CDC gets list of forbidden words

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/

 

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)

 

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.

 

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.

 

Well...you say that but, I suspect, it's just the more humorous end of a probability curve.

 

Why not stop talking and writing completely...

 

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").

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.