Why Censoring the CDC Could Be a Matter of Life and Death

Clinicians in an intensive care unit. (Wikimedia Commons)

Does censoring free speech come at the cost of public health?

By now, it is well understood that the Trump administration has curbed seven words from appearing in official documents prepared by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). According to a report by The Washington Post, the newly-limited words and terms are: diversity, entitlement, evidence-based, fetus, science-based, transgender and vulnerable.


However, the CDC explains no words are actually banned. U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention director Dr. Brenda Fitzgerald responded to the report, “I want to assure there are no banned words at CDC.”

She went on, “CDC has a long-standing history of making public health and budget decisions that are based on the best available science and data and for the benefit of all people—and we will continue to do so.”

In a follow-up report, The New York Times cited a few CDC officials who referred to the move as a maneuver to help secure Republican approval of the 2019 budget via the elimination of certain words and phrases.

Whether it is ultimately political and ideological, or a measure by bureaucrats to save certain projects from budget cuts, terms like science-based and evidence-based are seeing their replacements in phrases like, “CDC bases its recommendations on science in consideration with community standards and wishes.”

The concern is that hazy language, especially in the medical field, can ultimately make the difference between a patient living and dying. This is because such language is not a dependable basis for making specific and patient-tailored prognoses and diagnoses.

The terms thus far are only successfully banned in one part of the CDC, but critics of the action worry that such bureaucratic actions will cause a domino effect — like the banning of the term climate change at the Florida Department of Environmental Protection — eventually spreading the banned terms to the remainder of the organization, and by proxy, across the entire nation.

For example, the CDC is where doctors go when seeking whether or not to administer some vaccines. Back in 2000, pediatricians and family physicians learned it was safe to switch from a live polio vaccine to an inactivated one (IPV) in the United States because of the evidence the CDC had compiled, organized and posted to their website.

More specifically, practitioners knew specifically how much to administer (i.e., four doses of IPV at two months, four months, 6-18 months and a booster dose between ages four and six). This was scientifically tested and its effectiveness was proven — and none of this related to politics or bureaucracy.

Because of this testing, the IPV vaccine does not harm vulnerable populations, like children with immunodeficiency.

Such CDC-compiled information applies to many science-based fixes to health problems — not only polio — ranging from diseases like tuberculosis to food-borne illnesses to the best uses for car seats to the handling of pandemics.

Furthermore, much of the restricted language — like transgender, vulnerable, diversity and fetus — apply to particular groups of people, or those facing very specific scenarios.

When a particular group of people is neglected, those among that group do feel the discrimination. This applies to healthcare and the potential banning of words at the CDC. Groups that are marginalized tend not to participate in preventative healthcare, and may not seek help until they are quite ill.

This obviously precedes increased illnesses, death and rising healthcare costs for that group.

The present concern, with the banning or discouragement of certain words, is that the CDC recommendations will become useless to healthcare providers around the U.S. due to their vague phrasing.

For those who can decipher the new phrases that now replace the formerly unambiguous terms, these potential consequences may seem exaggerated. Some suggest that impeding the terminology is a slippery slope into authoritarianistic behavior from the U.S. government.

“The purpose of science is to search for truth, and when science is censored the truth is censored,” said Dr. Vivek Murthy, a former surgeon general, in the aforementioned report to The New York Times.

Requiring the CDC to use words and terms that are less specific than formerly permitted terms may winnow scientists and public health experts out of the agency. At the very least, an anonymous, former CDC official said to The New York Times that some staff members were unhappy because the new language implied that their work was being politicized.

Avoiding an issue does not eliminate it; shielding the American public from particular language does not make the very real meanings behind those terms vanish.

Limiting words that represent entire populations could potentially erase their experience from the public record, including the details that impact their health, the capacity to learn the unique needs of specific groups and the ability to study these groups. This sadly, but typically, hits vulnerable populations most forcefully.

Words and terms on their own may not seem so important, but their restriction could form the premise of an overhaul to the acknowledgment of specific groups of people and of science-based information. These people will still exist, but their issues could go unheard and unseen.

Weakening the American public health system — not only for the vulnerable — but for the entitled, and for all Americans, is, at minimum, a risky move.

Mark Wilson/Getty Images

President Donald Trump took the opportunity to hype his pet project—bollard fencing along the southern border—to a meeting of the National Border Patrol Council.

The NBPC—a union organization not part of the federal agency—is "the exclusive representative of approximately 18,000 Border Patrol Agents and support personnel assigned to the U.S. Border Patrol."

Keep reading...
Rich Polk/Getty Images for IMDb // Drew Angerer/Getty Images

Veteran actor and Democrat Alec Baldwin's portrayal of President Donald Trump on Saturday Night Live has garnered near-unanimous praise since the 2016 campaign (except, of course, from Trump himself).

But in a recent tweet, Baldwin reminded his followers that Trump's ascent and increasing corruption is no laughing matter.

Keep reading...
Fox Business

President Donald Trump's personal lawyer and one of the key players in the Ukraine scandal, Rudy Giuliani, is once again claiming to have proof of a Democratic scandal in Ukraine.

Once again, he's refusing to reveal it.

Keep reading...
Fox Business

Attorney General William Barr criticized President Donald Trump's tweets about Justice Department prosecutors' sentencing recommendation for Trump ally Roger Stone.

Barr—who overrode the recommendation after Trump railed against it on Twitter—said Trump's tweets made it impossible to do his job, though some people believe his words weren't to rein in Trump, but to mitigate public outrage.

Fox Host Lou Dobbs is not one of those people.

Keep reading...
Leah Millis-Pool/Getty Images // Chip Somodevilla/Getty Imageseditsharetrending_up

Americans across the country were furious when President Donald Trump fired Lieutenant Colonel Alexander Vindman after Trump was acquitted in his impeachment trial by the Republican Senate.

Vindman complied with a congressional subpoena to testify before the House committee overseeing Trump's impeachment inquiry last year.

The career military official and Purple Heart recipient was escorted out by security along with his twin brother, an NSC official who played no part in the impeachment proceedings.

Keep reading...
ABC News

People cried foul earlier this week when the Justice Department overrode four career prosecutors to recommend a reduced sentence for former Trump campaign advisor Roger Stone.

The Department's decision came only a day after Trump railed against the prosecutors' recommendation on Twitter, leading many to believe the Department reduced the sentence recommendation because the President interceded on his ally's behalf.

All four prosecutors on the case resigned in response to the change.

Keep reading...