CDC banned-word list shows Trump’s contempt for science
Just when I think the Trump administration can no longer surprise me, they go and do it. But the latest stunt is more a shock than a surprise.
Senior budget officials of the esteemed Centers for Disease Control and Prevention were called to a meeting last Thursday and read a list of forbidden words and phrases — including the term “science-based” — that the Trump administration does not want to see in the agency’s official budget documents to circulate within Congress and the federal government in preparation for the upcoming presidential budget proposal.
The banned words and phrases are “fetus,” “transgender,” “science-based,” “diversity,” “evidence-based,” “entitlement” and “vulnerable.” This to the home of many of the world’s leading epidemiologists and researchers whose job it is to provide for the defense of the nation against health threats and promote the public health.
Can you imagine the atmosphere in the room? I’m envisioning a stunned silence. It’s a good thing they were sitting down.
The officials were given alternate phrases, such as turning “science-based” or “evidence-based” into the clunky “CDC bases its recommendations on science in consideration with community standards and wishes” — an outright admission of contempt of science, and the triumph of politics and ideology over science. Why not use the more streamlined, “science-and-politics-based” or maybe “evidence-and ideology-based?”
When I worked neonatal intense care, we gave immunizations based on recommendations published by the CDC. In 1980, when I started, until the year 2000, I don’t recall a single baby whose parents refused to sign the consent. But when I retired in 2012, reasoning with a new wave of empowered, educated parents to vaccinate their babies had become the hardest part of my job. Using logic from the Trump administration, maybe the CDC should no longer recommend immunizations based “on science in consideration with community standards and wishes.” Right? Wrong.
In health care, you can do things because you’ve always done them that way — or, you can do things based on scientific research. The latter is what we do in neonatal intensive care — and what the best hospitals do in all areas. It’s called evidence-based practice. In practice, we look to the CDC for published guidelines on immunizations, infection control and for all manner of health statistics and research data.
Last year, I went to the emergency room after being bitten by a dog with nystagmus, a condition in which the eyes make involuntary, repetitive movements. The first thing the doctor did was go to her computer to look up rabies statistics from the CDC. Only then did she give me her recommendation regarding shots.
The CDC funds Texas’ basic health functions, such as the control and prevention of HIV, sexually transmitted diseases and tuberculosis. It supports state laboratories for development of new techniques. It funds disease surveillance — especially when you need to know in a hurry where the infections are popping up.
Remember the case of Ebola in Dallas in 2014? Officials from the CDC were dispatched to help with training and surveillance.
Remember the outbreak of Zika virus in Brazil in 2015 that caused children to be born with microcephaly? Hundreds of cases were reported in South Texas, but so far this year there’s only 45 cases. The CDC funds the Zika Pregnancy Registry and the Texas Birth Defect Registry.
If the administration is saying to the CDC that they can’t use the words “transgender” and “diversity” in their budget request, you can bet that means “don’t pay attention to those issues.”
This blatant contempt for science must not stand. We need the CDC to sustain and continue to build its vast repository of science information and its culture of excellence. Politics has no place there.
Re: Dec. 17 article, “Viewpoints: Why Austin voters may have the last say in MLS turf deal.”
Your editorial in Sunday’s paper encouraging a vote on the Major League Soccer team’s stadium location means that a very small percentage of Austin’s population will determined in which part of our city this stadium is placed.
In the November 2017 constitutional and bond election, less than 14 percent of Austin voters participated. Our City Council was elected to represent all the city. Let’s leave this decision up to them.
The “Too Big To Fail” bros went scot-free after tanking our economy in 2007, while the rest of us have had to struggle with the damage they did, from which so many have not yet recovered.
Those same fat cats are about to get huge tax breaks at the expense of the rest of us and our already-bloated deficit. All courtesy of our fine elected representatives in Washington, D.C.
At the very least, we must not forget this repeated travesty when they come up for re-election. Enough is enough.
Notice where we come in? Very little “trickles” down — but Republicans keep selling it and we keep buying. Sad.
The time is now for Sen. John Cornyn to demonstrate that he stands with defending our democracy.
Senator, you need to vocally support Robert Mueller and this investigation. You need to publicly state that regardless of the outcome of the investigation, you stand behind it. When you say that you will support it depending on what it is, it casts a shadow of doubt on the investigation’s validity. Maybe you didn’t mean it like that. Therefore, you have to simply state that you believe in the impartiality of this investigation and you are eager to hear its findings.
I urge you to show that you care about our country — and state that you definitely want to find out what Russia did and if there were Americans involved in undermining our elections. More importantly, say that you stand with your earlier words and support Mueller’s investigation and its findings, whatever those might be.