CDC gets list of forbidden words: fetus, transgender, diversity

  • Thread starter Thread starter Thorolfr
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
T

Thorolfr

Guest
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 and Prevention 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.”

In some instances, the analysts were given alternative phrases. Instead of “science-based” or “evidence-based,” the suggested phrase is “CDC bases its recommendations on science in consideration with community standards and wishes,” the person said. In other cases, no replacement words were immediately offered.
Click to expand...
http://www.denverpost.com/2017/12/15/cdc-forbidden-words-donald-trump/

🤨 :roll_eyes: 🤔
 
Mr. Trump wants to ban transgender people from the military and now he even wants to ban the CDC from talking about them?
 
I read this. What’s wrong with the word “fetus”? It’s a real word. It’s not a bad word.

So if a study on fetal development comes out, how are the scientists supposed to word it?
 
Ok. So the CDC needs to word a study on the mental health of those identifying as transgender, what word should they use?
 
What really struck me is the ban on “evidence-based” and “science-based.” Evidence and science are exactly what the CDC deals with. This is beyond bizarre.
 
These people seem really triggered by some words for some reason.
 
This is good but the CDC is still a political organization. I don’t trust the ‘science’ of politics.
 
angel12 said:
What really struck me is the ban on “evidence-based” and “science-based.” Evidence and science are exactly what the CDC deals with.
Click to expand...
But does it? Or are the alternative words more truthful? “Evidence based”, to me, is the most offensive because, in practice it means “computer program based” and “reimbursement based”. Virtually all clinics nowadays have the computer programs for “evidence based” medicine. Medical workers are strongly discouraged from departing from what the program says, because it endangers reimbursement. The computer programs used by insurers (which includes Medicare, which is run by insurance companies) provide reimbursement codes for treatments and evaluations. If the symptoms don’t match the computer diagnosis for them, or if the treatment doesn’t, there will be reimbursement problems or outright denial.

It takes the “art” out of the “art of medicine”. As one highly regarded head of a medical complex department said to me, medicine should be both an art and a science. Yes, science should provide the basic foundation, but the “art” is sometimes in thinking “outside the box”. He complained that the “art” is going out of it because of reimbursement formulae and risk avoidance on the part of physicians. If you agree with the computer, you have backing for what you do. If you don’t, then the presumption is that you’re wrong.
 
angel12 said:
What really struck me is the ban on “evidence-based” and “science-based.” Evidence and science are exactly what the CDC deals with. This is beyond bizarre.
Click to expand...
Newspeak. Deny evidence and science. It makes denying truth easier. Still, we get the government we elect, even if it is repressive and promotes stupidity over intelligence and all the science-y stuff.

“Entitlement” is probably the only of the seven words that is political.
 
Last edited:
If that’s what the HHS spokesman said, then this whole thread is worthless.
 
Boatswain2PA said:
40.png
Ridgerunner:
If that’s what the HHS spokesman said, then this whole thread is worthless
Click to expand...
The whole article is useless…unless your goal is to undermine the President.
Click to expand...
No one is forcing you to post here. I think it relevant.
 
Ridgerunner said:
But does it? Or are the alternative words more truthful? “Evidence based”, to me, is the most offensive because, in practice it means “computer program based” and “reimbursement based”. Virtually all clinics nowadays have the computer programs for “evidence based” medicine
Click to expand...
Sheer nonsense…
 
dvdjs said:
But does it? Or are the alternative words more truthful? “Evidence based”, to me, is the most offensive because, in practice it means “computer program based” and “reimbursement based”. Virtually all clinics nowadays have the computer programs for “evidence based” medicine

Sheer nonsense…
Click to expand...
Lots of medical practitioners complain about it. It’s not nonsense at all.

This may be of interest. It confirms most of what I said.

"Well intentioned efforts to automate use of evidence through computerised decision support systems, structured templates, and point of care prompts can crowd out the local, individualised, and patient initiated elements of the clinical consultation. For example, when a clinician is following a template driven diabetes check-up, serious non-diabetes related symptoms that the patient mentions in passing may not by documented or acted on.

Templates and point of care prompts also contribute to the creeping managerialism and politicisation of clinical practice. As Harrison and Checkland observe: “As the language of EBM becomes ever more embedded in medical practice, and as bureaucratic rules become the accepted way to implement ‘the best’ evidence, its requirements for evidence are quietly attenuated in favour of an emphasis on rules
Multimorbidity (a single condition only in name) affects every person differently and seems to defy efforts to produce or apply objective scores, metrics, interventions, or guidelines.1. 37 Increasingly, the evidence based management of one disease or risk state may cause or exacerbate another—most commonly through the perils of polypharmacy in the older patient


There are other articles about it. Not hard to find.
 
Last edited:
Boatswain2PA said:
The spokesman for HHS says this report is untrue.
Click to expand...
He absolutely did not. He said the report was “mischaracterization”, and then didn’t say how it was a mischaracterization. This is basic PR speak that doesn’t actually refute anything.

Also, it turns out the ban (sorry, “guidelines”) wasn’t limited to the CDC, it was instituted at other agencies as well:

 
Last edited:
Boatswain2PA said:
More fake news,
Click to expand...
Who on Earth is still believing that term has any meaning? It has been way too over-used to mean, "news I don’t want to hear, la-la-la, I can’t hear you. For example, your link has zero, zilch and nada to do with this topic. It is about Russia. Yet you link it like it means something here. I will take this as the result of suppressing thought, reason, science, evidence, etc., as has occurred as a replacement for statesmanship, and ignorance replaces critical thinking.
 
Last edited:
Fetal alcohol syndrome is a condition that affects the babies of mothers who consume excessive alcohol.

Why should this phrase be prohibited?

“Alcohol use by pregnant women has negative effects on vulnerable fetuses.”
 
From the article:

“Officials from two HHS agencies, who asked that their names and agencies remain anonymous, told The Washington Post that they had been given a list of “forbidden” words similar to the one given to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC).”

They asked that their AGENCIES remain anonymous? Even if they feared reprisal if their names were released, if their agencies were identified, it would not identify them. Why didn’t the reporters follow up on this to see if it’s true? Somebody speaks for those agencies.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top