health

CDC director announces shake-up, citing COVID mistakes

22 Comments
By MIKE STOBBE

The requested article has expired, and is no longer available. Any related articles, and user comments are shown below.

© Copyright 2022 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed without permission.

©2022 GPlusMedia Inc.

22 Comments
Login to comment

The agency has long been criticized as too ponderous, focusing on collection and analysis of data

That is what I said from the beginning.

Only focusing on data makes no sense when you completely ignore and close your eyes to the reality.

And if you ignore the reality and just focus on data, then this happens, was slow to recognize how much virus was entering the U.S. from Europe.

But unfortunately there are still people around who only stick on data and still do ignore the reality.

There is nothing to say against Data and reports, as long as you don't get the reality out of your sight.

Therefore, *Increasing use of preprint scientific reports to get out actionable **data,...***actionable** is the keyword here, the data must make sense to be useful for an action in the reality.

All other unnessary BS data must go directly into the shredder, because they are useless for the reality and are just a waste of time.

But it is really nice to see that the CDC finally understands, that the reality is that what counts and that just focusing on data, without any relevance to the reality, will help nothing.

-3 ( +4 / -7 )

Only focusing on data makes no sense when you completely ignore and close your eyes to the reality.

That is not what the article is talking about, in fact the rest of the sentence that you left out clearly contradicts you, there is no problem with focusing on the data, as long as opportune actions are taken based on that data.

Your idea of "reality" that somehow is different from what the data says is not real, it is just an excuse to disagree with what the best method to understand reality says when it is not of your liking.

And if you ignore the reality and just focus on data, then this happens

No, that would also be mistaken, the data is what proved the virus was entering the US, the problem is reacting to that data as soon as it was collected.

All other unnessary BS data must go directly into the shredder, because they are useless for the reality and are just a waste of time.

Making an appeal for ignorance is not something positive, all data is always beneficial, the main thing is to prioritize what is necessary immediately to guide actions and then taking those actions, the rest will be useful later for a deeper understanding and even maybe to prevent future problems, but disposing of knowledge just because is not a valid option.

0 ( +7 / -7 )

The CDC is a corrupt organization and totally in bed with the drug companies.

0 ( +9 / -9 )

The CDC is a corrupt organization and totally in bed with the drug companies.

Of course you have proof of this and how it invalidates all the recommendations it makes, right?

2 ( +9 / -7 )

Taking responsibility should always start at the top with those in command. That being said Ms Walensky has said exactly what the Biden administration has dictated and made recommendations that turned out to be more harmful than good. Bluntly, she should either resign or be the first to be shown the door. The CDC like the FBI has lost much of its credibility the last 2 years. Living in Georgia and only 80 miles from the CDC i hear these views from most citizens i talk to in our state !

1 ( +5 / -4 )

The CDC is a corrupt organization and totally in bed with the drug companies.

Yes!

The CDC had admitted to withholding data on vaccine safety because it would lead to vaccine hesitancy; i.e., many people would avoid the "vaccines" if they were made aware of the truth.

Unfortunately, the CDC is far from being the only corrupt organization...

-5 ( +3 / -8 )

 ...and made recommendations that turned out to be more harmful than good

Do you have any reference where the recommendations were made against the best available scientific evidence at the time? If not the criticism requires the CDC to have a time machine to be valid. One thing is not to do the best to fulfill its role, another completely different is to do things that could have been better because the evidence necessary to make a better decision was not available then.

many people would avoid the "vaccines" if they were made aware of the truth.

That is a huge misrepresentation of what the CDC actually said, which is the reason why you present no reference. No institution of science or medicine have ever concluded (nor presented evidence) that not vaccinating is the best option except for people with medical reasons to be exempted.

Pretending every single institution of the world is corrupt just because they all conclude the same things and you are not able to accept them do not make them corrupt.

0 ( +6 / -6 )

The head of the United States' top public health agency has announced a shake-up of the organization, saying it fell short responding to COVID-19 and needs to become more nimble.

It absolutely fell short in its Covid response. Not as bad as the WHO agency, which gave scientifically unproven advice for people to not wear masks.

https://edition.cnn.com/2020/03/30/world/coronavirus-who-masks-recommendation-trnd/index.html

If not the criticism requires the CDC to have a time machine to be valid

This is a basic example of illogical thinking. If a decision is made, and it turns out incorrectly, even when information existed at the time to assist it in making the correct decision, then that is called simply making a mistake. What you are doing is making an unfounded, non-scientific excuse.

-4 ( +4 / -8 )

No institution of science or medicine have ever concluded (nor presented evidence) that not vaccinating is the best option except for people with medical reasons to be exempted.

That is not true. The data from the original Pfizer/Moderna trials (that needed a court order for its release) showed that people were more likely to suffer from serious vaccine adverse effects than Covid hospitalization. And that was with the initial more lethal viral strain.

And there is the recent Thai study showing the very high rate of heart damage after vaccination among teen boys. Why do we need Thailand to learn about this? Why has nobody done this study in the US?

https://www.preprints.org/manuscript/202208.0151/v1

All the CDC and FDA do is promote pharmaceutical products, and try to hide any negative effects...

-3 ( +4 / -7 )

It absolutely fell short in its Covid response. Not as bad as the WHO agency, which gave scientifically unproven advice for people to not wear masks.

Your mischaracterization is still completely false.

The WHO and every other scientific authority including the CDC recommended people to prioritize use of masks for symptomatic patients, specially on hospitals, because that is what the scientific evidence said at the time, to say this was a mistake you would need to present evidence available at the time that contradicts this recommendation, you have accepted you have no such evidence.

This is a basic example of illogical thinking. If a decision is made, and it turns out incorrectly, even when information existed at the time to assist it in making the correct decision, then that is called simply making a mistake. What you are doing is making an unfounded, non-scientific excuse.

No, it is not, a mistake requires to do something wrong, not to do what at the moment was the best available decision according to the evidence. Nobody calls these decisions a mistake but you.

1 ( +6 / -5 )

That is not true. The data from the original Pfizer/Moderna trials (that needed a court order for its release) showed that people were more likely to suffer from serious vaccine adverse effects than Covid hospitalization. And that was with the initial more lethal viral strain.

What you wrote is what factually wrong. Vaccines do NOT cause people to be more likely to have serious vaccine adverse effects than covid, it would be impossible precisely because of how the trials were designed from the very beginning. Since the trials required to be finished as soon as there was a clear benefit demonstrated (or they would become unethical) that means vaccinated patients never ran the full risk of hospitalizations or death from covid, so it is impossible to say those risks were lower than from the vaccines.

Implicating also that anything negative that happened to vaccinated people was because of the vaccine (even if unvaccinated people had the same problems) is also a transparent attempt of disinformation.

Again, no institution in the whole world recognize your personal mischaracterization as valid, none says vaccinating is more risky than not doing it.

And there is the recent Thai study showing the very high rate of heart damage after vaccination among teen boys.

Since they include boys with only elevation of an enzyme without any symptom whatsoever that means unvaccinated children of the same demographics could have the same results. Without a negative control group examined in the same way the incidence can't be characterized as higher than unvaccinated population. This is again a deeply flawed mischaracterization of what the authors found.

1 ( +6 / -5 )

And there is the recent Thai study showing the very high rate of heart damage after vaccination among teen boys.

Since they include boys with only elevation of an enzyme without any symptom whatsoever that means unvaccinated children of the same demographics could have the same results.

Oh my, you obviously did not read the paper. Is that how you dismiss all the information that goes against the pharmacy narrative? If you're not into reading, this video does a good job of explaining it:

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=TUDqqz-qXvQ&t=661s

-6 ( +1 / -7 )

Oh my, you obviously did not read the paper. Is that how you dismiss all the information that goes against the pharmacy narrative? If you're not into reading, this video does a good job of explaining it:

What part of the paper contradicts the fact that no unvaccinated population was examined the same way as the vaccinated children?

That is precisely what the own authors recognize as a limitation, specially because they considered patients of heart damage patients that had absolutely no symptom, just a laboratory results with an increase of enzymes, unless you examine unvaccinated people in the same way there is no way to see the actual difference.

The authors also clearly say covid infection produce 100 times more problems, and that all cases identified in the vaccinated children solved quickly and without any complication.

No misrepresentation done by a repeatedly debunked source can validly contradict what the own authors of the article say they found.

2 ( +4 / -2 )

Oh my, you obviously did not read the paper. Is that how you dismiss all the information that goes against the pharmacy narrative? If you're not into reading, this video does a good job of explaining it:

What part of the paper contradicts the fact that no unvaccinated population was examined the same way as the vaccinated children?

They checked them before and after vaccination and they did multiple tests. The only one misrepresenting anything is you, minimizing the serious effects. Over 2% of the teen boys got some form of heart damage from getting the vax.

If parents were properly informed, they wouldn't subject their kids to this. These parents certainly wish they had known about it

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=e8gGvRV7eWk&t=316s

-5 ( +1 / -6 )

They checked them before and after vaccination and they did multiple tests

How does that magically bring the same data from unvaccinated children? without that they can't say the results are different from what they would have found without any vaccine.

This is the main problem already explained two times, pretending not to understand is not a valid argument, without a control group is impossible to know the difference, as simple and easy as that.

If parents were properly informed, they wouldn't subject their kids to this. These parents certainly wish they had known about it

It would require serious irrational tought to choose not to vaccinate when the explanation includes the data from the study and the professional opinion even from the authors that being infected have 100% more risk of cardiac problem for the children, and not only that but the problems are much more serious and risky.

Bringing videos instead of proper primary souces, and specially videos that do not probe what you say is a clear example of misinformation. Children die with or without vaccines, and those that are at a higher risk of health problems are also the children whose parents more readily vaccinate because covid is a huge risk for them, unless you can present data that proves vaccinated children die at a HIGHER rate than unvaccinated children of the same condition you have no argument, because the only thing you are proving is that vaccines do not protect agains all and every possible cause of death, but since that is not the purpose of the vaccine that is not a problem.

1 ( +3 / -2 )

The head of the United States' top public health agency has announced a shake-up of the organization, saying it fell short responding to COVID-19 and needs to become more nimble.

Well, the CDC did make some mistakes with the Covid crisis, but not as many as the WHO, which widely advised against wearing masks when the crisis first started. Thankfully, the CDC changed its advice, while the WHO continued to give the wrong advice as there were no scientific studies for that agency to rely on

https://edition.cnn.com/2020/03/30/world/coronavirus-who-masks-recommendation-trnd/index.html

The WHO and every other scientific authority including the CDC recommended people to prioritize use of masks for symptomatic patients, specially on hospitals, because that is what the scientific evidence said at the time, to say this was a mistake you would need to present evidence available at the time that contradicts this recommendation, you have accepted you have no such evidence.

Wrong.

WHO says there is no need for healthy people to wear face masks, days after the CDC told all Americans to cover their faces

https://www.businessinsider.com/who-no-need-for-healthy-people-to-wear-face-masks-2020-4

-3 ( +1 / -4 )

Well, the CDC did make some mistakes with the Covid crisis, but not as many as the WHO, which widely advised against wearing masks when the crisis first started.

What sthe point in repeating the same false accusation again? it is still false, not only the CDC gave the same recommendation, it was not "mistaken" as you wrongly say because it was completely in line with the available evidence at the moment. The advice always was to prioritize the mask use in hospitals for symptomatic patients. To say it was mistaken you need evidence that was available at the time and that contradicts this advice, you have already accepted this evidence do not exist.

...days after the CDC told all Americans to cover their faces

That is the whole point, both institutions (and many others) made the same recommendation for months because that is what the evidence indicated, you are explicitly contradicting yourself and saying you were wrong with this last reference.

-2 ( +0 / -2 )

Did the CDC's credibility die with Covid or because of Covid?

Why has nobody done this study in the US?

They don't want to know about the negative side effects. Even with their own VAERS data, they will never confirm that the effects were caused by the vax, then people will distort that and say that they confirmed that the effects were not caused by the vax.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

Hind sight is always 20/20. Has CDC learned lesson from COVID? Maybe, but has the perception of their use (ie. Performance) or results (ie. reality) changed? I think not in both.

Well look at monkey pox, I'd say they are screaming and shouting more like it's the next COVID. Which isn't remotely true or waranted. But is it their fault that monkey pox really isn't a big deal, and they should shut up. This won't improve the perception of them, and I'm not too sure if it's saving lives...

-1 ( +1 / -2 )

They don't want to know about the negative side effects. Even with their own VAERS data, they will never confirm that the effects were caused by the vax, then people will distort that and say that they confirmed that the effects were not caused by the vax.

Much better, bigger and complete studies have been done, antivaxxer groups only try to hide them because the results clearly show there is no real problem with vaccines and the excess of cases in children is just a tiny fraction of the cases that are prevented by being vaccinated, and not only that but also the cases are much milder and the reports (made by actual cardiologists) clearly show they don't even affect the quality of life.

https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/acip/meetings/downloads/slides-2022-06-22-23/03-covid-shimabukuro-508.pdf

The report in the article is much less important because it never examine the normal prevalence and it failed to include a group of unvaccinated children followed in the same way, so it ends up not being able to demonstrate how many (if any) of the cases come in excess of what would be expected without vaccines.

-2 ( +0 / -2 )

Login to leave a comment

Facebook users

Use your Facebook account to login or register with JapanToday. By doing so, you will also receive an email inviting you to receive our news alerts.

Facebook Connect

Login with your JapanToday account

User registration

Articles, Offers & Useful Resources

A mix of what's trending on our other sites