>The Trump administration is prohibiting officials at the nation’s top public health agency from using a list of seven words or phrases 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.”
Well, Sup Forums?
washingtonpost.com
CDC gets list of banned words
Other urls found in this thread:
en.wikipedia.org
archive.fo
twitter.com
>can't use transgender
>use transfag instead
Good they have to have sound ideas now not buzzwords.
that's fake news, but I don't see anything wrong with this list. Fetus, maybe.
>“evidence-based” and “science-based.”
This is actually insanely fucked up, don't really care about the rest though.
Wonder what the ulterior motive here is?
You'd think so, but "evidence-based" and "science-based" have been corrupted into buzzwords for "globalist orthodoxy." They can still say "the evidence shows this" or "the science shows that" and it's fine.
Sup Forums has never hidden that they were easily triggered by being reminded of the existence of any of these things
>“evidence-based” and “science-based.”
To someone with two brain cells to rub together, I love this, but for the other half of the country, this is nothing but horrible optics.
I know a woman that works at that office that had a fairly long meeting Thursday. I'll have to ask her what it was about tomorrow.
>muh China and Japan are white countries maymay
Keep pumping money into the house of Saud
Maybe they have, but it would be insane to base the policies of the center for disease control on anything other than evidence
>fetus
What the fuck?
Tell that to the CDC then. They got busted in the 1990s for repeatedly trying to manipulate research on gun violence to advocate for their desired political outcome. It's basically the same issue climate research has.
Actually they didn't, they got banned from researching before they could proceed with the research. Considering the US has the highest gun deaths per capita of any first world nation by far, research on that topic is probably warranted
To make it extremely difficult for funding to go to studies that Trump disagrees with.
I assume if any of the words appear in the budget requests, the entire proposal will be ignored.
>source: my ass
Gun deaths dont equal gun violence.
Take chicago and detroit out of the stats and america is one of the safest nations. I.e. take niggers out. Essentially every country with gun control has higher stabbing rates. So please. Shut up canada.
Nice this triggers the fags
Does this constitute a violation of free speech? can this be thrown out by the supreme court?
>Gun deaths dont equal gun violence.
You're right they don't, which is why I said "gun deaths". You might remember that one of the CDCs jobs is prevention of accidental injury. The US also has the highest rates of accidental gun deaths per capita.
evidence-based isn't a buzzword you retard.
Yeah I don't get this one. I guess he wants them to use baby instead
Hell yes, every one of those is a thought terminating libshit buzzword.
Every one of those has been weaponized 1984 style.
no you moron
Yeah it is because without it you would have to actually present the evidence. It's actually a good preventative measure to block libshit thought terminating cliches and fallacies. This fallacy being an appeal to imaginary authority.
"We've reached a verdict your honor. It's evidence-based"
"Wow evidence-based you say? Well case closed."
Fuck you. It's that simple.
It's the government. You have to use terms like "faggot with a cognitive disability" to be politically correct.
now days it is. Evidence is the key. What evidence? How much evidence? Under what context? Where did said evidence come from?
You could twist it so that the arrest rate in Chicago is 'evidence' of white people keeping blacks down. It dose not mean shit.
The CDC always presents evidence to back up what it says though
Must be that republican obsession with eliminating the last bastion of eugenics.
Nope, Obammy set this precedent when he made all government agencies use "undocumented citizens" instead of "illegal aliens"
Trump is resetting decades of weaponized libshit propaganda and good for him.
Also you're a complete and utter fuckwit.
hi pedo kike
Then it's a pointless rubber stamp and a contribution to the typical synapse dampening lefty word salad.
Evidence doesn't need an embossed seal of approval to be known. It just is.
>The US also has the highest rates of accidental gun deaths per capita.
Which averages less than 1000 in a nation with over 300,000,000 firearms.
No it isn't, because the government has taken away much of the power of the FDA and the CDC to regulate alternative medicine, which is not evidence based.
The distinction needs to be cleary made because the average person isn't going to go and read a study, but if alternative medicine supplier try and claim to be evidence based they can take them to court over it.
I'm perfectly fine with Americans saying that guns shouldn't be regulated because a few deaths are the costs of freedom. Telling the CDC that their job is to prevent injuries and then taking away their funding for any studies they do on gun related research is very silly though.
>Fetus
>Latin for small child
Just own it baby killa
>it's okay when our guy does it!
You're an ignorant moron, STFU. Congress even banned them from "researching" it because of their biased manipulation.
so much for muh free speach
Instead of saying evidence based you now just supply the evidence along with the statement.
Instead of saying science based you now show the science along with the statement. Wow so hard so much censorship such anti science behavior
Should add "problematic" and "accessibility" to the list.
>wapo
ok chump
Missed the mark there, bud.
The CDC already does, but the statement is intended to be used by media who will not also provide the research. The use of evidence-based and science-based are important to be able to distinguish from alternative medicines which cannot legally use those terms.
media can say whatever the fuck they want
Trudeau is proof otherwise. Both evidence and science-based were buzzwords he used that ended up meaning nothing.
You literally just present the evidence. Those terms are short cuts and cop outs.
I don't understand the purpose of banning such words.
You'd assume the Center for Disease Control would be interested in talking about diseases afflicting vulnerable groups, and that no doubt there are things that tend to happen more to transgender people, if one is to analyse a community of people who go through gender re-assignment surgeries.
And the whole "fetus" thing is silly considering a large portion of the world just had a major Zika virus outbreak that caused microcephaly on newborns, which surely would warrant the word "fetus" showing up somewhere, at some point.
No shit, but they will usually just directly quote the press release from the CDC. Do you think they do any actualy journalism? Fuck no they just quote the press release
People like you are the reason I hate people like you
okay, can you ban the pedophiles too please?
>its not ok when their guy does it!
is that IRL le 56% face? our future looks beautiful
These terms became popular because of the FDA and CDC being unable to regulate alternative therapies effectively under current US law.
If they were given the powers they should have, they wouldn't need to use these terms.
The CDC has been trying to branch out and treat social inequality, gender rights and global warming as 'health issues', a la the WHO. That's the reason for
>“vulnerable,” “entitlement,” “diversity,” “transgender,” for starters.
It's redundant considering it's the CDC. It's like NASA using the word science-based in their documentation. You bet your ass it better be fucking science based you piece of shit.
No shit, but the press releases are for the media and laypersons who are not reading scientific studies
desu I doubt a single person posting in this thread knows how to read a scientific study
Has anyone actually managed to find a real source for this story?
All I've managed to find is rewrites of the wapost article pointing to an anonymous analyst at a meeting. Do we even know if this is an accurate list?
medfag here. "evidenced based medicine" is basically just a fucking buzzword that people like to throw around to say "I'm not just pulling this out of my ass". I fucking hate the term and I find it extremely redundant.
can we get "studies show" on the list too? That cancer is the worst one of them all
Yeah it would be a real shame if they showed that most of the gun crime was poor niggers killing each other in a dozen urban counties with handguns. Wouldn't want that to leak.
If you're a medfag you should realise how important it is to make that distinction in this modern climate where chiro, acupuncture, naturopathy etc etc are so popular
This would actually be great and helpful for prevention of furthur gun crimes and deaths, but nope, not allowed
Learning how to search for and read journal research articles is a first-semester-of-university assessment in any health or STEM field, if you don't know how to do that you're pretty much a subhuman.
Where the grain really gets sorted from the chaff is being able to develop the skills to genuinely read journal articles (instead of just the abstract) and pick apart any dodgy methods or bias that the researchers are omitting from their write up.
If there's no evidence, it's not medicine. If there were evidence, it would just be medicine It's a redundant phrase.
And it's ONLY EVER USED INTERNALLY, when talking in medical circles and not really when talking to the public. Everyone who uses and hears the term "evidence based medicine" already knows what I just explained, and therefore it's a useless term.
It's a widely known phenomenon. A CDC study on how niggers are feral chimps who murder each other in droves is not required. The problem isn't identifying the root cause. The problem is dealing with the root cause in a way that's socially acceptable.
You're also asshurt about not using 2 of the most retarded terms on that list. You'd be able to make a better case for "diversity" than "science-based". But either way language guides in the government are not a new thing and they'll just use other words. This whole thing is just asshurt kikes pissed someone identified the trigger words they're trying to corrupt.
...
WHAT IS THE POINT OF BANNING IT THEN?
Are we just going to micromanage what words you can use because they often times are just redundant. There is no defense for this dumb bullshit.
i like you. good luck out there medbro
>You'd assume the Center for Disease Control would be interested in talking about diseases afflicting vulnerable groups
You mean faggots and niggers and faggot niggers.
The point is that these words are used mostly to add emotional appeal or baseless credibility to a statement. They're clearly all loaded terms and in a war of ideas it's helpful to deny the enemy their weapons.
Because it's a dumb fucking term that people just use to make themselves feel smart. If there's evidence for something, just fucking say so. Don't say "this is evidence-based". That's the equivalent of saying "my correct opinion is correct" or something stupid like that.
You'd have a better time trying to argue against banning fetus and diversity. But EBM is a completely redundant term that I'm happy to see getting the axe. At least by the CDC, but it's a start.
Next I wish they'd just get rid of "MSM" (men who have sex with men) as a way to tiptoe around faggots and people who take dicks up the ass but don't identify as gay (????)
it's said that the phrases "evidence-based" and "science-based" have been reduced to hollow buzz words, glad to see them banned
The point is that its used in public releases as a weasel word to make low-evidence or controversial positions sound all scientific and official like to johnny six pack.
Exactly. In reality there are different "levels" of how good our evidence is. There might be some weak data in favor of something. There could be tons of studies and rock-solid conclusions. But when you just say "XYZ is evidence based" you could be talking about something with some weak fucking data and just trying to sweep it under the rug.
It's like when leftists say "the science is settled!"
I contract to the CDC sometimes, bunch of over-socialized hyper liberal faggots. Stock photos they pick are almost always bm/wf interracial couples.
>evidence based
we conclude a because the evidence shows x,y,z
>science based
the science done by x,y,z shows a,b,c, leading us to offer the conclusions that n is g
>The science
That's fucking grating as fuck to anyone who has a scientific background. At least use experiments or studies or testing or some other shit Jesus Christ.
Yeah, fetus is at least a word that has a specific definition. But leftists have an absolute rule about *always* using it, even when normal people would say "baby" during pregnancy. Plus, if the CDC is saying "fetus" in a document, they're probably pushing abortion.
They'll probably find other non-baby words to get around it, but it's a way to point out what they're doing and poke them in the eye a little.
Congrats you dumbass ... look at advertisements nowadays for anything ... almost always interracial because it appeals across the board. Quit being such a bitch about it and accept that the CDC is trying to fight diseases and improve lives and sometimes that means engaging as many people as they can as cheaply as they can. Sorry that your stupid ass is so tied up in racial bigotry to get that but we have a society to run here.
Heard that they can't use "science-based" and instead have to use "evidence-based"
>this kills the 3+ genders
>this kills the man-made global warming
...
>unarchived link
when will you newfaggots learn not to fucking do this?
archive.fo
DRUMPH BTFO IMPEACH NOW!!!!1!!
nobody with a solid, purist, orthodox grounding in science will ever end up presenting this shit where the buzzwords get on the air so it's gonna come out
>the science says
Trump and his specific brand of conservacucks actually needing unironic safe spaces is nothing new.
>free speech
>in official documents
Pick one. Contrary to what the left spews, not everything is a 1st amendment crisis.
This is such a petty thing to do
Feels like politics in America are all done out of spite towards the other team, like this is not going to change much but boy will It annoy the other team!
Maybe that’s the problem. Get a more knowledgeable presenter.
Sup Forums in a nutshell.
whats wrong with special faggot?
...
Essentially.
The country hates each other and we're waiting for another civil war.
This is honestly one of my biggest pet peeves, and when people talk about "science" or "the science" as if it's some sort of physical thing or ministry or something. It's just a fucking PROCESS for testing hypotheses.
A wise move, when i see any of those words i assume someone is trying to pull some shit on me.
You fail to realize most people couldn't pay attention for that part of the class, science is the new priesthood, just look what the left did to the scientific community peer review system.
Now if your politics aren't right neither is your science.
what evidence
>citation needed
every time
unless there are citations, more than that, multiple citations it is a simple buzzword
it's a shame that leftist trust government monopolies completely blindly but explains why they want more of it
they have replaced God with a man-made one, the state
Yup, it's become a cargo cult
...
Would love to run over Zika heads with Monster Truck.
Only when grant money is involved. Calm yer sack.