* science-based
* fetus
* transgender
* vulnerable
* entitlement
* diversity
* evidence-based
* fetus
* transgender
* vulnerable
* entitlement
* diversity
* evidence-based
* science-based
* evidence-based
Unnecessary. Anything the CDC produces better be science based already
* fetus
annoying, but synonymous words exist
* transgender
Are some diseases suddenly targeting people based on their identified sex? If no, the CDC has no business discussing this anyways.
* vulnerable
Subjective words have no place in scientific discourse
* entitlement
* diversity
Political words also have no place in scientific discourse
Evidence-Based Medicine[1] is a particular movement that makes particular claims about what sorts of evidence are better than other sorts of evidence, and how we should (re-)structure clinical practice to revolve around these.
In other words, EBC != evidence-based medicine. It strongly emphasizes large-scale studies at the expense of other types of empirical knowledge, namely the direct clinical experience of the practitioners.
What might be the harm in doing so? Why shouldn't we all rely only on large-scale meta-analyses to guide treatment?
1. There are important clinical questions that are difficult to measure in a double-blind clinical framework; the risk is that we end up optimizing what we can easily measure over what is truly important, the health of the patient.
2. It increasingly risks turning doctors into assembly-line technicians that are only there to take the indicated 'evidence-based' tests and treatments. It takes agency and decisionmaking effectively from the hands of doctors and transfers it to large research bureaucracies, which may or may not be asking the right questions.
It increases the social and informational distance between the patient and the point of decision-making -- which we've seen can have disastrous consequences (for example, in planned economies), when that distance impeded the smooth flow of information.
3. It presupposes the the studies and meta-analyses in the research pipeline are a good decomposition of the current state of medical knowledge. E.g. if there's an analysis that says 'treat a person with diabetes with treatment X', then that approach would work well, regardless of the specifics of the actual patient at the clinical level. Patients don't come cleanly with a single diagnositic label; most people with chronic conditions have more than one, for example.
Note that the methodology and effectiveness of Evidence-Based Medicine has itself not been subjected to rigorous large-scale scientific evaluation; we are literally being asked to take on faith that this particular 'EBC' implementation of evidence-based medicine will be better.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evidence-based_medicine#Limita...
Note: I know this is just for budget note but it's not a great direction.
While perhaps belying the name, the CDC's mandate is broader than only disease, it's general public health, including, among many things, occupational safety and injury prevention. Anything which may lead too injury or death can be considered under their purview.
I think you're mistaking the charter and purpose of the CDC.
Controlling disease has plenty of hard science -- but much of it is messy and full of human factors. That's what those words represent.
Wait crap my statement was too political and subjective
> "Are some diseases suddenly targeting people based on their identified sex? If no, the CDC has no business discussing this anyways."
One study the CDC works on is HIV within transgender communities. Tell me how that isn't within their scope to look at. What about any other public health issues that are more concentrated within transgender individuals? Can they not study that and try to figure out what is causing it and if things can be done?