“Embarrassing” and “horrifying”: CDC workers describe the new vaccines and autism page

Earlier this week, a new page titled “Vaccines and Autism” appeared on the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention website. Contrary to previous CDC guidance, the page alleged, “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,” adding that “studies supporting a link have been ignored by health authorities.” Those claims aren’t supported by evidence, but they do reflect talking points regularly promoted by anti-vaccine activists—of which Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. is a leader.

I spoke with five CDC staffers on Thursday and Friday to find out their reactions to the announcement. While they declined to be identified for fear of retaliation, they all said that they and their colleagues were shocked and dismayed by the misinformation put forth on the new page. “It’s horrifying, it’s embarrassing, it’s scary, it’s heartbreaking—it’s all of those things,” said a staffer at the CDC’s Injury Center. “To see our agency being used to spread lies and misinformation is a gut punch,” a CDC communicator with the National Center for Immunization and Respiratory Disease wrote in a message. “People will be harmed by this—parents will decide not to vaccinate their kids because of false information, and kids will get sick and die as a result.”

Another longtime CDC employee who works in communications said, “The best way I can put it is it feels like we’re on a hijacked airplane.”

Several employees noted that there had been no warning about the new page before it was posted—in fact, said the NCIRD staffer, even department leadership had “only learned about it today when somebody saw it the same way everybody else did.”

Others doubted the new page had gone through the agency’s rigorous protocol for vetting public-facing information, which the longtime communications staffer said, “can be clunky and take a long time. It is the bane of many people’s existence who work at CDC because it is so laborious and it requires so many different stages of review.” The new page, on the other hand, “popped up without going through CDC clearance processes.”

“I don’t even know who is updating these web pages, or if anyone at CDC has anything to do with any of that,” said another staffer who works on immunizations. Department supervisors told employees that “their understanding is that these updates to the website are not coming from CDC. Somebody at the HHS level is going in and changing these pages.”

HHS did not respond to a request for comment from Mother Jones.

The concerns about the Autism and Vaccines page are only the latest blow to morale at the CDC. First came the appointment of Kennedy, who formerly ran an anti-vaccine activist group. Then there were the waves of layoffs, and after that, a record-breaking government shutdown. Several of the people with whom I spoke, some who had been with the CDC for years, said that morale at the agency was so low that they and most of their colleagues were currently looking for new jobs. “I changed my mind 20 times over the course of one meeting about whether I’m going to quiet quit and look for something else while still collecting a paycheck as long as I can, versus lean in and fight and try to protect the possibility of doing good work in the future,” said the Injury Center staffer. “I think people are starting to see that we can’t fulfill our mission here, like it’s becoming more and more clear and loud and unavoidable with each day.”

On the other hand, the longtime communications staff member said, “We’re still getting really important health information out, and if I leave, that will stop, and I don’t want to leave CDC when so many experienced people have left—or been forced out.”

In an internal memo from earlier this week shared with Mother Jones, HHS leadership outlined 16 “strategic initiatives” for the agency, including “Evaluating funding support for jurisdictions,” “invigorating the CDC workforce,” and “enhancing scientific rigor at CDC.” In the comments section, employees expressed skepticism about the initiatives. “Additional clarification on initiative #4 (enhancing scientific rigor) would be appreciated, given recent updates to the public-facing webpages that did not follow the agency’s clearance guidelines,” one comment read. In response to the goal of invigorating the workforce, another commenter wrote, “This leaves me very confused and with many questions since the cadre of our colleagues new in their careers and in probationary status were summarily dismissed earlier this year.”

Everyone with whom I spoke emphasized that the new page does not reflect the work or viewpoints of the vast majority of CDC employees. “The bulk of staff who work here still believe the same science and want to do the same good public health,” said someone with the CDC’s National Center for Chronic Disease Prevention and Health Promotion. They emphasized that their actual day-to-day work had not been compromised, though some worried that it soon could be.

When asked if the CDC was still a reliable source of public-health information, the employees said that most of the public-facing information remained unchanged. A critical problem was that there didn’t appear to be a good way for the public to discern the difference between accurate and politicized messaging. “I don’t know how they would distinguish that,” the Chronic Center staffer said. “There’s not a disclaimer saying posts were approved by political appointees and not by career scientists, so I don’t know.”

“It’s really easy from inside the agency to know what is real information and what has just been added there for political reasons,” added the longtime communications staffer. “But I can see that it would be really hard if you’re outside the agency to know the difference.”