[goblinux]

The CDC website was gutted in Jan 2025 following the Trump administration’s opening salvo of executive orders. This deprived American (and global) healthcare professionals of valuable information. There has been loss of faith in the CDC and government in general as repositories of scientific literature amongst the healthcare and scientific community, which is why sites like these have popped up

Per the about page, which is linked right at the top of restoredcdc.org:

“ We are developing code to pull CDC pages which were archived by prior to January 20, 2025. Similar archives have been created by the End of Term (https://eotarchive.org) project and are hosted by the Wayback Machine (https://web.archive.org). The individual pages are archived, but links between them are broken and the pages are not easy to locate through web searches. Therefore, we will re-build the links between the pages, to create a site that can be navigated the same way the pre-January 21, 2025 CDC site. The only changes we will make on these pages is to add a header that indicates that this site is not a CDC website.”

[MathMonkeyMan]

> The CDC website was gutted in Jan 2025

I trust that this is true, but a cursory browsing through 2024 outbreaks, for example, shows the same information.

To your parent poster's point, it would be nice to have a damning example like "look at this thing that was taken down." Maybe such examples belong somewhere else, but it might help dissuade skeptics.

[apical_dendrite]

Please see pages 6 to 12 in this declaration from the court case for examples of what was taken down. Note that Judge Bates issued a temporary restraining order to the CDC to restore these websites, so it shouldn't look different (except that the CDC put a ridiculous disclaimer on some of the pages) https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/69608613/6/1/doctors-fo... [edit - fixed link]

[MathMonkeyMan]

Thanks. That document is four pages. Where is the "Memorandum of Law in Support of the Motion for a Restraining Order" referred to at the beginning?

edit:

- “The Youth Risk Behavioral Surveillance System”

- “Data and Statistics” for “Adolescent and School Health”

- “The Social Vulnerability Index”

- “The Environmental Justice Index”

- “PrEP for the Prevention of HIV Infection in the U.S.: 2021 Guideline Summary”

- “HIV Monitoring”

- “Getting Tested for HIV”

- “National ART Surveillance System (NASS)”

- “CDC Contraceptive Guidance for Health Care Providers”

- FDA webpages on “Study of Sex Differences in the Clinical Evaluation of Medical Products”

- “Diversity Action Plans to Improve Enrollment of Participants from Underrepresented Populations in Clinical Studies”

[1]: https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.dcd.277...

[phonon]

I think it's within Document 6 (Feb 6)

https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/69608613/doctors-for-am...

[apical_dendrite]

Apologies. I've fixed the link.

[gjsman-1000]

The CDC lost credibility among conservatives in 2021; when they were insisting on masking for all, the 10 person gathering limit was in many states… but for better or worse, they refused to condemn, and downplayed, the health effects of the George Floyd protests happening simultaneously.

This is retaliation against the CDC for implicitly saying you can protest racism in the streets, but cannot attend Thanksgiving with the extended family.

For the downvoters, prove me wrong. Many conservatives have never forgiven the CDC for this. And yes, it’s not reasonable, but when the CDC says vaccines are safe after a stunt like that, the gut response is to be contrarian.

[rezonant]

The first amendment prevents the government from abridging the right for people to assemble and peacefully protest. Given that there's a public safety concern, one could argue there's nuance here, but you can hardly blame them for taking the safe route and avoiding violating our constitutional rights, and it's doubtful there was enough precedent for the CDC to feel comfortable taking the legal risk.

[int_19h]

It might have been a 1A issue if CDC straight out prohibited the protests, but the baseline expectation was for people who introduced and/or supported the mask mandates to at least clearly say that such large gatherings should be avoided for the sake of containing COVID.

Instead, we've heard things like, “In this moment the public health risks of not protesting to demand an end to systemic racism greatly exceed the harms of the virus.”

(FWIW I'm pretty far left and I think that COVID restrictions broadly made sense. I also believe that the protests had valid causes and would be perfectly reasonable if not for that whole ongoing epidemic thing.)

[orblivion]

Based on your first sentence I thought you were going to talk about the government shutting down church services, which was a talking point on the other side. I think in either case, the first amendment would allow for the government to impose safety restrictions. (Could you, for example, use the first amendment to stop your church from getting shut down due to building code violations?)

However, to the point about credibility among conservatives, even some drive-in Church services were shut down: https://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/voices/2020/08/08/cor...

I think if crowded outdoor marches were deemed safe, a drive-in church service should have as well.

[luxuryballs]

not just conservatives, people who decided we can afford to pay attention and apply critical thinking also lost faith in anything where any combination of 2 or more of the following intersect: corporate profits / medicine / government / politics

[ginlio]

What's missing from their about page is any detail that would support these claims. A list of changed and deleted pages would be a good start, so we could at least judge for ourselves.

Also how do we know we can trust whoever is running this site? Compared to the Internet Archive which has a long track record of reliably mirroring any page requested or crawled.