This was posted yesterday (someone can provide a link), but this rehash of the story is even worse, since it takes several misleading grafs before it acknowledges that the restriction --- which is batshit and toxic --- applies only to CDC's input to the President's annual budget, which is theater, not real policy.

People on the previous thread hypothesized that maybe the administration was trying to secure funding for CDC without "triggering" ultraconservatives in Congress. I doubt it: again, the President's budget is not taken especially seriously in the first place. I think it's not unlikely that this is simply the administration trolling for a conflict in the news that they think will make them look good with their base.

Either way, it is of minimal practical impact. Which is important to know, because many people on Twitter are (justifiably) alarmed that the administration is instead governing what words CDC uses in scientific literature.

>An analyst who attended the meeting at the CDC in Atlanta told The Washington Post that instead of “evidence-based” or “science-based,” policy analysts are instructed to use the phrase, “CDC bases its recommendations on science in consideration with community standards and wishes.”

Sounds like a quibble over form, it's not like they're removing the science itself.

That’s done at other levels, with funding and staffing.

Discussion: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15937017 (153 comments)

Honestly this usually just means someone calculated a significant p-value... Those terms have become kind of meaningless.