccines, autism, pregnancy or reproductive health, LGBTQ+ community, environment, or health equity.
Not only because we can’t be sure that they’re reflective of the evidence and data out there, but also because using those sources is more likely to turn someone off (from both sides of the aisle!) of whatever health science we’re trying to communicate.
We will continue to use CDC data sources like Flu-view, NoroSTAT, and others. So far, there’s nothing to indicate that this data is being changed in any way. And we want to reiterate that there are still thousands of excellent scientists and public health professionals at the CDC doing good, evidence-based work. This isn’t about the science changing, it’s about the messaging.
For now, we’re double-checking CDC guidance in any areas where wording has changed recently, so we can give you evidence-based information. Luckily, we have lots of other great resources from professional orgs, universities, and private institutions to help fill the gap.
Sources: Washington Post, CIDRAP, YLE
A Jetblue pilot thought he had foodborne illness. In reality, it was an increasingly common tick-borne meat allergy that turned out to be fatal.