time
Do you want your medical treatment to be based on science? The Trump administration disagrees. It has now banned the top US public health agency, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), from using seven words or phrases: “vulnerable,” “entitlement,” “diversity,” “transgender,” “fetus,” “evidence-based” and “science-based.”
Prominent public health advocates have expressed outrage. For example, Sandro Galea, an epidemiologist and dean of the Boston University School of Public Health, tweeted “This is astonishing. It would be a parody of a flailing effort to limit the effectiveness of #publichealth if it did not suggest a real problem. #7words.” Rush Holt, CEO of the American Association for the Advancement of Science, stated that “Among the words forbidden to be used in CDC budget documents are ‘evidence-based’ and ‘science-based.’ I suppose one must not think those things either. Here’s a word that’s still allowed: ridiculous.”
No wonder they’re outraged. Such censorship is a direct blow at the essence of science: accurately describing the physical world around us. Science is the best method that we as human beings have of figuring out the truth of reality, and wishing away the facts by trying to substitute them with “alternative facts” will greatly impede scientific progress.
In addition to directly attacking the basis of science, these measures will cause many more people to get sick and die. After all, how can the CDC implement effective public health interventions if it cannot use terms like “evidence-based” and “science-based” in its official documents?
Apparently this has already been debunked as fake news by the CDC itself.
ReplyDelete“Trump to CDC: These 7 Words Are Now Forbidden”
ReplyDeleteI like this. Why? The Obama Lefties etc wish their recommendations are evidence based etc, but are far from it.
See https://www.israelnationalnews.com/Articles/Article.aspx/21489
The non-Orthodox wish their Bible interpretations were in keeping with the plain meaning etc, but are far from it.
The Lefties so badly misuse “vulnerable,” “entitlement,” “diversity,” “transgender,” “fetus,” “evidence-based” and “science-based.” Words that are so misused lose their original meaning. In the interest of clarity, serious people should welcome dropping these words from their discourse.
Please tell me what a conservative, Trump voting scientist says to describe his medical recommendations instead of saying they are based on evidence or science. When a conservative social worker describes a vulnerable population of elderly or unwell or poor people, what magic word does he use besides vulnerable? I want to hear a descriptive term that is not overused but conveys a more precise meaning than the terms listed. You should know, and this is obviously a surprise to you, that these words are not just in the vocabulary of "Obama lefties". The reason proscribing them bothers people is that they are in general use by scientists and professionals even if they voted for Trump!!! Surprise surprise!
ReplyDeleteHow should a Trump voting scientist describe his medical recommendations instead of saying they are based on evidence or science? Assume that the Trump supporting scientist feels strongly in his medical recommendations. Assume that he is facing a skeptical audience. My recommendation is to be clear what are the facts and what are the opinions. He should not exaggerate. He should state his position, experience etc. Show humility is a good rule. My case against Susan motion 2018-36 NYS Ct of Appeals is still alive because I have evidence of fraud. Can I say evidence based?
ReplyDeletewhen he is presenting a fact, he says it is based on evidence. That is how people usually define a fact. When you say that this is based on science, you also mean it is based on evidence and careful investigation. Evidence and science are not synonyms for opinion and speculation. Look in the dictionary so you can speak the same language that I do. Most people who speak english properly also use these terms in the way I defined for you. Look it up in your favorite dictionary if you don't believe me. By the way, it is really strange that every time you make a comment you have to refer to your divorce proceedings. Maybe you could try keeping your private divorce problems more towards yourself because other people are really not interested in your private legal problems. No offense intended.
ReplyDeleteI accept your definition of fact, based on evidence. I accept your definition of science, evidence and careful investigation. I accept that opinion and speculation is not fact and not science. If, Heaven forbid, the NYS Court of Appeals denies my motion 2018-36: do you have suggestions for me what I can do? I don’t care about money. I never did.
ReplyDeleteDecision list 2/20/2018: Mo. No. 2018-36 Susan Aranoff, Respondent, v. Gerald Aranoff, Appellant. Motion for reargument of motion for leave to appeal denied.
ReplyDeleteThis was my last letter to the NYS Ct of Appeals 2/2/2018:
1. I request permission to send you this letter. I'm acting pro se. I attach an affidavit of service with UPS proofs.
2. The Order I'm appealing against states:
“The defendant's motions dated September 30, 2013 and October 2, 2013 are hereby denied. Post judgment motions are to be submitted by Order to Show Cause and served pursuant to the requirements of CPLR \S2103. Defendant has failed to comply with either of these requirements. Furthermore, in action against the defendant initiated by his ex-wife, Index No. 23213--1991, the defendant was sanctioned $20,000 for filing repetitive and frivolous motions. Defendant, by Court Order, was prohibited from filing any further motions until he paid the full amount of sanctions owed. At this time, the sanctions amount totals $25,000 and the defendant has failed to pay said amount.”
3. NYS courts support NYS judges on their rulings of facts of the case, on their rulings of the law of the case, and on the rulings of their opinions of matters of the litigants. Here, with decades passing, true facts are emerging. See Exhibit A: Israel Divorce Hebrew 2/17/1993. The true fact is that I divorced Susan on her initiative 2/17/1993. See Exhibit B: Susan Lies to Court January 2015. The true fact is that Judge Rigler never signed an Order of Separation March 7, 1995. Please, NYS Court of Appeals, grant my motion.
I’m thinking of asking, one more time, of Susan and of Judge Eric I. Prus for a copy of the (fake/fraudulent) 1995 Judge Rigler Order of Separation.
ReplyDeleteTalmud - Mas. Baba Metzia 37a-b
“The Master said: There they were claiming from him. And what does he plead? Rab Judah said in Rab's name: He is silent. R. Mattena said in Rab's name: He protests [To each claimant, I do not know you, thus denying the claim.]. On the view that he protests but silence is as admission [Therefore he would have to pay each]. But on the view that he is silent this silence here [Despite the generally accepted principle that silence is treated as admission (Yevamoth 87b).] is not an admission, because he can say, The reason that I was silent before each is that I thought, Perhaps it was this one.”
By asking one more time, if they chose silence, that would be an admission of guilt, based on the Talmudic theory that silence is treated as an admission, yes?
See http://daattorah.blogspot.com/2009/12/tropper-is-guilty-as-charged.html
ReplyDeleteRav Sternbuch, shlita said the following:”… It is an example of what our Sages say that silence in the face of an accusation is understood to be an admission "Shetikah k'hodah".
This inspired me today to write to Judge Prus with copy to Susan, the NYS Ct of Appeals, TIAA, and NYS Commission on Judicial Conduct:
1. I submit this letter on my behalf, acting pro se. I request leave to contact the Court, the clerk's office or chamber's staff for the purposes of the cancellation of the $25,000 fines against me and for the freeing up of my TIAA pension. I also seek to perfect my appeal challenging the validity of your September 10, 2013 Judgment of Divorce and of your awarding my house to Susan.
2. I request here, one more time, of Susan and of Judge Eric I. Prus for a copy of the (fake/fraudulent) 1995 Judge Rigler Order of Separation. I quote Talmud - Mas. Baba Metzia 37a-b:
“The Master said: There they were claiming from him. And what does he plead? Rab Judah said in Rab's name: He is silent. R. Mattena said in Rab's name: He protests [To each claimant, I do not know you, thus denying the claim.]. On the view that he protests but silence is as admission [Therefore he would have to pay each]. But on the view that he is silent this silence here [Despite the generally accepted principle that silence is treated as admission (Yevamoth 87b).] is not an admission, because he can say, The reason that I was silent before each is that I thought, Perhaps it was this one.”
3. If Susan and Your Honor chose to deny my request, that would be an admission of guilt, of complicity in the Rigler/Garson etc fraud, based on the Talmudic theory that silence is treated as an admission.
Purim Torah thought I heard
ReplyDeleteMegillah 12a
“At the end of this period, the king gave a banquet for seven days in the court of the king’s palace garden for all the people who lived in the fortress Shushan, high and low alike” (Esther 1:5). Rab and Samuel interpreted this differently. One said he was a clever king, and the other said that he was a foolish king. The one who held he was a clever king said that he did well in entertaining [lit., bringing near.] his distant subjects first, because he could win over the inhabitants of his own city any time he wished. The one who held that he was foolish says that he ought to have entertained the inhabitants of his metropolis first, so that if the others rebelled against him, these would have supported him.
What was the politics? Was it smart or dumb politics for King Ahasuerus to win distant subjects first “in the third year of his reign, he gave a banquet for all the officials and courtiers—the administration of Persia and Media, the nobles and the governors of the provinces in his service” (Esther 1:3) before assuring the loyalty of the domestic subjects? Rab says it was smart politics and Shmuel says unwise politics.
What the Left is doing to Trump is this smart or unwise politics? I say unwise politics.
So far I got no answer on my business silence in the face of accusations is an admission of guilt. I’m a long-time Netanyahu and Trump supporter.
The Left in the USA are setting up a perjury trap for USA President Donald Trump. See https://www.wsj.com/articles/white-house-legal-team-considers-ways-trump-could-testify-before-mueller-1519560120
ReplyDelete“Negotiations could break down should Mr. Mueller insist on conditions that Mr. Trump finds unacceptable, and the president’s lawyers are prepared to launch a court fight to shield him from testifying, people familiar with the matter said... An interview would pose risks, with the president facing skilled prosecutors armed with documents and witness testimony who have shown they are willing to indict people on perjury charges. Mr. Trump is a freewheeling conversationalist, an instinct that proved advantageous on the campaign trail but could be unsuited to a legal setting... In that 1997 case, a federal appeals court ruled that presidents and their closest advisers enjoy protections against having to disclose information about their decision-making process or official actions.”
I too am a freewheeling conversationalist, On this blog alone I have over 800 comments. Trump speaks so well, always a gentleman, in all his fights, in good spirits, while holding his grounds. I bring Torah supports. I’m a Torah scholar. Oh, Susan is a political scientist. Susan (or Susan supporters such as Yehoshua) what’s your opinion, was it smart or dumb politics for King Ahasuerus to win distant subjects first “in the third year of his reign, he gave a banquet for all the officials and courtiers—the administration of Persia and Media, the nobles and the governors of the provinces in his service” (Esther 1:3) before assuring the loyalty of the domestic subjects?
I heard the rabbi say, that we don't know the politics of Ahasuerus and Rab and Shmuel are both not speaking from wisdom. A rabbi gave this Purim thought as a defense why he personally avoids politics.
See https://www.israelnationalnews.com/Articles/Article.aspx/21763
ReplyDelete“We have all seen the picture of the grandmother dragged from her home to be beaten on the street as the Gestapo smile and laugh at her ordeal and keep slapping her with twigs. If that were Silverman’s grandmother, it would perhaps be different for her. The game was about humiliating the Jewish woman and breaking the spirit of the Jewish people. That’s the smile we get from Tamimi when she “confronts Israeli soldiers.””
I say, it’s several years that the majority of world-wide Jews live in Israel and not in the USA. The USA lost the distinction of majority Jews with the deterioration of Jews in the USA. B”H Arutz Sheva published my Torah thought on Sabbat Zachor, see https://www.israelnationalnews.com/Articles/Article.aspx/21767
The Ramban says that in Queen Esther’s times the majority of Jews lived in Israel. The Jews in Shushan fasted for 3 days and did repentance. USA Jews: move to Israel, please, for your own good.