5 ms·

For those wondering why this exists: many of the pages that were formerly listed on the CDC website have been disappearing, likely in response to recent executi

For those wondering why this exists: many of the pages that were formerly listed on the CDC website have been disappearing, likely in response to recent executive orders, though this has not been made explicit. As an example, I checked the Women's Health page and noticed a lot of removals -- the pages on menstrual health and hygiene ([1] vs [2]), or the page summarizing health disease statistics in women ([3] vs [4]). That's just from 5 minutes of glancing through, and there are probably many others. It is useful to compare the differences between the two sites, but it would definitely benefit from a list of what has been changed. Right now this primarily helps doctors and scientists who need to access data they already knew about (i.e. via bookmarks) but is less useful for observing patterns in what is being censored. [1]https://www.restoredcdc.org/www.cdc.gov/womens-health/mhh-continuing-education/index.html https://www.restoredcdc.org/www.cdc.gov/womens-health/mhh-co... [2]https://www.cdc.gov/womens-health/mhh-continuing-education/index.html https://www.cdc.gov/womens-health/mhh-continuing-education/i... [3]https://www.restoredcdc.org/www.cdc.gov/womens-health/features/heart-disease.html https://www.restoredcdc.org/www.cdc.gov/womens-health/featur... [4]https://www.cdc.gov/womens-health/features/heart-disease.html https://www.cdc.gov/womens-health/features/heart-disease.htm...

buckle8017 2y ago
[flagged]
- owlninja 2y ago
  Good, this is dragging us back to the stone ages.
  - MathMonkeyMan 2y ago
    To be fair, more like the early 20th century. Or today in much of the world.
  - huang_chung 2y ago
    [flagged]
- jfengel 2y ago
  So just to confirm: you think this is a bad thing. Ok. I'll count on you to push back on the President if this indeed turns out to be what he wants.
  - timewizard 2y ago
    > I'll count on you to push back on the President if this indeed turns out to be what he wants. Can we count on you to make up the difference in their paycheck if they're fired for this? Also, is there some reason you couldn't organize this pushback externally, right now?
- int_19h 2y ago
  Given that people are being fired left and right on laughable pretexts, I can't blame the people tasked with implementing these executive orders for erring on the side of "what the boss probably wants". Especially when the boss is very loud about what he wants.
- beowulfey 2y ago
  Do you work at the CDC? Can you share your sources for this? We (the general public) know absolutely nothing about why these pages were removed. All we can say definitively is that they are gone. And spit out baseless speculation too of course.
- MyOutfitIsVague 2y ago
  Are all the firings across the federal government just to cause backlash too?
- XorNot 2y ago
  Well if that's the case I'm sure the Executive will make it a priority to issue clarifying guidance for agencies so they can accurately reflect its intent. Any day now surely.
- jakelazaroff 2y ago
  If this is true, why don’t we see the administration ordering the pages restored?
- gitaarik 2y ago
  [flagged]
  - crowselect 2y ago
    You said “LBQT focussed articles” when every example in the grandparent comment was about women’s health. So, who benefits from the articles? Well, women for starters.
    - gitaarik 2y ago
      Yeah bit they werd removed because they were supposedly written in a LBQT focused way?
      - crowselect 2y ago
        1. If the goal is to remove LGBTQ content, or stuff related to diversity, they’re using a rocket launcher not a scalpel - https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/diversity-documents-that-werent-about-dei-were-purged-from-osha-websites/ https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/diversity-documen... 2. 7.6% of americans are LGBTQ - that’s about 26 million people - does the government not serve them as well? Is the government only there to serve some of the people?
        throw16180339 2y ago
        > 2. 7.6% of americans are LGBTQ - that’s about 26 million people - does the government not serve them as well? Is the government only there to serve some of the people? It's an explicit goal of Project 2025 to take rights away from queer people.
        crowselect 2y ago
        Project 2025? You mean that thing that they’d never heard of?
        gitaarik 2y ago
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
- EdwardDiego 2y ago
  I'm impressed at how you can perceive conspiracies everywhere.
  - timewizard 2y ago
    [flagged]
- Nasrudith 2y ago
  "I take no responsibility for the wide-ranging consequences of my poorly worded and ill-thought out executive orders!"
- benterix 2y ago
  > The Bureaucracy intentionally read the executive order on gender in a broad and absurd way. I think Trump's biggest stunt is to convince almost half of American voters is that the cause of their financial problems is not the broken system (of financing higher education and healthcare) nor the top rich people who get richer whereas the poor become poorer, but some magic "Bureaucracy" - basically people like you and me, some of which at some point decided to serve their country rather than get a job in private sector for more money. I saw this rhetoric of common enemy before, but I never believed people would be gullible enough to believe it. (I say this as a person who believes that periodic review and improvement of functioning of all infrastructure is crucial, but the way you do it is decisive.)

buckle8017 2y ago

[flagged]

owlninja 2y ago
Good, this is dragging us back to the stone ages.
- MathMonkeyMan 2y ago
  To be fair, more like the early 20th century. Or today in much of the world.
- huang_chung 2y ago
  [flagged]
jfengel 2y ago
So just to confirm: you think this is a bad thing. Ok. I'll count on you to push back on the President if this indeed turns out to be what he wants.
- timewizard 2y ago
  > I'll count on you to push back on the President if this indeed turns out to be what he wants. Can we count on you to make up the difference in their paycheck if they're fired for this? Also, is there some reason you couldn't organize this pushback externally, right now?
int_19h 2y ago
Given that people are being fired left and right on laughable pretexts, I can't blame the people tasked with implementing these executive orders for erring on the side of "what the boss probably wants". Especially when the boss is very loud about what he wants.
beowulfey 2y ago
Do you work at the CDC? Can you share your sources for this? We (the general public) know absolutely nothing about why these pages were removed. All we can say definitively is that they are gone. And spit out baseless speculation too of course.
MyOutfitIsVague 2y ago
Are all the firings across the federal government just to cause backlash too?
XorNot 2y ago
Well if that's the case I'm sure the Executive will make it a priority to issue clarifying guidance for agencies so they can accurately reflect its intent. Any day now surely.
jakelazaroff 2y ago
If this is true, why don’t we see the administration ordering the pages restored?
gitaarik 2y ago
[flagged]
- crowselect 2y ago
  You said “LBQT focussed articles” when every example in the grandparent comment was about women’s health. So, who benefits from the articles? Well, women for starters.
  - gitaarik 2y ago
    Yeah bit they werd removed because they were supposedly written in a LBQT focused way?
    - crowselect 2y ago
      1. If the goal is to remove LGBTQ content, or stuff related to diversity, they’re using a rocket launcher not a scalpel - https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/diversity-documents-that-werent-about-dei-were-purged-from-osha-websites/ https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/diversity-documen... 2. 7.6% of americans are LGBTQ - that’s about 26 million people - does the government not serve them as well? Is the government only there to serve some of the people?
      - throw16180339 2y ago
        > 2. 7.6% of americans are LGBTQ - that’s about 26 million people - does the government not serve them as well? Is the government only there to serve some of the people? It's an explicit goal of Project 2025 to take rights away from queer people.
        crowselect 2y ago
        Project 2025? You mean that thing that they’d never heard of?
      - gitaarik 2y ago
deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
EdwardDiego 2y ago
I'm impressed at how you can perceive conspiracies everywhere.
- timewizard 2y ago
  [flagged]
Nasrudith 2y ago
"I take no responsibility for the wide-ranging consequences of my poorly worded and ill-thought out executive orders!"
benterix 2y ago
> The Bureaucracy intentionally read the executive order on gender in a broad and absurd way. I think Trump's biggest stunt is to convince almost half of American voters is that the cause of their financial problems is not the broken system (of financing higher education and healthcare) nor the top rich people who get richer whereas the poor become poorer, but some magic "Bureaucracy" - basically people like you and me, some of which at some point decided to serve their country rather than get a job in private sector for more money. I saw this rhetoric of common enemy before, but I never believed people would be gullible enough to believe it. (I say this as a person who believes that periodic review and improvement of functioning of all infrastructure is crucial, but the way you do it is decisive.)