It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

CDC banned from using 'evidence-based' and 'science-based' on official documents

page: 1
29
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join
share:
+13 more 
posted on Dec, 15 2017 @ 08:52 PM
link   

The Trump administration has reportedly banned the Centers for Disease Control from using the phrases "evidence-based" and "science-based" on official documents.

Senior CDC officials distributed the list of "forbidden" words and phrases to policy analysts at the CDC on Thursday, the Washington Post reported Friday. The list also bans the use of "vulnerable," "entitlement," "diversity," "transgender" and "fetus."


If a presidential administration banning words the CDC and other scientific agencies can use isn't dystopian enough for you, wait for this next part. Emphasis mine.


An analyst who attended the meeting at the CDC in Atlanta told the Washington Post that instead of "evidence-based" or "science-based," policy analysts are instructed to use the phrase, "CDC bases its recommendations on science in consideration with community standards and wishes."

Link

In consideration with community standards and wishes. Let that sink in. If the wishes of the community don't like the objective evidence being presented, it's wrong.


The analyst told the Post that other branches of President Trump's health department are likely adhering to the same list of banned words. The source said that others at the meeting reacted with surprise when given the list.

"It was very much, 'Are you serious? Are you kidding?'" the analyst said, "In my experience, we've never had any pushback from an ideological standpoint."


We may be watering our crops with Brawndo sooner than I expected.


edit on 15-12-2017 by underwerks because: (no reason given)



+1 more 
posted on Dec, 15 2017 @ 09:22 PM
link   
a reply to: underwerks


Seems like Jeff Bezos is allowing his newspaper to go full retard!


according to the CDC analyst, who spoke on the condition of anonymity because the person was not authorized to speak publicly. Kelly did not say why the words are being banned, according to the analyst, and told the group that she was merely relaying the information.



And yes, this isn't in your link because the Hill embellished it from the Washington Post. Do you really think Trump has the time to ban words???? This is projection from those who do want ban words! Free speech is Hate speech right???

WAPO

How the hell can or should anyone ban the word fetus? If anything it would be the Pro choice people who would want to ban that word!

Calling BS on this one!



posted on Dec, 15 2017 @ 09:25 PM
link   
a reply to: underwerks

Oh dear. This is just stupid talk.

This is setting us for something...maybe a new policy or new medical research that goes against the status quo? Maybe medical marijuana? Or the recommended transgender treatments? Or vaccines?

It's going to be something already controversial no doubt.

Whatever it is, it sure ain't in our best interests!



posted on Dec, 15 2017 @ 09:35 PM
link   
Sounds like more quackery.

So unPolitical.




posted on Dec, 15 2017 @ 09:38 PM
link   
a reply to: seeker1963

From your link:



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.”

Not a lot of difference there. I urge everyone to click on it and read both articles.



posted on Dec, 15 2017 @ 09:44 PM
link   

originally posted by: Boadicea
a reply to: underwerks

Oh dear. This is just stupid talk.

This is setting us for something...maybe a new policy or new medical research that goes against the status quo? Maybe medical marijuana? Or the recommended transgender treatments? Or vaccines?

It's going to be something already controversial no doubt.

Whatever it is, it sure ain't in our best interests!


As much as I criticize this administration, I never thought it would get to the point where it would ban words scientific agencies can use.

I'm at a point where I really don't even know what to say. This should obviously be bad to anyone who respects freedom of speech in the slightest. And the precedent it sets for "approved science" is troubling, to say the least.
edit on 15-12-2017 by underwerks because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 15 2017 @ 09:45 PM
link   

originally posted by: underwerks
I'm at a point where I really don't even know what to say. This should obviously be bad to anyone who respects freedom of speech in the slightest. And the precedent it sets for "approved science" is troubling.


russia did that... set back their science by decades



posted on Dec, 15 2017 @ 11:48 PM
link   
actually this doesnt sound bad to me at all. its very easy for one scientist to come a conclusion that the vast majority of scientists disagree with yet push it as fact even though its up for debate. things dont become scientific evidence until they are agreed upon by the scientific community. we have to have consensus and imo this looks like they are trying to make sure nothing gets pushed out before it has been peer reviewed.

on the other hand the wording they want to use is quite iffy and i dont like it at all. my gut tells me this is entirely to push back against AGW alarmists



posted on Dec, 16 2017 @ 01:07 AM
link   
a reply to: underwerks

This is just so bizarre. There has got to be more to this story.



We may be watering our crops with Brawndo sooner than I expected.


I'm beginning to believe that the movie Idiocracy is more of a cautionary tale than a comedy.


-dex



posted on Dec, 16 2017 @ 01:17 AM
link   
a reply to: DexterRiley

That is the movie that came to my mind.

Time to get off this planet.



posted on Dec, 16 2017 @ 01:17 AM
link   
a reply to: underwerks

Lets not dismiss the possibility that this was orchestrated by big pharma themselves. It would enable them to make any claims they wanted about their products. Given they have immunity from prosecution, they certainly have a lot to gain by his presidential edict.



posted on Dec, 16 2017 @ 02:05 AM
link   
a reply to: DexterRiley

Idiocracy has been in play for awhile now.

Who cares what the experts and scientists have to say....lets take a vote of the manipulated dumb masses to determine important policies.



posted on Dec, 16 2017 @ 03:52 AM
link   
a reply to: underwerks

So a CDC study on the effects of the Zeka virus on developing fetuses must now say what? Baby?. developing future republican? I don't know some words got some lengthy alternative phrases to replace it while others didnt.



posted on Dec, 16 2017 @ 07:04 AM
link   
a reply to: underwerks


I'm at a point where I really don't even know what to say. This should obviously be bad to anyone who respects freedom of speech in the slightest. And the precedent it sets for "approved science" is troubling, to say the least.


It is very troubling. "Community wishes"? Really??? Which community? Herding us folks is like herding cats... there's virtually nothing that the "community" agrees upon, so that's are our second clue that whatever is in the works, a good portion of us aren't going to like it. And I also suspect, given the word "vulnerable" in there, that those most affected will be those that cannot fight back.

This is just one more reason to say -- as I do -- that Trump wouldn't know Constitutional principles if they bit him in the arse. It is frightening.



posted on Dec, 16 2017 @ 07:09 AM
link   

Lets not dismiss the possibility that this was orchestrated by big pharma themselves.


So you're admitting that Trump is nothing more than another corporate stooge? Just another FatF doing the bidding of big business?



posted on Dec, 16 2017 @ 09:15 AM
link   
a reply to: underwerks

I think Trump read 1984 and identified too much with the baddies. "Newspeak" (banning terms in official speech was part of that) didn't work all that well in the book.

I guess if he doesn't hear it, he doesn't have to acknowledge it. Just keep burying your head deeper and deeper, Mr. Trump. Eventually all of our voices will be a distant nightmare.

And PS, Brawndo has electrolytes, don't knock it.



posted on Dec, 16 2017 @ 09:37 AM
link   
a reply to: Abysha

I doubt it was Trump directly..

I’d be more inclined to look a little lower down, to someone like the Secretary of Health and Human Services..



posted on Dec, 16 2017 @ 09:52 AM
link   

originally posted by: seeker1963

How the hell can or should anyone ban the word fetus? If anything it would be the Pro choice people who would want to ban that word!

Calling BS on this one!





Seems like all the "calls" here are wroght with error. It is / was accurate. For a "conspiracy" website, it seems all the bannon and alex jones flunkies decided to congregate here.



posted on Dec, 16 2017 @ 12:37 PM
link   

originally posted by: Sillyolme
a reply to: underwerks

So a CDC study on the effects of the Zeka virus on developing fetuses must now say what? Baby?. developing future republican? I don't know some words got some lengthy alternative phrases to replace it while others didnt.

That was the weirdest part to me. Fetus is a scientific term. It has nothing to do with politics.

I'm really at a loss for how this isn't bigger news. You'd think the government banning words and sanctioning opinion based science would be a gigantic story. It seems no one really cares though.

Feelin' like the only aware frog in the pot..



posted on Dec, 16 2017 @ 12:47 PM
link   
a reply to: underwerks

I find this quite disturbing and actually considered starting a thread about it....something I never do, to see if anyone else was aware or cared about this news.



new topics

top topics



 
29
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join