[Genuine Realist]

I can certainly understand somebody in the executive branch taking issue with some wording somewhere in a CDC document and wanting to make changes. Normally, in a "sane" organization, there would be a meeting, things would get worked out, and the document would be issued. It may be that the changes didn't totally please the CDC but they wouldn't substantially alter the content of the statement. Suppressing the statement is the worst of both worlds, because there is no "compromise" statement and the original then leaks out. Dumb and dumber.

I am certain the CDC has more than one task force working on these issues, and likely independently to review all alternatives. So you may be reading the disgruntled complaint of the losers in a bureaucratic turf war.

Or maybe not.

You can't tell because you don't know who the source is. 

You didn't read news, you read the perspective the reporter wanted to give you. Not good.

[Genuine Realist]

I can certainly understand somebody in the executive branch taking issue with some wording somewhere in a CDC document and wanting to make changes. Normally, in a "sane" organization, there would be a meeting, things would get worked out, and the document would be issued. It may be that the changes didn't totally please the CDC but they wouldn't substantially alter the content of the statement. Suppressing the statement is the worst of both worlds, because there is no "compromise" statement and the original then leaks out. Dumb and dumber.

I am certain the CDC has more than one task force working on these issues, and likely independently to review all alternatives. So you may be reading the disgruntled complaint of the losers in a bureaucratic turf war.

Or maybe not.

You can't tell because you don't know who the source is. 

You didn't read news, you read the perspective the reporter wanted to give you. Not good.