By Matt Underwood CDC adviser: Newborn vaccine rollback ‘wasn’t based on data’ is a statement that really cuts to the core of some serious concerns. The whole notion that a key decision, one that directly impacts the health and well-being of newborns, was made without relying on solid, factual evidence is alarming, to say the least. It suggests that something other than data, something less reliable, was the driving force behind this change in policy. That’s a huge problem.
Now, we’re talking about the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the CDC. This is the agency we look to for guidance on public health, the one we expect to make decisions based on the best available scientific research. To have a member of the CDC’s Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices, someone intimately involved in the decision-making process, come out and explicitly say a vote “wasn’t based on data” is a major red flag. It’s like the foundation of a house suddenly crumbling. The integrity of the process itself is now in question.
The specific issue at hand here involves the recommendation for the hepatitis B vaccine for newborns. It appears the initial recommendation was to give this vaccine to *all* newborns. That was then changed, and the recommendation now applies only to infants born to mothers who have tested positive for the virus. This shift itself is not necessarily inherently bad, but the problem, as this advisor highlights, is *how* the change was made. It seems the decision was made despite the lack of evidence supporting it.
The advisor, Joseph Hibbeln, is quoted as saying he “repeatedly asked for it, and no data of harm was presented.” This is crucial. He’s saying that he specifically sought data that would justify the change, evidence that demonstrated there was a problem with the original recommendation or that supported the new, more limited approach. But, according to his account, no such data was provided. Instead, there were speculative arguments, not grounded in concrete facts.
The situation is like trying to build a bridge without a blueprint. You can’t just guess at it, or build it based on feelings. You need the plans, you need the calculations, you need the data. Otherwise, you’re putting people at risk. The advisor’s account gives the impression of a process that prioritized speculation, not the cold, hard facts that are the lifeblood of sound medical policy.
This whole scenario brings up a fundamental question of trust. If we can’t trust the CDC to make data-driven decisions when it comes to something as vital as infant vaccinations, who *can* we trust? It erodes faith not only in the CDC but also in the broader scientific community. It creates an environment where misinformation can flourish and where public health is potentially jeopardized.
The comment about needing to “examine the possibility of an unknown unknown” is also telling. It suggests that the decision was driven by fear of some hypothetical future harm, rather than actual, present evidence. While it’s important to consider all possibilities, basing a decision on what *might* happen, without any data to support the concern, is not sound practice. It’s a bit like buying insurance against something you can’t even name.
The fact that Hibbeln voted against this change, and was one of only three dissenters, makes his testimony even more significant. It shows that there were experts, people within the CDC’s own advisory committee, who disagreed with the move and recognized that it was not supported by evidence. This suggests that the decision was not universally accepted within the agency.
The overall sentiment regarding the current administration is also very apparent. Many feel that data and facts are consistently ignored. It’s a frustrating situation because, as one comment puts it, “we’re supposed to be helping.” People are losing trust and growing skeptical of any information that comes out of the administration.
One comment points out the concerning reliance on “vibes” over data in making crucial medical decisions. This is an extremely damaging approach, especially when dealing with the health of infants. Vibes don’t protect against disease. Data does. And if that data isn’t being used, we are essentially gambling with people’s lives.
This entire situation underlines how important it is for decisions, especially those concerning public health, to be made in a transparent and data-driven manner. It is essential that scientific integrity is maintained and that any deviations from evidence-based practices are met with scrutiny and accountability.