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

[babyNP.]

The Trump administration is prohibiting officials at the nation's top public health agency from using a list of seven words or phrases - including "fetus" and "transgender" - in any official documents being prepared for next year's budget.

Policy analysts at the Centers for Disease Control in Atlanta were told of the list of forbidden words at a meeting Thursday with senior CDC officials who oversee the budget, according to an analyst who took part in the 90-minute briefing. The forbidden words are "vulnerable," "entitlement," "diversity," "transgender," "fetus," "evidence-based" and "science-based."

CDC gets list of forbidden words: fetus, transgender, diversity - The Washington Post

....

This is an attack on our very society itself. I could not believe it when I read it. I feel like a revolution may be inevitable if this trend continues. To ban the words "evidence-based" is beyond words for me to write.

ETA: The other words banned are: "vulnerable," "entitlement," "diversity," "transgender," "fetus," and "science-based." No less horrendous.

[AutumnApple]

Oh my. I just looked up the word "crony". It didn't mean what I thought. I thought it meant older people lol.

Yeah, cornies is the right word.

[macawake, MSN]

CDC gets list of forbidden words: fetus, transgender, diversity - The Washington Post

....

This is an attack on our very society itself.

You're right, it is. It's part of an orchestrated effort to undermine and eventually change society as you know it; free and democratic. Some in this thread will no doubt think I'm being overly dramatic, others won't actually believe it but will still accuse me of it, for the sole purpose of deflecting attention from what is currently happening in your country.

As a European, let me tell you that we are watching what's currently happening in the U.S. with a mix of disbelief, sadness and fear.

If the ban on the use of seven words was only an isolated event and not part of a much bigger picture, I wouldn't be as concerned as I currently am. But it is part of a pattern. What you are experiencing is the spread of anti-science and anti-democratic influences and values, wilfully aided by the use of "alternative facts" (lies) and attempts at history revision in a way that is truly alarming.

Out of all the tens of thousands of words in a dictionary, the seven terms weren't chosen at random (vulnerable, entitlement, diversity, transgender, fetus, evidence-based and science-based). It doesn't take a genius to figure out which specific policies and social programs they're gunning for. The political motivation is clear as day, but the scary part is the tactics they are willing to resort to in an attempt to change policy. They are entirely in line with how authoritarian states act. I think you are on a dangerous path. As a country you have relatively robust checks and balances in place, but I don't think that you are immune to the threat from someone who bears a striking resemblance to a budding autocrat (propped up by a wingman theocrat or two) poses.

I was about nine or ten the first time that I read Ray Bradbury's Fahrenheit 451. The latest shenanigans by this administration made me recall that book.

Steve, I can't honestly figure out whether you're trolling us or that you don't understand why it is such an atrocious act to ban words...? The misuse of opioids are not the only legacy of the words "evidence-based."

It honestly feels like a distraction to get off topic...kind of like what the government is currently doing.

It is in my opinion an attempt at distraction, but it is likely also a sign of agreement with the latest development. Whenever someone posts something that makes me wonder about their motivation, I check their post history to see if it offers any clues. In this case I didn't really have to since I remember reading some of Steve's contributions in other threads.

Flu shot. Just say NO. Flu is not as dangerous as Big Pharma wants you to believe. Flu shot is not for someone's protection. It is for Big Pharma's money.

We have not started to vaccinate people, however, last week they sent us a brainwashing email r/t "great" benefits of flu "jab".

I am free of fear and it is a real blessings. I am free of fears that Big Pharma wants to impose on me to make me its customer. Jesus said that only sick people need a doctor. As long as I am not sick I do not depend on doctors for so called preventive measures.

There is no difference from medical perspective. ADN and BSN nurses have the same instruction about pharmacology, diseases... The only difference is that BSN nurses indoctrinated more. For example BSN assigned to read more articles about gays and stuff.

Steve123, given the opinions you've previously expressed I'm not in the least surprised that you don't think it's a very big deal that the CDC are no longer allowed to use words like evidence-based, transgender and fetus. It's exactly the reaction I expected. With your anti-vax beliefs and your belief that EBM amounts to brainwashing, you have in my opinion proved that you don't hold evidence-based medicine in very high regard. I'm also guessing from your previous posts that you aren't an abortion rights and LBGTQ rights champion/activist. You are free to correct me if you think I've drawn the wrong conclusions regarding the two latter.

I'd need a few more sources than the Washington Post before I believed anything.

TriciaJ, It would actually make me happy if this whole thing had been reported in an erroneous manner and later retracted. Simply because the implications of a government trying to influence research conducted in the interest of public health is deeply troubling. I would be relieved if they got their facts. The problem is, I don't think they did.

Withdrawing from the Paris Agreement and appointing a person who rejects the scientific concensus on climate change as head of the agency tasked with protecting your environment (read: your personal health as well as the planet's health as the two are undeniably intertwined) are both actions of someone who either doesn't understand and value science, or disregards it for personal gain (be that monetary gain or power). This most recent thing is completely in line with an anti-science policy.

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.

I agree 100% with Accolay's post.

@AutumnApple, in my opinion your mind really needs to go there.

When I read the WaPo article my first thought was "what kind of a person takes issue with/opposes the terms science-based and evidence-based? And perhaps more importantly; why do they oppose the use of those terms? The terms are hardly inflammatory, unless one happens to be an anti-vaxxer or climate change denialist in which case one's knee-jerk reaction is to question the entire concept of science and likely reject its validity. Perhaps it's not even the case that the terms themselves are perceived as super offensive, but rather that they are an obstacle to injecting ones personal beliefs on policy decisions... Science deals with facts. If you don't find science-based conslusions palatable and in line with deeply held personal beliefs, for a certain type of person it might be tempting to just do away with the obstacle.

"CDC bases its recommendations on science in consideration with community standards and wishes" is clearly an attempt to move away from science and instead let people's opinions and values (personal, religious, cultural), dictate policy. We can all sit here and speculate regarding how how much success this strategy will have, but make no mistake about why the suggested replacement phrase is worded the way it is.

Any medical or nursing professional who cares about the quality of research and who wants to always offer treatment that is scientifically sound, should be concerned by the banning of these terms.

Any person who wants to live in a free and democratic society should fear leaders who want to dictate which words can or can't be used.

[thecareerchanger, BSN]

Any medical or nursing professional who cares about the quality of research and who wants to always offer treatment that is scientifically sound, should be concerned by the banning of these terms.

Any person who wants to live in a free and democratic society should fear leaders who want to dictate which words can or can't be used.

This pretty much sums it up for me!

[decembergrad2011, BSN, RN]

You cannot be scientifically minded and say, "meh, big deal" about this recent revelation.

However, I also believe wholeheartedly if you read this news and say, "meh, big deal" you are part of the problem anyway.

[decembergrad2011, BSN, RN]

You're right, it is. It's part of an orchestrated effort to undermine and eventually change society as you know it; free and democratic. Some in this thread will no doubt think I'm being overly dramatic, others won't actually believe it but will still accuse me of it, for the sole purpose of deflecting attention from what is currently happening in your country.

As a European, let me tell you that we are watching what's currently happening in the U.S. with a mix of disbelief, sadness and fear.

We're scared, too. Many of us never believed our country would fall so far. I am currently trying to convince my husband to draw some lines in the sand for what we will stand for before we leave the country. We are hoping so much that Mueller can do something through this investigation to restore justice and order, as I am still not convinced that Trump was the will of the people.

[heron, ASN, RN]

i'm just wondering why you weren't so shocked when Obama banned words like Christmas...

Because it didn't happen.

[elkpark]

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?

Well, here's a hint: Whenever Trump says "People are saying," or "People think ...", or "People are angry about ...", he means his supporters (and himself, of course). He doesn't seem to recognize that any of the rest of us are out here, and has made it abundantly clear that the only people he cares about or values are the people who agree with and support him. Do you think that Trump supporters accurately represent the larger American society? Do you want their beliefs and wishes to be the "community wishes" on which Federal government spending decisions and health and scientific policy are based?

[Tenebrae, BSN, RN]

As a European, let me tell you that we are watching what's currently happening in the U.S. with a mix of disbelief, sadness and fear.

.

And in New Zealand and Australia, we have had some fairly shady politicans, none come close to Donalds antics

[AutumnApple]

Foremostly, I continue to be very alarmed at the anti-science paradigm that's become pandemic within our government. However, from what I've gathered this is a reaction by the CDC to the current political conditions; as in, the CDC is attempting to self-censor its reports to avoid conflict with some ill-informed politicians that approve the CDC's budget.

It'd be like the EPA telling its folks to not use the words "warming" "human-caused" or "flooding" in any reports as to placate its director.

I haven't read too deeply into this particular issue. This is just my opinion, from various news reports. In any case, denying or oppressing science does no good.

Anyone more well read up on the subject than I am have any input on the above? That it's the CDC who wanted the words not used to (as the quote says) "avoid conflict with ill informed politicians."

I'm actually getting upset trying to research all of this. There is a lot of "conservative bashing" going on in the news articles, and even in here to a degree. I usually don't take it so personal because I'm aware that what is and is not a conservative has become so blurred.

Anyway, Freedom of Speech is a concern to both conservatives and liberals alike. So I would like to be more in touch with this topic if I can be. So, anyone with some input into where these *word bans* truly came from?

Maybe the conservative bashing is a distraction that's working on me

[klone, MSN, RN]

And I can't think of anything that anyone wants to say that can't be said using other, non-banned words.

Say that sentence out loud, slowly. What you just wrote, in such a casual, nonchalant way, as if it's not a HUGE deal, is why we're all upset and scared.

[AutumnApple]

Say that sentence out loud, slowly. What you just wrote, in such a casual, nonchalant way, as if it's not a HUGE deal, is why we're all upset and scared.

You'll have to expand on that. My point is, despite it being contradictory to freedom of speech, it's not going to work so........meh.

You believe it's going to work? That science, right here and now, is effectively dead and the general population's "wishes" were for it to be that way? Are you trying to say being obtuse to the banned words furthers it's effectiveness? I can (and have, after discussion here on this forum) relate to that at least.

I think I'm not getting my point across. I liken these banned words to a toddler's temper tantrum. Toddler wants something, adult says "no" to it so they go to extreme measures to try to manipulate the answer their getting from "no" to "yes". Then comes the tantrum. It's a bad thing, yes. It breaks the rules, it's childish and loud, and it's an attempt for someone to fix the system in their favor (give me ice cream or else). We, the adults, don't give the tantrum much attention though. We don't call the cops or threaten the child with jail time. We just ignore them. Why? Because we know the tantrum won't work, so there is no reason to get upset about it. The banned words attempt at manipulating the system in their favor isn't going to work so........meh.

[kcochrane]

I always like to wait a few days to see how things shake out before I react. I've seen too many times how what is reported is not necessarily what is true.

CDC director says there are ‘no banned words’ at the agency | PBS NewsHour

"CDC director says there are ‘no banned words' at the agency"

"But in follow-up reporting, The New York Times cited "a few" CDC officials who suggested the move was not meant as an outright ban, but rather, a technique to help secure Republican approval of the 2019 budget by eliminating certain words and phrases. "

Sad though that games have to be played in order to do the right thing.