quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lucylastic
Leahy joins call for CDC, HHS to reverse on banned words list
Senators: Banning Words like Fetus, Transgender and Science/Evidence-Based Could Lead to Censorship, Impact Public Health Goals

https://futurism.com/cdc-director-no-banned-words-cdc/

https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/cdc-director-says-there-are-no-banned-words-at-the-agency

quote:

“As I have said previously, there are no banned, prohibited, or forbidden words at the CDC — period,” said CDC Director Brenda Fitzgerald in a statement to Futurism. “I want to emphasize to anyone who may believe otherwise that we continue to encourage open dialogue about all of the important public health work we do.”

Fitzgerald also affirmed the CDC’s position to employees in an email that was later posted to Twitter.

“As part of our commitment to provide for the common defense of the country against health threats, science is and will remain the foundation of our work,” Fitzgerald wrote in the email. “CDC has a long-standing history of making public health and budget decisions that are based on the best available science and data and for the benefit of all people — and we will continue to do so.”

But, a whole bunch of Democrats say the words are banned, so.....

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lucylastic
lolololololololololololololol

• A Conservative interpretation of the US Constitution
  
• Personal Responsibility
  
• Help for the truly needy
  
• Limited Government
  
• Consumption Tax (non-profit charities and food exempt)
  

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

quote:

ORIGINAL: Edwird
The terminology from old to new being henceforth;

'vulnerable' -> "'eager and willing 13 yr. old girl"
'entitlement' -> "oil companies, banks, agro-chem, armaments, etc."
'diversity' -> See above.
'transgender' -> "a 13 yr. old girl wearing the military uniform of a Major is HOT!"
'fetus' -> banning that saves a boatload of money since it saves us from worrying about stupid pregnant women an stuff. Especially if Trump spreads that to all medical universities.
'evidence-based' -> "I know there's all this hoo-ha about 'evidence' and everything, but . . . I can't understand any of it! Can you!? (pointedly points to crowd) (crowd of losers stand and cheer raucously, give salute of submission)
'science-based' -> See above.

You really need to catch up on your reading. It's already been shown in this thread that (1) the terms are not banned, and (2) the list was developed internally to the CDC by employees within the CDC (aka NOT by the Trump Administration).

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri
But, a whole bunch of Democrats say the words are banned, so.....

quote:

ORIGINAL: Edwird

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

quote:

ORIGINAL: Edwird
The terminology from old to new being henceforth;
'vulnerable' -> "'eager and willing 13 yr. old girl"
'entitlement' -> "oil companies, banks, agro-chem, armaments, etc."
'diversity' -> See above.
'transgender' -> "a 13 yr. old girl wearing the military uniform of a Major is HOT!"
'fetus' -> banning that saves a boatload of money since it saves us from worrying about stupid pregnant women an stuff. Especially if Trump spreads that to all medical universities.
'evidence-based' -> "I know there's all this hoo-ha about 'evidence' and everything, but . . . I can't understand any of it! Can you!? (pointedly points to crowd) (crowd of losers stand and cheer raucously, give salute of submission)
'science-based' -> See above.

You really need to catch up on your reading. It's already been shown in this thread that (1) the terms are not banned, and (2) the list was developed internally to the CDC by employees within the CDC (aka NOT by the Trump Administration).

I did mention the president, actually, but if you have names for the real perpetrators, that would help.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Edwird

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri
But, a whole bunch of Democrats say the words are banned, so.....

Source, names. Or shut up.

• A Conservative interpretation of the US Constitution
  
• Personal Responsibility
  
• Help for the truly needy
  
• Limited Government
  
• Consumption Tax (non-profit charities and food exempt)
  

quote:

ORIGINAL: Edwird
What I was asking was who within the CDC actually came up with the list in the first place, and whence the instigation?
I see now that you only were referring to the Democrats claiming enforcement when it wasn't enforced.
But still, don't you find it curious as to how such a scientifically-based organization came up with such a blatantly politically biased and retrograde list in the first place? Allegedly "within." Really?

quote:

If anyone thinks that such items as "evidence-based" or "scientifically-based" being proposed to be eliminated from discussion from an organization depending so much upon exactly that, and claimed to be "from within," . . .
I think we're not getting the whole story, here.
Not that you would be interested in any case.

• A Conservative interpretation of the US Constitution
  
• Personal Responsibility
  
• Help for the truly needy
  
• Limited Government
  
• Consumption Tax (non-profit charities and food exempt)
  

quote:

ORIGINAL: Edwird
I did all the research 20-30 years ago.

quote:

CNN, Fox, NBC/CBS/ABC, etc. all of them a "no go" here.
I knew people "in the business," and it's amazing (but maybe not) that they present things so differently as opposed to what actually transpired.
In any case, I just find it 'curious,' to say the least, that an organization such as the CDC came up with such a proposal, supposedly "from within."
Is this like Monsanto's Michael Taylor writing all those 'white papers' in various NGO blogs explaining that we would all die if we didn't eat at least 90% GMO foods? And trying to outlaw backyard gardens in that process (he really did that). Oh boy, that's 'science', innit?
But then, everything from the USDA "comes from within," right?
Everybody can get back to watching their adult cartoons, now.

• A Conservative interpretation of the US Constitution
  
• Personal Responsibility
  
• Help for the truly needy
  
• Limited Government
  
• Consumption Tax (non-profit charities and food exempt)
  

quote:

ORIGINAL: Edwird
Contrary to what?
Bullshit allegations?
No.
You can present evidence that the CDC came up with this all on their own, if you can.
I've already looked, not finding it.

quote:

As for the "20-30 yrs. ago" thing . . .
You're invited to point to fact (if available) of the media being better now than it was then.

quote:

And you're not displaying your best self in claiming that I'm relying on 30 yr. old news to read about the current CDC situation.
Not exactly the brightest bulb in the fixture, there, certainly.

• A Conservative interpretation of the US Constitution
  
• Personal Responsibility
  
• Help for the truly needy
  
• Limited Government
  
• Consumption Tax (non-profit charities and food exempt)
  

quote:

ORIGINAL: Edwird
The most disappointing thing is that the media plays to audience.
But it's in the media's interests to to pander the audience down, both sides of the fence.
This is not working well for us.

• A Conservative interpretation of the US Constitution
  
• Personal Responsibility
  
• Help for the truly needy
  
• Limited Government
  
• Consumption Tax (non-profit charities and food exempt)
  

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

quote:

ORIGINAL: Edwird
Contrary to what?
Bullshit allegations?
No.
You can present evidence that the CDC came up with this all on their own, if you can.
I've already looked, not finding it.

If you don't accept the articles posted in this thread, well, that's on you.

quote:

As for the "20-30 yrs. ago" thing . . .
You're invited to point to fact (if available) of the media being better now than it was then.

quote:

So, you waxed poetic for what reason?

quote:

ORIGINAL: Edwird

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

quote:

ORIGINAL: Edwird
Contrary to what?
Bullshit allegations?
No.
You can present evidence that the CDC came up with this all on their own, if you can.
I've already looked, not finding it.

If you don't accept the articles posted in this thread, well, that's on you.

You are welcome to point out where in such articles there was convincing evidence that there was no exogenous influence.
If you believe everything you read, that's on you.
I read the articles, I saw no convincing evidence that it was 100% from within. Just hearsay, anecdotal, not corroborated other than by other hearsay, etc.

quote:

quote:

As for the "20-30 yrs. ago" thing . . .
You're invited to point to fact (if available) of the media being better now than it was then.

quote:

So, you waxed poetic for what reason?

Was that 'poetic'? I missed that, myself.

• A Conservative interpretation of the US Constitution
  
• Personal Responsibility
  
• Help for the truly needy
  
• Limited Government
  
• Consumption Tax (non-profit charities and food exempt)
  

quote:

ORIGINAL: Edwird
You still haven't answered why you think it not curious at all that a scientifically oriented organization, whose job it is to protect us from the worst, by all investigative means, would come up with a proposal to eliminate "evidence-based" or "science-based" terminology in the first place, regarding the budget or otherwise.
Is that not utterly bizarre?

quote:

It's difficult to imagine the 8,000 or so PHD's working at the place coming up with that whopper.
Just saying.

• A Conservative interpretation of the US Constitution
  
• Personal Responsibility
  
• Help for the truly needy
  
• Limited Government
  
• Consumption Tax (non-profit charities and food exempt)
  

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

OMFG!! You claimed to have read the articles linked in this thread, and you still ask this question?!? Go ahead and go back through. Read for comprehension this time. FFS!

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri
It's already been shown in this thread that (1) the terms are not banned, and (2) the list was developed internally to the CDC by employees within the CDC (aka NOT by the Trump Administration).