Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

SoylentNews is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop. Only 18 submissions in the queue.
posted by martyb on Sunday December 17 2017, @05:16AM   Printer-friendly
from the George-Orwell-Says-Hi! dept.

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."

https://www.washingtonpost.com/national/health-science/cdc-gets-list-of-forbidden-words-fetus-transgender-diversity/2017/12/15/f503837a-e1cf-11e7-89e8-edec16379010_story.html

You don't say!


Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday December 17 2017, @06:29AM (3 children)

    by Anonymous Coward on Sunday December 17 2017, @06:29AM (#610881)

    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)

    by AthanasiusKircher (5291) on Sunday December 17 2017, @08:45AM (#610915) Journal

    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)

      by AthanasiusKircher (5291) on Sunday December 17 2017, @08:49AM (#610917) Journal

      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

        by Anonymous Coward on Sunday December 17 2017, @09:40AM (#610936)

        ..