Do you think the CDC is biased?
- 0Oct 23, '10 by TaitI almost got myself embroiled in an argument over the possible risks of flu shot and pregnancy this afternoon. (Luckily I decided it wasn't worth the time and bowed out.) Anyway I was informed that the "CDC is biased and paid to say that" when I attempted to actually reference my sources on Thimerosal.
- 1Oct 23, '10 by blondy2061hI don't think the CDC is biased. I just don't see how it would benefit them to be. It's a government organization, and maybe I'm too trusting, but I overall think the government wants a healthy population.
I'm not sure what the specifics of the argument were, but there are many preservative free flu shots if someone wants to get the vaccine while pregnant. My hospital only offers the preservative free variety.
- 2Oct 23, '10 by TDCHIMQuote from brandon2011Before I'll buy that, I'd like some hard proof from creditable sources. I have my doubts about the FDA where Big Biz is concerned, but I've never read anything about a genuinely and consistently biased CDC. There are conflicts over new illnesses, like chronic fatigue syndrome, but that's to be expected in such an organization.dont trust a blonde...just kidding, but yes the CDC is biased. The pharmaceutical industry is very profitable and has alot of influence on the CDC.
- 0Oct 23, '10 by notjustanurseLike another poster mentioned there are preservative-free vaccines available. They are the only ones our facility provides. While I can certainly understand not wanting to inject any amount of mercury into my pregnant body, no matter WHO says it's safe enough, I would like to see some credible accounts of the CDC being biased.
- 2Oct 23, '10 by RevolutioN2013While money has always bought influence and always will...my guess is that the bias has more to do with degree than a falsity of the underlying information. In other words maybe the warning is shouted louder and harder as a result of the influence of the money and power of big pharma, but the warning itself is true. Or maybe the ramifications of NOT following XYZ advice are somewhat blown out of proportion because the more we hyperbolize the ramifications the more people will "get the shot". Thoughts?
- 0Oct 23, '10 by GreyGullQuote from SharonH, RN2003 Pres. Bush's smallpox vaccination fiasco.Evidence?
This project did not have the full support of the IOM and ACIP. And then there's the Cutter/Salk vaccine that is well documented in history. Those are the two the stick in my mind but there were others. A time frame pressure, budget and research sources can skew information and the delivery.
Since there have been other muckups in the history of vaccinations, the CDC is not the only organization involved.
- 1Oct 23, '10 by linearthinkerI think they are biased toward population health vs. individuals, which is why people get all twisted. I understand the argument that all vaccines are not good for all persons, for example, and I think it has merit. However, the CDC is charged with the public health, and an individual's egg allergy or hx of adverse reactions is immaterial to them. This is as it should be. I do not think they are corrupt, as I infer from some comments. Now, the FDA on the ohter hand, totally different ballgame. I'd trust the mafia further.