CDC now banned from using "evidence based" and other words per White House

Nurses Headlines

Published

You are reading page 4 of CDC now banned from using "evidence based" and other words per White House

elkpark

14,633 Posts

Do you have any evidence to support your claim?

Conservatives don't need "evidence," they just believe whatever they want to believe, whatever suits their purposes and biases at the moment, and expect the rest of us to take their word for it. Shoot, that's exactly why "evidence" is one of the banned words. They aren't interested in letting actual evidence get in the way of what they believe.

allnurses Guide

wtbcrna, MSN, DNP, CRNA

5,125 Posts

Specializes in Anesthesia.
I do get what you mean. And I would further that the attitude that leads to banning such words from discussion is a concern. I'm just not confident they are going to be effective in their attempts to control the debate with banned words. But thats just me.

Vulnerable becomes "at risk".

Evidence based becomes "research supported".

So on, so forth.

I guess what I mean is, they can ban all the words they want. Their opponents will step around that very small obstacle. As they said in Hunger Games, "It's all moves and counter moves."

*For me* the concern is that they spent all this time coming up with that list. What a waste of time. If I performed so poorly at my job, the outcome would not be good for me.

I also believe it may be a bit of a distraction. I see politicians sitting around a buffet of lobster and wine laughing. They are laughing because, while we get our panties in a bunch about this, debate freedom of speech and everything else.......they are slipping god awful tax laws under our nose.

I just find this list of banned words hard to take seriously. Not because the ideals that are (supposedly) banned are of no importance but because I honestly can't see how anyone wanting to say anything about whatever is hindered from doing so.

I understand what you are saying, but this is just a symptom of the larger problem. First you install cronies in key positions over science agencies, then delete any mention of climate change or other studies that don't fit into your political schemes, then you start to delete words you don't like, and inch by inch we create a society that is increasingly autocratic and anti-intellectual.

AutumnApple

482 Posts

Specializes in M/S, Pulmonary, Travel, Homecare, Psych..
I understand what you are saying, but this is just a symptom of the larger problem. First you install cronies in key positions over science agencies, then delete any mention of climate change or other studies that don't fit into your political schemes, then you start to delete words you don't like, and inch by inch we create a society that is increasingly autocratic and anti-intellectual.

I guess from that POV, it can be disturbing. It's almost like......as you said, a symptom of something. Like having a light headache that is cured by Advil, when the problem is a brain tumor that'll go untreated.

I'm very hung up on "The powers that be are trying to distract us" thing at the moment. *For me*, the thing we should be concerned about is the new tax laws.

They got rid of the fee for not having healthcare coverage from what I understand and tweeked some things to help lower income families. But from what I understand, the long term implications of the new tax laws are dreadful. So, as I see it, they distracted us with a couple bones to slip some awful things past us.

Then this list of banned words. It just made me say "Yeah, more distraction." Again, not because I don't think the ideals under attack are not important, but because I don't think the bans will amount to much.

allnurses Guide

wtbcrna, MSN, DNP, CRNA

5,125 Posts

Specializes in Anesthesia.
I guess from that POV, it can be disturbing. It's almost like......as you said, a symptom of something. Like having a light headache that is cured by Advil, when the problem is a brain tumor that'll go untreated.

I'm very hung up on "The powers that be are trying to distract us" thing at the moment. *For me*, the thing we should be concerned about is the new tax laws.

They got rid of the fee for not having healthcare coverage from what I understand and tweeked some things to help lower income families. But from what I understand, the long term implications of the new tax laws are dreadful. So, as I see it, they distracted us with a couple bones to slip some awful things past us.

Then this list of banned words. It just made me say "Yeah, more distraction." Again, not because I don't think the ideals under attack are not important, but because I don't think the bans will amount to much.

I see it at as all one thing. How do you think they plan to pay for the corporate and wealthy tax cuts? The plan to defund "entitlement" programs as Paul Ryan refers to them, and gutting the budgets of science agencies. Do you think the Trump administration will approve any money for the study of climate change, healthcare disparities, heaven forbid any real studies on gun violence.... We are just seeing the start of anti-intellectual government that is going to reward the rich with lower taxes by taking away from the poor and middle classes.

elkpark

14,633 Posts

I guess from that POV, it can be disturbing. It's almost like......as you said, a symptom of something. Like having a light headache that is cured by Advil, when the problem is a brain tumor that'll go untreated.

I'm very hung up on "The powers that be are trying to distract us" thing at the moment. *For me*, the thing we should be concerned about is the new tax laws.

They got rid of the fee for not having healthcare coverage from what I understand and tweeked some things to help lower income families. But from what I understand, the long term implications of the new tax laws are dreadful. So, as I see it, they distracted us with a couple bones to slip some awful things past us.

Then this list of banned words. It just made me say "Yeah, more distraction." Again, not because I don't think the ideals under attack are not important, but because I don't think the bans will amount to much.

I hear what you're saying, but, to me, one could just as easily say that the tax bill is simply a distraction to keep us from noticing that this administration is slowly, steadily, attempting to sneak more and more authoritarian and autocratic elements into our society. I agree that the tax bill is horrible, but it is also true that, as others on this thread have already noted, language has power. Whose agenda is served by forbidding government agencies concerned with health to not use the word "fetus"? The people who already object to it, and prefer to refer to fetuses as "babies" or even "preborn children," as part of their effort to eliminate women's right to have control over their bodies and reproductive lives. How convenient for them if the government agencies start referring to fetuses as "babies," rather than the correct scientific term. Whose agenda is served by eliminating the term "evidence-based"? The people pushing positions, like "climate change is a hoax," that are in fact at odds with the existing scientific evidence. First we eliminate the term, then we stop considering evidence, period.

It's like a trickle of water gradually wearing away stone. None of this is accidental, and it is all deserving of attention.

AutumnApple

482 Posts

Specializes in M/S, Pulmonary, Travel, Homecare, Psych..
I hear what you're saying, but, to me, one could just as easily say that the tax bill is simply a distraction to keep us from noticing that this administration is slowly, steadily, attempting to sneak more and more authoritarian and autocratic elements into our society. I agree that the tax bill is horrible, but it is also true that, as others on this thread have already noted, language has power. Whose agenda is served by forbidding government agencies concerned with health to not use the word "fetus"? The people who already object to it, and prefer to refer to fetuses as "babies" or even "preborn children," as part of their effort to eliminate women's right to have control over their bodies and reproductive lives. How convenient for them if the government agencies start referring to fetuses as "babies," rather than the correct scientific term. Whose agenda is served by eliminating the term "evidence-based"? The people pushing positions, like "climate change is a hoax," that are in fact at odds with the existing scientific evidence. First we eliminate the term, then we stop considering evidence, period.

It's like a trickle of water gradually wearing away stone. None of this is accidental, and it is all deserving of attention.

I was actually thinking that after my last post :roflmao:

Seriously, I said to myself "You are a bit consumed with money matters all the time. Maybe it's the same thing, but the tax bill is the distraction."

Accolay

339 Posts

Then this list of banned words. It just made me say "Yeah, more distraction." Again, not because I don't think the ideals under attack are not important, but because I don't think the bans will amount to much.

I think you're missing the point. One suggestion instead of using "science-based" is:

"CDC bases its recommendations on science in consideration with community standards and wishes"

Bolding mine. You don't do science recommendations with someone's wishes in mind.

This is the CDC. They recommend vaccinations in accordance with scientific recommendations. How about we put an anti-vaxer in charge of vaccinations (much like a climate change denier is in charge of the EPA.) What would their wishes be?

AutumnApple

482 Posts

Specializes in M/S, Pulmonary, Travel, Homecare, Psych..
I think you're missing the point. One suggestion instead of using "science-based" is:

"CDC bases its recommendations on science in consideration with community standards and wishes"

Bolding mine. You don't do science recommendations with someone's wishes in mind.

This is the CDC. They recommend vaccinations in accordance with scientific recommendations. How about we put an anti-vaxer in charge of vaccinations (much like a climate change denier is in charge of the EPA.) What would their wishes be?

Hmph, my mind didn't go there. Maybe it should have, maybe not.

They're banning specific words, not playing musical chairs with who runs things. That could happen though I guess. I'm taking the bill at face value, it just means specific words can't be used in documents.

But, I digress. The part you put in bold is a bit off, to me. I laugh at "community wishes". Now *there* is a distraction. Make it sound as though you're giving people what they want. Oh my, I look around my "community" and think of them having a say in matters like vaccinations and climate change and the outlook begins to look grim.

The key point in saying you're using "community wishes" as your standard is: Who speaks for the community? How do we gauge what the wishes are?

Accolay

339 Posts

Hmph, my mind didn't go there. Maybe it should have, maybe not.

The key point in saying you're using "community wishes" as your standard is: Who speaks for the community? How do we gauge what the wishes are?

Exactly my point.

They're banning specific words, not playing musical chairs with who runs things.

Not yet.

Accolay

339 Posts

They're banning specific words, not playing musical chairs with who runs things. That could happen though I guess.

I think I should have added that though there have not been much Department Head shuffling in our government, I think many of those chosen to head our government agencies are already the poorest picks for those jobs.

allnurses Guide

wtbcrna, MSN, DNP, CRNA

5,125 Posts

Specializes in Anesthesia.
Hmph, my mind didn't go there. Maybe it should have, maybe not.

They're banning specific words, not playing musical chairs with who runs things. That could happen though I guess. I'm taking the bill at face value, it just means specific words can't be used in documents.

But, I digress. The part you put in bold is a bit off, to me. I laugh at "community wishes". Now *there* is a distraction. Make it sound as though you're giving people what they want. Oh my, I look around my "community" and think of them having a say in matters like vaccinations and climate change and the outlook begins to look grim.

The key point in saying you're using "community wishes" as your standard is: Who speaks for the community? How do we gauge what the wishes are?

Appoint the cronies, change/challenge the verbiage, and then cut the budget.

Trump nominates Alex Azar as next HHS Secretary

Trump Administration Appoints Dr. Brenda Fitzgerald As New CDC Director : NPR

AutumnApple

482 Posts

Specializes in M/S, Pulmonary, Travel, Homecare, Psych..
I think I should have added that though there have not been much Department Head shuffling in our government, I think many of those chosen to head our government agencies are already the poorest picks for those jobs.

Funny you say "cronies" though.

I often say "Don't take your experiences as everyone else's reality". So, I realize, this is only my experience but:

I find a lot of the local govt. appointed jobs around my area are filled with, well, not cronies. They're young college drop outs whose well to do families pulled strings to get them into whatever position they're in.

So I definitely agree, the people we already have in key positions is a bit off. Too much of a "buddy system" going on, instead of putting people in the position who will manage things well. I am though assuming what seems to be going on locally around me goes on everywhere, including above me.

+ Add a Comment