Trump administration forbids CDC officials from using 7 words and phrases

[phrodeau]

the proper order
should have been:

science determines
thalidomide causes
birth defects.

ergo,
don't administer it
to humans.

Which pregnant women should they have used for testing?

 

[Bert Notorius]

You mean science, using the scientific method of evidence-based deduction, showed thalidomide was the cause of the problems?

i suppose
my point was
that anti-vaxers
aren't always
wrong.

blind acceptance
of scientific results
is at best, dubious.

 

[Bert Notorius]

Which pregnant women should they have used for testing?

i'm not opposed
to the use of
animal testing.

you do realize
drug testing
is quite prevalent?

 

[someoneyouknow]

i suppose
my point was
that anti-vaxers
aren't always
wrong.

blind acceptance
of scientific results
is at best, dubious.

Anti-vaxxers are always wrong, and trying to use this as evidence for them is bullshit.

The reason for the problem with Thalidomide was the company who made it told everyone it was safe. It did not undergo scientific (there's that word again) testing to determine any side effects.

https://helix.northwestern.edu/article/thalidomide-tragedy-lessons-drug-safety-and-regulation

Thalidomide first entered the German market in 1957 as an over-the-counter remedy, based on the maker’s safety claims. They advertised their product as “completely safe” for everyone, including mother and child, “even during pregnancy,” as its developers “could not find a dose high enough to kill a rat.” By 1960, thalidomide was marketed in 46 countries, with sales nearly matching those of aspirin.​

. . .

In July of 1962, president John F. Kennedy and the American press began praising their heroine, FDA inspector Frances Kelsey, who prevented the drug’s approval within the United States despite pressure from the pharmaceutical company and FDA supervisors. Kelsey felt the application for thalidomide contained incomplete and insufficient data on its safety and effectiveness. Among her concerns was the lack of data indicating whether the drug could cross the placenta, which provides nourishment to a developing fetus.​

. . .

Despite its harmful side effects, thalidomide is FDA-approved for two uses today—the treatment of inflammation associated with Hansen’s disease (leprosy) and as a chemotherapeutic agent for patients with multiple myeloma, purposes for which it was originally prescribed off-label. Because of its known adverse effects on fetal development, the dispensing of thalidomide is regulated by the System for Thalidomide Education and Prescribing Safety (S.T.E.P.S.) program. The S.T.E.P.S. program, designed by Celgene pharmaceuticals and carried out in pharmacies where thalidomide prescriptions are filled, educates all patients who receive thalidomide about potential risks associated with the drug.​

So again, science was right.

 

[Bert Notorius]

Anti-vaxxers are always wrong, and trying to use this as evidence for them is bullshit.

The reason for the problem with Thalidomide was the company who made it told everyone it was safe. It did not undergo scientific (there's that word again) testing to determine any side effects.

https://helix.northwestern.edu/article/thalidomide-tragedy-lessons-drug-safety-and-regulation

Thalidomide first entered the German market in 1957 as an over-the-counter remedy, based on the maker’s safety claims. They advertised their product as “completely safe” for everyone, including mother and child, “even during pregnancy,” as its developers “could not find a dose high enough to kill a rat.” By 1960, thalidomide was marketed in 46 countries, with sales nearly matching those of aspirin.​

. . .

In July of 1962, president John F. Kennedy and the American press began praising their heroine, FDA inspector Frances Kelsey, who prevented the drug’s approval within the United States despite pressure from the pharmaceutical company and FDA supervisors. Kelsey felt the application for thalidomide contained incomplete and insufficient data on its safety and effectiveness. Among her concerns was the lack of data indicating whether the drug could cross the placenta, which provides nourishment to a developing fetus.​

. . .

Despite its harmful side effects, thalidomide is FDA-approved for two uses today—the treatment of inflammation associated with Hansen’s disease (leprosy) and as a chemotherapeutic agent for patients with multiple myeloma, purposes for which it was originally prescribed off-label. Because of its known adverse effects on fetal development, the dispensing of thalidomide is regulated by the System for Thalidomide Education and Prescribing Safety (S.T.E.P.S.) program. The S.T.E.P.S. program, designed by Celgene pharmaceuticals and carried out in pharmacies where thalidomide prescriptions are filled, educates all patients who receive thalidomide about potential risks associated with the drug.​

So again, science was right.

so you are saying
science has no
morality?

 

[stickygirl]

...you mean scientists?
Why would science have morality
any more
than
math?

 

[Bert Notorius]

...you mean scientists?
Why would science have morality
any more
than
math?

we expect it from
journalism.

why not science.

 

[stickygirl]

we expect it from
journalism.

why not science.

Sorry, you've lost me
So we're agreed that banning words, by which ever party is a massive political over-reach?

 

[Bert Notorius]

Sorry, you've lost me
So we're agreed that banning words, by which ever party is a massive political over-reach?

i think we can agree
that words in the
wrong hands,
or even,
the wrong words
in the right hands
are extremely
dangerous.

or not.

 

[someoneyouknow]

so you are saying
science has no
morality?

Why would science have morality? It's a process.

 

[BotanyBoy]

we expect it from
journalism.

why not science.

No we don't, we expect confirmation bias and hype because that's what sells.

And science doesn't give a shit about morality and owes none to anyone.

As pointed out it's just an information gathering process.

 

[Hypoxia]

Why would science have morality? It's a process.

In codemonkey object-oriented-programming lingo, science is an object, containing a dataset (observations/data and models/theories), and rules for updating that dataset. The 'rules' are called the scientific method:

1: Observe a problem.
2: Study it thoroughly, including prior studies.
3: Devise an explanatory model (theory).
4: Test the shit out of the model.
5: If the tests fail, gather more data and goto #3.
6: Add verified data and working theory to the database.
7: Goto #1.

A scientific law is an equation defining relations between objects and/or forces. P=VA, F=MV, etc. A theory is a working, testable model, likely containing laws, supported by the preponderance of verified data. When new, disturbing data is found, revise the theory and try again. A good theory makes predictions that can be tested and verified. If it ain't testable, it ain't a theory, just a wild-ass guess. Or a theological tenet.

Science is (eventually) self-correcting. Frauds are detected (sooner or, alas, later) when faked data doesn't match observed reality.

Scientific 'proof' does not exist. Science is about accuracy, not proof. Results are given as probabilities, not certainties. Some probabilities may be quite huge, or vanishingly small, but never 100% true or false. Proof is for distillers, printers, logicians, lawyers, and stamp and coin collectors.

 

[bellisarius]

In codemonkey object-oriented-programming lingo, science is an object, containing a dataset (observations/data and models/theories), and rules for updating that dataset. The 'rules' are called the scientific method:

1: Observe a problem.
2: Study it thoroughly, including prior studies.
3: Devise an explanatory model (theory).
4: Test the shit out of the model.
5: If the tests fail, gather more data and goto #3.
6: Add verified data and working theory to the database.
7: Goto #1.

A scientific law is an equation defining relations between objects and/or forces. P=VA, F=MV, etc. A theory is a working, testable model, likely containing laws, supported by the preponderance of verified data. When new, disturbing data is found, revise the theory and try again. A good theory makes predictions that can be tested and verified. If it ain't testable, it ain't a theory, just a wild-ass guess. Or a theological tenet.

Science is (eventually) self-correcting. Frauds are detected (sooner or, alas, later) when faked data doesn't match observed reality.

Scientific 'proof' does not exist. Science is about accuracy, not proof. Results are given as probabilities, not certainties. Some probabilities may be quite huge, or vanishingly small, but never 100% true or false. Proof is for distillers, printers, logicians, lawyers, and stamp and coin collectors.

Well, well, there's hope for you after all. Can you apply that philosophy to AGW?

The entire underpinning of theoretical physics is in the process of being turned on its ear.

 

[Hypoxia]

Well, well, there's hope for you after all. Can you apply that philosophy to AGW?

AGW? Actual Gold Weight? Agnew Airport, Queensland, Australia (IATA code: AGW)? Access GateWay? Kahua language (ISO 639-3 code: agw)

Oh, you likely mean Anthropogenic Global Warming. Yup I sure can. Probability is high, and rising.

 

[about_average]

Or as they now have to say:

In July of 1962, president John F. Kennedy and the American press began praising their heroine, FDA inspector Frances Kelsey, who prevented the drug’s approval within the United States despite pressure from the pharmaceutical company and FDA supervisors. Kelsey felt the application for thalidomide contained incomplete and insufficient data on its safety and effectiveness. Among her concerns was the lack of data indicating whether the drug could cross the placenta, which provides nourishment to a developing thing inside a woman.

Next Trump will be changing STEM to mean, Stuff, Technology, Engineering and Math.

And since "Stuff" can encompass a lot, the Dept of Education under DeVoss can really start focusing on Creationism.

 

[Scareltt]

I don't like the whole, slippery slope argument

I don't like the whole, slippery slope argument but I have to say that this does worry me.

vulnerable
entitlement
diversity
transgender
fetus
evidence-based
science-based

What's next?

 

[stickygirl]

Or as they now have to say:Next Trump will be changing STEM to mean, Stuff, Technology, Engineering and Math.

And since "Stuff" can encompass a lot, the Dept of Education under DeVoss can really start focusing on Creationism.

I laughed at lot at this
Then I realised I was laughing because it sounded so ridiculous
Then I stopped laughing

 

[Bert Notorius]

No we don't, we expect confirmation bias and hype because that's what sells.

And science doesn't give a shit about morality and owes none to anyone.

As pointed out it's just an information gathering process.

atom bombs sell.
therefore science
creates them.

but should they?

 

[Bert Notorius]

Why would science have morality? It's a process.

perhaps when viewed
from 30,000 feet.

 

[BotanyBoy]

I don't like the whole, slippery slope argument but I have to say that this does worry me.

vulnerable
entitlement
diversity
transgender
fetus
evidence-based
science-based

What's next?

Hopefully all kinds of shit....like intersectionality and all of the 57,529 genders the SJW's have come up with in the past couple years.

atom bombs sell.
therefore science
creates them.

but should they?

Science didn't crate or sell anything.

It's not a company or a god.....it's just an information gathering process.

 

[LincolnDuncan]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EV4N2dk0cMk

 

[Hypoxia]

atom bombs sell.

Bought any lately?

therefore science
creates them.

Engineers create them at the behest of their political and military masters. Takes mucho gov't dinero to build-em.

but should they?

Ask the politicians and generals, not us.