"A Centers for Disease Control and Prevention website that previously said that vaccines do not cause autism walked back that statement, contradicting the agency’s previous efforts to fight misinformation about a connection between the two.The agency’s webpage on vaccines and autism, updated on Wednesday, now repeats the skepticism that Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. has voiced about the safety of vaccines, though dozens of scientific studies have failed to find evidence of a link.A previous version of the webpage said that studies had shown “no link between receiving vaccines and developing autism spectrum disorder.” It cited a 2012 National Academy of Medicine review of scientific papers and a C.D.C. study from 2013.On Thursday, the live version of the page stated: “The claim ‘vaccines do not cause autism’ is not an evidence-based claim because studies have not ruled out the possibility that infant vaccines cause autism.”"
24 November 2025
The sad slow death of the CDC
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I wish I knew how to embed a brain exploding emoji here.
ReplyDeleteOne advantage of nature is that it does not rely on human approval.
ReplyDeleteSadly, the wise application of medicine does rely on human approval.
With all end of USAID and all this medical misinformation, this may be the deadliest American administration. And that's something, a few years after the mishandling of COVID.
This all makes me think of Iron Maiden. There's a line in 'Can I play with Madness': "Your soul's gonna burn in a lake of fire." Good song. Nice visual.
Finally: “The claim ‘vaccines do not cause autism’ is not an evidence-based claim because studies have not ruled out the possibility that infant vaccines cause autism.”" is a bait and switch. The statement is a statistical truth, not an absolute truth. Also, it asks for a negative proof: "Proof that this never happens." Those tend to be hard.
In short, it's a deceptive word play. It's non-scientific hogwash.
Science deniers tend to treat science as debate club where all opinions are valid. This works if you are debating whether red or green is a prettier color. But scientific debate doesn't work like that. It is not held in podcasts, or 7 minute segments on tv with pithy pundits. If science deniers want to engage in scientific debate, they can come to the place where scientific debate is held: Peer-reviewed scientific conferences and journals. Oddly, science deniers never show up there. There's a reason for that: It takes too much effort. And they're lazy. They prefer if others do the proofs they demand.