SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
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."
You don't say!
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
CDC Gets List of Forbidden Words: Science-Based, Evidence-Based, Vulnerable, Fetus, ...
|
Log In/Create an Account
| Top
| 94 comments
| Search Discussion
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
QOTD:
The forest may be quiet, but that doesn't mean
the snakes have gone away.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday December 17 2017, @06:02AM (10 children)
What does the CDC publish which isn't science or evidence based (their accounting? I sure hope its evidence based!)?
I'm not a USAian, so maybe I have an inaccurate view of the role of the CDC, but surely if they're using the phrases "science based" or "evidence based" then something is sorely wrong for that to not be implicit in everything they publish.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday December 17 2017, @06:19AM (4 children)
The point isn't whether or not they've been using these words and phrases. The point is that they could use them, and that is now seen as dangerous wrongthink.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday December 17 2017, @06:43AM (2 children)
This is a very worrying move, but that concern is obvious and shared and doesn't benefit from having an AC draw attention to it.
The fact it is felt necessary to stop the CDC from saying "evidence-based" and "science-based" implies that they are currently using those terms, and this isn't such an obvious concern, and I feel is worth drawing attention to. Although perhaps I misunderstand those terms/the purpose of the CDC.
(Score: 4, Interesting) by hendrikboom on Sunday December 17 2017, @02:02PM (1 child)
"Evidence-based" has a rather specific meaning in medicine. Most medical practice is not evidence-based in this sense. Doctors rely on their judgement, their experience in similar cases, the experience and expertise of colleagues, and so forth in treating patients. Most of the time it works well.
But then come the scientists, who point out that none of that is a proper double-blind scientific study with control groups and statistical analysis. Of course they are right. It isn't. So is born "evidence-based" medicine, which does rely on proper scientific, testable studies. Often these properly controlled studies support existing practice. But every now and then they contradict common practice, so they are valuable and common practice changes.
But it is not really feasible to practice only evidence-based medicine. There simply have not been enough properly executed scientific studies. And some things are even practically impossible to do proper double-blind studies on. As an example of such a thing in ordinary, non-medical experience, consider that there has never been a double-blind study on whether the use of a parachute improves survival when a person jumps out of an airplane.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday December 17 2017, @05:02PM
Lameness filter encountered. Post aborted!
Filter error: Missing Comment.
(A nice change from invalid form key at least)
(Score: 1, Troll) by VLM on Sunday December 17 2017, @03:20PM
In the specific context of the budgeting process, this is probably correct.
They, being liberals, need to signal their holiness by worship of trans, for example, so if left to their own devices, instead of determining the proper budget for zika prevention vs cholea prevention will just religiously rant about hatred of all things Trump and how its great to be racist against white people etc. Actions that are good for their social "street cred" in the context of oppressive levels of political progressivism is not necessarily useful in the context of allocating the office supply budget between black bic pens vs #2 pencils with or without erasers.
(Score: 2, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday December 17 2017, @06:24AM (4 children)
They publish science-based information which is broad at times. How to deal with an epidemic, for instance, as opposed to how to deal with a smallpox epidemic. For example they might say "when checking what microorganisms are in a water source, an evidence-based approach should include tests x, y, and z."
Ie. this stops them from labelling 'good' procedures as such.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday December 17 2017, @06:29AM (3 children)
What procedures which aren't evidence based would be acceptable for them to publish?
Don't socialize while you have a cold? That's based on the evidence that colds are transmissible by actions common while socializing.
If they have no evidence, they are just repeating folk wisdom and can fuck off.
(Score: 4, Informative) by AthanasiusKircher on Sunday December 17 2017, @08:45AM (2 children)
Actually, no, they aren't necessarily implying evidence-based procedures are okay. "Evidence-based" is actually a technical term in medicine [wikipedia.org], referring to approaches that are more heavily dependent on rigorous stats in evaluating clinical efficacy ( and often specific levels of concern depending on certain study designs, etc.).
All medicine is empirical to some extent (one would hope, anyway), but that doesn't mean it's "evidence-based" according to the technical definition, which require more rigorous evaluation of evidence and study design.
And there are also legitimate concerns about "evidence-based" approaches in medicine that specify too much rigor early on (e.g., since they may overlook small effects in exploratory studies, may misunderstand or misinterpret outcomes due to confounding factors within a complex system like the human body, etc.). And sometimes "intuitive" clinical procedures have later been shown to be effective in a more statistically rigorous study.
I'm not saying this term can't be abused or misused -- obviously it can be. But it also tries to make a technical distinction about statistical rigor in medical studies, and inability to use the term may hamper discussion about that.
(Score: 2) by AthanasiusKircher on Sunday December 17 2017, @08:49AM (1 child)
My first sentence is missing a "non" (I.e. not implying non-evidenced-based procedures are okay, at least in the common sense of the term).
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday December 17 2017, @09:40AM
..