CDC gets list of forbidden words

Snow Leopard said:
But who really cares about lack of females in animal studies where male/female is not central to the mechanism? The gap between animal to human is far greater than the gap between men and women. Everything has to be replicated in humans anyway, many findings from animal studies reported in the literature do not turn out to be useful in humans. So it does not matter much that female animals are not used.
Click to expand...
Absolutely. It is a tragic waste of time and life using non-humans, and people following such research as though it is relevant.

It's a tragedy not only for the millions of animals who suffer and die, but also for the humans who don't realise the pointlessness of it.

If you don't believe me, have a look at these links if you haven't already.

http://forums.phoenixrising.me/index.php?entries/the-flawed-paradigm-of-animal-models.1549/

http://forums.phoenixrising.me/inde...from-my-report-on-animal-research-flaws.1550/

http://forums.phoenixrising.me/inde...robiota-fail-to-develop-normal-immunity.1551/

http://forums.phoenixrising.me/index.php?entries/why-differences-matter-more-than-similarities.1576/

http://forums.phoenixrising.me/inde...her-slams-requirement-for-animal-models.1691/
 
Jonathan Edwards said:
Very kind of you Trish but I am the norm. Male dominated research on males simply does not exist at least in the UK. Far fewer resources have gone into prostate cancer than breast cancer. Far fewer into ankylosing spondylitis than lupus.
Click to expand...

Thanks for clarifying, @Jonathan Edwards. I'm glad to hear that there is not such a bias in UK medical research in your experience.

I guess it's not surprising that we ME sufferers have a rather jaded view of such things given the 'female hysteria' narrative we have suffered from for decades, started by Freud and others, and perpetuated by McEvedy and Beard in 1970 with their 'it must be hysteria because most of the sufferers were women' interpretation of the Royal Free outbreak that still haunts us today, and added to many times over by Wessely and his cabal with their 'it's just a new name for neurasthenia'. And the ghettoising of ME in the women's illnesses section of the NIH until very recently, and consequent lack of funding.
 
MeSci said:
Absolutely. It is a tragic waste of time and life using non-humans, and people following such research as though it is relevant.
Click to expand...

Yes.

To clarify my position: Animals can be useful for primary research (not that I like it), but "Animal models" of disease are often too far from the human diseases that the results don't translate. A lot of the animal models of autoimmune disease are like this. I mean genetically engineering T-cells to be self-reactive? That's basically a completely different disease. Mostly what we got out of animal models of autoimmune disease is the discontinuation of the whole cell pertussis vaccine as many studies used that as part of their protocol to induce autoimmune diseases. (FYI the dosage per body weight of such vaccines in mouse/rat studies is around 20-100 times larger than the comparable dosages used in human vaccinations)
 
Trish said:
'it must be hysteria because most of the sufferers were women' interpretation of the Royal Free outbreak that still haunts us today, and added to many times over by Wessely and his cabal with their 'it's just a new name for neurasthenia'. And the ghettoising of ME in the women's illnesses section of the NIH until very recently, and consequent lack of funding.
Click to expand...

Agreed. How do think it feels for us men to have a 'womens' disease'?

PS - I believe the vast majority of supposed 'neurasthenia' cases were quite well to do (and therefore to be respected) men.
 
Re 'diversity' in medical research, it reminds me of something I read decades ago in the context of individual differences psychology about the absurdity of trying to control for every conceivable characteristic of the sampled population that might affect the experiment to the extent that your population consists of a single 'left-handed, fifty-three-year-old introverted Isle of Wight rat-catcher'.
 
https://blogs.jwatch.org/hiv-id-obs...ional-forbidden-words-and-phrases/2017/12/16/

December 16th, 2017
CDC Receives List of Additional Forbidden Words and Phrases

Right on the heels of prohibiting certain words or phrases in the Centers for Disease Control’s budget documents, the President’s Office of Financial Services has issued a second list.

Now, not only must CDC officials avoid using words such as “vulnerable”, “diversity”, “fetus”, “transgender”, and “evidence-based”, they also have to steer clear of several other words or phrases.

These include the following, which were issued along with the stated rationale and, at times, proposals for alternate or cautionary language:

  • “Scientific studies” — Please replace with “Dr. Oz says …”
  • “Data” — Delete — it is too difficult for us to know whether this word should be singular or plural.
  • “Susceptible” — We propose the following wording — “at risk due to weakness in character or upbringing or both.”
  • “Funding” — We prefer the term, “market forces”.
  • “Autochthonous transmission” — When cited, please include a note that it may cause blindness and/or hairy palms.
  • “Transparent” — Replace with “allows light to pass through so objects can be distinctly seen.”
Certain other words — including “balanced”, “cautionary”, “inclusive”, “thoughtful”, “measured”, and “kumquat” — are also on the forbidden list, without any explanation.

CDC officials have yet to respond to these requests publically, but several have noted off the record that this is the first time they have received comments from the President’s office hand-written in crayon.

Disclaimer: In case kumquat jokes aren’t your thing, this is satire.
 
Jonathan Edwards said:
It is just that there is no reason to us the word 'diversity' in biomedical science because it is a term for a pseudoquantity that has no relevance other than to politics.
Click to expand...
The fact that there is no reason to use a word does not justify it being banned (I appreciate that you are not suggesting it should be banned). That the word is inappropriate in biomedical science was not the reason given. In fact that can't be the reason, otherwise they would have banned the word "Jehova" and a long list of other words.

As far as I know, Trump's henchperson was careful not to give reasons, and to only issue the ban verbally (probably in menacing tones, with strong emphasis on the word "suggest").

Jonathan Edwards said:
I hear that message very clearly, Trish. Men may get treated as flabby wimps but I am aware that for ME there is a significant sexist narrative.
Click to expand...
Male M.E. sufferers get treated as flabby hysterical wimps, which is blatent prejudice, because I'm not flabby or hysterical. I confess I have occasionally been called a wimp (no idea why) and I have a son who insists on calling me "Margaret", but that's another story.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom