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

Other outlets, including The New York Times and STAT, have since confirmed with other sources parts of the Post’s reports, notably that such lists and term swaps exist. But, the HHS and other sources say the Post’s reports misrepresented the language changes, which were not bans.

arstechnica.com...

Ahh, so they're just "language changes" and not bans.

I'm glad this was finally put to rest.

(If you can't tell, I'm being sarcastic.)

Dr. Ashish Jha, director of the Harvard Global Health Institute, told STAT:

“So of course the administration and its defenders are going to argue that this is only about what goes into the budget. But we know that the signal to the agency is much stronger than that. And it’s going to change behavior of people who work there. And that’s much more damaging than any direct censorship.”

originally posted by: Sillyolme
a reply to: NoCorruptionAllowed

PS you should note that the CDC is charged with preserving life. Not killing people.

That is patently false, as evidenced here which contains a link to a cached page on the CDC's own website, where they openly admitted that 98 million people were given a polio vaccine tainted with a cancer causing Simian virus. The page was quickly taken down for obvious reasons.
investmentwatchblog.com...

a reply to: ZombieZygote

Even if that claim is true, which I find HIGHLY dubious given the website source you provided, your link isn't even saying that the polio vaccine was intentionally tainted. For all you know the tainted vaccine was unintentional. In fact, given the source you provided, I bet that is what happened in reality. It makes more sense than that the CDC is trying to kill us.

originally posted by: seeker1963
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!

I think Seeker's post here is a wonderful example of the ingrained cognitive dissonance inherent in Trump's most ardent supporters. Notice his first reaction is to discredit/disbelieve the reporters information on whatever obnoxious ridiculousness comes from Trump's team.

a reply to: Dfairlite

Did they? That would be fantastic. I saw it mentioned in a few places. When did they announce that?

a reply to: Byrd

Good thing they can't ban exploration of the truth. In science and in mankind.
Am I to understand that this request was merely for a budget report?
Who's so sensitive in the finance department???

a reply to: underwerks

Oh no you were coming through loud and clear. Lol .

originally posted by: RomeByFire

originally posted by: NoCorruptionAllowed

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.

Infant Human Being maybe?

Killing them is easier when it's diminished to "it's just a fetus".


Now you know the reason.

Had no idea the CDC did abortions.

Wow did you even read the OP? It is one of the words (fetus) to allegedly be banned from federal agency use.

a reply to: underwerks

LOL...another "anonymous source" story from the left?... Do you forget that ALL "anonymous source" articles that the left has published starting from late last year about "President Trump" have proved to be false?... I am willing to bet this is either an exaggeration, or another completely fabricated story from "left-wing Fake news central"...

originally posted by: Wayfarer


I think Seeker's post here is a wonderful example of the ingrained cognitive dissonance inherent in Trump's most ardent supporters. Notice his first reaction is to discredit/disbelieve the reporters information on whatever obnoxious ridiculousness comes from Trump's team.

ROFLMAO... The "cognitive dissonance" is coming from the likes of you and the rest of the left who keep falling for these "anonymous sources"... Every story from the left that started with "an anonymous source" has been proven to be fake ever since your masters decided to start brainwashing you with such fake stories.

a reply to: NoCorruptionAllowed

But the director came out and said there are no banned words. So regardless, everything contended about banned words is just a hoax. Fake news.

a reply to: Sillyolme

Here's a link to the CDC director. No Banned Words

originally posted by: NoCorruptionAllowed

originally posted by: RomeByFire

originally posted by: NoCorruptionAllowed

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.

Infant Human Being maybe?

Killing them is easier when it's diminished to "it's just a fetus".


Now you know the reason.

Had no idea the CDC did abortions.

Wow did you even read the OP? It is one of the words (fetus) to allegedly be banned from federal agency use.

And it has nothing to do with abortions.

originally posted by: Dfairlite
a reply to: NoCorruptionAllowed

But the director came out and said there are no banned words. So regardless, everything contended about banned words is just a hoax. Fake news.

The Post’s reports were largely based on an anonymous policy analyst, who took part in a 90-minute policy briefing with senior CDC officials, and an anonymous HHS official. The New York Times and STAT, have since confirmed with other sources parts of the Post’s reports, notably that such lists and term swaps exist. But, the HHS and other sources say the Post’s reports misrepresented the language changes, which were not bans.

Link
Nice try, but them going back after the story broke and labeling it something else, doesn't change what it is.

Even if it was only a verbal command, it still represents the same type of government overreach.

originally posted by: Dfairlite
a reply to: NoCorruptionAllowed

But the director came out and said there are no banned words. So regardless, everything contended about banned words is just a hoax. Fake news.

The director is a Trump appointee.

a reply to: underwerks

So? She's not contradicting the administration, she's contradicting the fake news media.

Also where was your righteous indignation to banning words a few years ago?
Obama bans Islam and jihad

a reply to: Dfairlite


Unfortunately, this is actually a pretty good point. To further that, regrettably, administrations have been doing this since time immemorial but not always has it been reported on or even spoken outloud.

a reply to: alphabetaone

Also, political correctness has banned many words from use in government agencies.

originally posted by: Dfairlite
a reply to: alphabetaone

Also, political correctness has banned many words from use in government agencies.

True. But I think we can (or probably should) agree that banning any words, for the sake of almost ANY reason, should be a big no-no. People instead should show more discretion in how they choose to use words, not have them banned outright. If someone can't display the requisite discretion necessary then the words aren't the problem, the people are.

originally posted by: ElectricUniverse

originally posted by: Wayfarer


I think Seeker's post here is a wonderful example of the ingrained cognitive dissonance inherent in Trump's most ardent supporters. Notice his first reaction is to discredit/disbelieve the reporters information on whatever obnoxious ridiculousness comes from Trump's team.

ROFLMAO... The "cognitive dissonance" is coming from the likes of you and the rest of the left who keep falling for these "anonymous sources"... Every story from the left that started with "an anonymous source" has been proven to be fake ever since your masters decided to start brainwashing you with such fake stories.

Hehe, I'm actually amused that you're tickled by the irony/hypocrisy that you yourself are wallowing in. The Left actually has a pretty good track record of discerning fact from fiction (unlike yourself, Trumpette's and the Republican supporters). Keep pushing pizzagate brov while telling us all how silly we are for believing such nonsense as Trump and company wanting to downplay climate change and other Republican non-starter issues as a means of propaganda and subtle agency indoctrination.