The Highwire with Del Bigtree - CDC LOWERS CHILDHOOD MILESTONES

Episode Date: March 10, 2022

CDC LOWERS CHILDHOOD MILESTONESBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-highwire-with-del-bigtree--3620606/support.

It's so fascinating how the things are shifting and our conversations now and what we're having to look at. But as we've looked at this whole last week, we've had the State of the Union, what's really at the top of the news that you think we should be looking at this week? Yeah, as things are shifting so fast, we're not letting people off the hook. We're going to continue our investigations here. And one of the big things that parents and teachers were concerned about, rightfully so over the last couple of years, is the masking of children and the effects of their job. developmental delay on these kids with masks over their face. So the first clip here we're going to take a look at is Johns Hopkins. He's basically a surgeon of public policy researcher, Marty McCarrie.

He was on Fox News recently to talk about some recent changes the CDC made to its developmental milestones for kids. Take a listen. All right. Is this the admission we've all wanted from the CDC? Why don't they just come out and say, listen, we made a mistake. We've known for a long time that masks don't work with kids. It doesn't stop spreading the virus and we've hurt kids. We've hurt kids and said they just-

I wish they had that. Look, I agree with you. I wish they had that level of humility. People are hungry for honesty right now. And what we're starting to see is data on just how catastrophic the entire two years of restrictions are on children who bore the highest burden of restrictions

even though they're the absolute lowest risk. And some of that data is now showing that kids are not able to hit a basic vocabulary milestone in speech development. That is a 50-word vocabulary by age two. so that CDC is quietly moved to say they have an extra half year to hit that speech milestone. It's ironic that they're acknowledging this quietly. At the same time, they insist that every kid, two years and above, continue to wear masks today in the United States, regardless of any other factor.

So what are they talking about? What are the details of this sort of downgrade in sort of our goals for children? Yeah. To understand really what he's talking about, it helps to go back to just understand how developmental delays were looked at and how this whole, I guess you want to call it a field has come about. So in 1967, there was a development of something called the Denver developmental screening test. Okay. This was a screening for evidence of slow development in infants, preschool children. They looked at motor skills, language, social interaction. But this was just for clinicians. This was just for specialists. This wasn't kind of a widespread thing that parents were doing. with their kids. It's very specialized. But then they realized they needed something more broad to bring out to parents, to bring out to families and just family doctors as well. So in 1992, they updated this

to what's called the Denver 2. And this was something that was a major revision, as it says here. But the test had a greater focus on language and 86% increase in the language items on this test. So we're looking at language being a big thing and that's going to be important as we keep reporting here. So the CDC jumped onto this in 2004. And this was the, looking at the web archive, this was the website snapshot there. Learn the Science Act Early was the campaign. And this was to catch developmental disabilities early from basically three months to five years. Now, what just happened, what Marty McCari was talking about was after almost 20 years, the CDC with the help of the American Academy of Pediatrics has finally updated this.

It only took them that long. And this was the paper they used. They were trying to find evidence-based updates. So evidence-informed milestones for developmental surveillance tools. So the CDC funded the American Academy of Pediatrics. They funded a working group to revise this, this surveillance checklist. And what it says here, you know, Marty McCari, one of the big things here is the CDC and the fact-checkers are pointing to, well, this didn't have to do. This update did not have to do with the COVID restrictions or anything that had to do with the pandemic, because

exactly of this line right here in the study. It says, quote, a broad literature search was conducted on March 2019 using Medline, Site Info, and Eric databases. So right there, the researchers are not touching anything in 2020, 2021, 2022. They're saying 2019 and previously was their search. Now, what's interesting is the CDC chose the AAP to do this. Here's a tweet during the basically the middle of COVID restrictions on how the AP was thinking during these restrictions. It says, babies and young children study faces, so you may worry that having mass caregivers would harm children's language development. There are no studies to support this concern. Young children will use other clues like gestures and tone of voice. If it wasn't so serious,

this would be hilarious, but it's ridiculous. This is the type of thing that just, I think, makes anybody with a few working brain cells want to tear your hair out. Can we be honest? There are certain things that I would. love to have deep scientific research into and double blind studies. But the idea that covering the lips of people while children are developing and seeing faces for the first time, I don't need a study to tell me that that's going to inhibit their ability to communicate and learn language. You ever try and teach a language to someone that is blind?

It adds a level of difficulty what you cannot see. I mean, this is where don't waste the million dollars on that study. Can we all just agree that using. common sense, covering faces is going to be a problem. And stating as the AAP that there are no studies that show that that's going to be a problem, this is the type of thing. And that's why I think they're losing all credibility, all credibility, the CDC, WHO, FDA, AAP, you're losing our attention because you are acting like morons. We're not that stupid and we can't believe you are. But there's no reason to listen to people that need a study to state the obvious. Right. And so these updates come out

and here's some of the headlines, kind of off the back of Martin Bacari. The headlines look like this. Experts concerned after CDC changes developmental milestones for kids. Another one, literacy advocate highlights CDC's fishy changes to early childhood development section. Now, let's look at what they did. So the CDC in March of 2021, their website for those developmental checkpoints look like this for a two-year-old child. Now, we take two years old because that is a very important time period for children's development, especially language.

And it says here under language and communication, again, this was March 2021 before the updates were in. It says a child should say sentences with two to four words, should repeat words overheard in conversation. So right there, we have some verbal acuity starting to really, really come about here. Now, let's look at that same page now after the AAP's evidence-based milestone changes, same age group, two years old, and it looks like this under language and communication milestone. zones says at least two words together like more milk. Not two to four word sentences,

no more repeating words overheard conversation. All that's gone. And you notice underneath that points to at least two body parts. Now we got now we got the kid pointing instead of talking. So a lot of literacy advocates were concerned about this. But it goes even deeper. They added for the first time, the CDC added for the first time, a 30 month category. And in that 30 month category, under language communication milestones. They say the children should say about 50 words. Okay, well, just to inform the audience here, 50 words. Now, if we go to a website, we want to cross-reference the CDC's 50 words with another website.

This is the American Speech Learning and Hearing Association. Okay, the specialist on this conversation, obviously. They are absolutely. They make a lot of the citations, a lot of the studies. They also have credentialing that they do. with almost 250,000 members, and they have early identification of speech, language, and hearing disorders. And it says here, under language disorders, again, not just this is how you should speak,

language disorders at two years, if your child is saying fewer than 50 words, this is considered a possible language disorder, may have trouble with one or more of these skills. And this would be a red flag to seek further help from a healthcare professional to figure out what's going on here. So the CDC is saying at 30 months, you should say about 50 words. And then ASHA is saying at two years. You should be saying fewer than 50 words. Something's up here. Wow. I mean, it's really despite being completely horrifying, because what it tells us is they're looking at averages across the nation now and saying, look, we just have to normalize this. So we clearly are seeing an IQ drop, a language drop in our children, otherwise this wouldn't be happening.

But really even more disturbing for those people that may have a child that needs, and always, is always the case that early treatment for anything, you know, early diagnosis is best. Can you imagine how hard it is going to be to diagnose true language disorders when you have just filled the entire swimming pool with millions of children that were once supposed to, you know, be? consider normal now the normalcy is joining those that were once considered having a disorder. How are you going to get funding? How are you going to get, how are we going to determine those children that are truly delayed? How much longer is it going to take to find them, help them figure out what's going on? I mean, it's truly going to set off, I think, a wave of a disaster that I doubt the CDC even contemplated when they did that. But now it's normal to have a language disorder. I mean, that's what they've normalized here. Yeah, and you know,

Let's talk about the fact checkers. So the fact checkers are saying this wasn't because of the pandemic. This wasn't because of the masking or the restrictions. However, you know, 2019 was their literature search. Why didn't they search after 2019? Well, if you remember, there were headlines in 2020, 2021 that looked like this. Here was an interim briefing in UK schools. Remember, UK was one of the first to lock down, perhaps one of the longer lockdowns.

The impact of COVID-19 on school starts. This was an interim briefing April 2021 about the concerns of children parents. So they looked at schools and the parents and they took a basically a survey. And it says this, according to schools, children are struggling particularly with three areas of development. Number one, communication and language. Ninety-six percent of the schools pulled reported being very concerned or quite concerned. Number two, personal, social and emotional development. 91% of schools were very concerned or quite concerned. And three, literacy, 89% were very concerned and quite concerned. And then there's more headlines. Here's one out of

the guardian. COVID rules are blamed for 23% dive in young children's development. Disturbing studies shows scores and three key cognitive tests slumping between 2018 and 2021 with face mask rules among possible culprits. And finally, opinion articles all over the news over the last couple of years looking like this, masks can be detrimental to baby speech and language development. So we take this and if you're the studies authors for that AAP study, you're looking at an image search from 2019 and you're sitting on this thing during the pandemic, all looking at each other in a room going, do you want to do a literature research right now on how bad things can be? Or do we want to keep this data set from 2019 and a little more pure and not

corrupted by the pandemic responses? And take baby steps to know where we know we're heading. We know we're heading to cognitive decline in children across the world whose head is going to be on the chopping block when they realize that our government agencies, we, the CDC, destroyed your child's life, your ability to develop properly, well, we better start, you know, slowly weaning you off the idea that you're going to have intelligent functioning children. Let's do that with the numbers from 2019. Can you imagine what the next calibration is going to look like? They're obviously hedging their bet here. They know where this is going. It's really alarming to try and imagine had they really done these numbers, what type of jump in sort of cognitive decline we would be seeing right now.

Really, really disturbing and sad. Again, this is what our regulatory agencies are doing. Instead of figuring out and making solutions and maybe changing the programs that are causing these things, just like the vaccination fails, instead of saying, you know what, we need a better vaccine, let's just change the definition of a vaccine. You know what, our masking is destroying the lives and, you know, intelligence and cognitive abilities of our children. Let's just change the definition of their milestones or where they need to be. This is so corrupt, and it is, again, a clear sign that our good. government health agencies are no longer working for us. They're working for those industries that are destroying us.

And if this study, this AAP study was the only outlier, we could say, okay, well, maybe there might be something to this. But we know that the CDC as an agency, the science they have put out has been subpar. Last week we covered this article by Venei Prasad. And he wrote, it's been, it's now circulated basically all over the world, how the CDC abandoned science. And in that article, he writes this. and he talks about their research during the pandemic.

This research is plagued with classical errors and biases and does not support the press release conclusions that often follow. In all cases, the papers are uniquely timed to further political goals and objectives. As such, these papers appear more as propaganda than a science. So against that backdrop, things get a little more murky with the fact checkers here because there's some real life moving and shaking going on that really need to be contemplated here.

Indeed.