Discussion in 'Health News and Research unrelated to ME/CFS' started by Cheshire, Dec 16, 2017.
The Trump administration is weird. Wonder how long it will take before Trump is removed from his post due to lack of ability to properly carry out his duties.
Or maybe there is some strategy behind this, a desperate attempt to create controversy in order to distract from real problems, such as Trump's ties with Russia?
Never if his apologists in the senate can prevent it, they are now reportedly trying to dismiss Mueller's investigation into Trump's treason with Russia.
Its amazing that the right cries censorship nonstop when they are the ones practicing it. People voted for alternative facts and they are getting them
Getting back to the subject of the thread i suspect this is an experiment to see how far they can go and how much they can get away with.
Highlighted part by me.
That isn't science.
What is wrong with fetus?
When discussing this, please don't forget
Personally, as long as the discussion sticks narrowly to the subject of this thread then I'm inclined to leave this thread open, but be aware that I will have no issue if out-voted by other members of the moderating team who may take a less lenient interpretation of Rule 12. Continued criticism of the administration who are implementing this list will cause this thread to be closed.
This list is weird. I don't understand it. It's scary. Not being allowed to use "science based"? And what's wrong with "fetus"? Is this now really the return to the middle-ages?
I've just thought this list might be connected to religious motifs - I remember some of my American relatives said they think about electing him due to his religious beliefs, don't know how much truth is in this - which we shouldn't discuss.
(Please erase this post if needed and excuse.)
Might? It shouts it
It is difficult not to smack the clown in the face but I will try hard not to.
The article says:
"The longtime CDC analyst, whose job includes writing descriptions of the CDC’s work for the administration’s annual spending blueprint, could not recall a previous time when words were banned from budget documents because they were considered controversial.
The reaction of people in the meeting was “incredulous,” the analyst said. “It was very much, ‘Are you serious? Are you kidding?’ ”
“In my experience, we’ve never had any pushback from an ideological standpoint,” the analyst said."
Or is it possible that the current inclusion of "vulnerable,” “entitlement,” “diversity in CDC material indicates an established ideological standpoint?
Please adopt me Anyone From Another Country
You mean the ideology of identifying unmet needs and seeking to remedy them? It's sort of their job.
Now do you really want to come to the land of Wessely and Crawley?
I've had several FB friends say the same thing.
OK - context is everything. Apart from their HR policy (and that's a particularly dubious context) in which context would 'diversity' be relevant to medical research or health provision?
Diversity in populations studied is essential. Women can have very different symptoms compared to men when having a heart attack for example. Unawareness resulting from male-centered research meant that women were not being assessed or treated promptly, which had the effect of them tending to die after being patted on the head and told not to be so worried about their silly symptoms.
There are also differences in how women metabolize drugs and are at higher risk of adverse reactions.
Separate names with a comma.