Who needs evidence?

Well, this is surprising if by surprising you mean completely expected:

The Trump administration has abruptly halted work on a highly regarded program to help physicians, families, state and local government agencies, and others separate effective “evidence-based” treatments for substance abuse and behavioral health problems from worthless interventions.

The program, called the National Registry of Evidence-Based Programs and Practices, was launched in 1997 and is run by the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration. Its website lists 453 programs in behavioral health — aimed at everything from addiction and parenting to HIV prevention, teen depression, and suicide-hotline training — that have been shown, by rigorous outcomes measures, to be effective and not quackery. The most recent were added last September.

It seems there were problems with registry:

In fact, a recent paper in the International Journal of Drug Policy found the registry contained programs with limited studies evaluating them or studies with very small sample sizes to accurately measure their success.

So there was a good reason to look at it and try to make it better, but this is the Trump administration:

However, no specific details regarding when the new program will begin and when results will be made public were provided. The current registry will remain online as of now, but will not be updated.

SAMHSA’s statement was the first public response it had provided since the email it sent out two weeks ago announcing the registry would be frozen. That announcement took mental health advocates by surprise. “It came with such a blinding speed,” said Richard Yep, CEO of the American Counseling Association. “People were initially really shocked by the whole thing.”
Without any additional information from SAMSHA, Yep said mental health professionals were left to speculate what was next and why the registry had stopped.
Yep admits that the program wasn’t flawless but said “it has stood the test of time.” He questioned why a replacement wasn’t up and running to take over the work and called the decision to freeze the registry short-sighted. “Why didn’t you start that system up and compare it side-by-side? Instead, to just cut it off, it makes no sense professionally.”
The Trump administration is, by its nature, sloppy and that’s what you get here.

More Trump political correctness

The latest:

Interior Secretary Ryan Zinke brought the leader of a California park to his office last month to reprimand him for climate change-related tweets the park had sent via Twitter, two sources close to the situation said.

Zinke did not take any formal disciplinary action against David Smith, superintendent of Joshua Tree National Park. And the tweets at issue weren’t deleted, because they didn’t violate National Park Service or Interior Department policies.

But Zinke made it clear to Smith that the Trump administration doesn’t want national parks to put out official communications on climate change.

And by bringing Smith from California to Washington, D.C., to deliver the tongue-lashing, he also sent a message to the park service at large.

Sure the tweets were scientifically correct and relevant to the park, but the Trump administration doesn’t like it so it shouldn’t be mentioned and if it is trouble will follow.

Trump administration is rolling coal

Here’s the Trump administration trolling the world again:

The Trump administration made its debut at a United Nations conference on climate change on Monday by giving a full-throated defense of fossil fuels and nuclear energy as answers to driving down global greenhouse gas emissions.

The forum — the only official appearance by the United States delegation during the annual two-week climate gathering of nearly 200 nations — illustrated how sharply the administration’s views are at odds with those of many key participants in the climate negotiations.

George D. Banks, special adviser to President Trump on international energy issues, led a panel with top American energy executives. “Without question, fossil fuels will continue to be used, and we would argue that it’s in the global interest to make sure when fossil fuels are used that they be as clean and efficient as possible,” Mr. Banks said. “This panel is controversial only if we chose to bury our heads in the sand.”

Here’s an interesting comeback:

Michael R. Bloomberg, the former New York mayor who has spent tens of millions of dollars on a campaign to shut down coal plants, said, “Promoting coal at a climate summit is like promoting tobacco at a cancer summit.”

The thing is, Donald Trump doesn’t recognize that. He is the king of political correctness, so if he thinks there’s no global warming then you’re not going to hear anybody from his administration talk about it and so you get comments like the one above by Mr. Banks.

Politcal Correctness in the EPA

The new EPA is all about Political Correctness:

The Environmental Protection Agency has canceled the speaking appearance of three agency scientists who were scheduled to discuss climate change at a conference Monday in Rhode Island, according to the agency and several people involved.

Ok, that’s really just censorship. Here’s the Political Correctness:

The Narragansett Bay Estuary Program is funded through the EPA’s approximately $26 million National Estuary Program. It funds 28 state-based estuary programs and delivers about $600,000 annually to the Narragansett Bay program. Pruitt’s proposed budget for 2018 would eliminate the national program.
Under Pruitt’s leadership, the EPA also has removed most mentions of the words “climate change” from its website.

On an EPA website, scores of links to materials to help local officials prepare for a world of rising temperatures and more severe storms have been removed.
Among the now-missing pages are those detailing the risks of climate change and the different approaches states are taking to curb emissions. Also edited out were examples of statewide plans to adapt to weather extremes.

It is no longer politically correct to talk about global warming at the EPA–that’s impressive, the agency tasked with protecting the environment doesn’t want to talk about something that will have a pretty adverse effect on the environment.

More Political Correctness from the Trump administration

Here is more political correctness:

For years, the Environmental Protection Agency has struggled to prevent an ingredient once used in stain-resistant carpets and nonstick pans from contaminating drinking water.

The chemical, perfluorooctanoic acid, or PFOA, has been linked to kidney cancer, birth defects, immune system disorders and other serious health problems.

So scientists and administrators in the E.P.A.’s Office of Water were alarmed in late May when a top Trump administration appointee insisted upon the rewriting of a rule to make it harder to track the health consequences of the chemical, and therefore regulate it.

The Trump administration doesn’t want to hear about the problems caused by these chemicals so they try to bury the information–it’s not politically correct to talk about.

And there’s more:

In March, Scott Pruitt, the E.P.A. chief, overrode the recommendation of Ms. Hamnett and agency scientists to ban the commercial use of the pesticide chlorpyrifos, blamed for developmental disabilities in children.

The E.P.A.’s new leadership also pressed agency scientists to re-evaluate a plan to ban certain uses of two dangerous chemicals that have caused dozens of deaths or severe health problems: methylene chloride, which is found in paint strippers, and trichloroethylene, which removes grease from metals and is used in dry cleaning.

and here’s some typical political correctness in action:

Methylene chloride has been blamed in dozens of deaths, including that of a 21-year-old Tennessee man in April, who was overwhelmed by fumes as he was refinishing a bathtub.

“How is it possible that you can go to a home improvement store and buy a paint remover that can kill you?” Ms. Hamnett asked. “How can we let this happen?”

Furniture-refinishing companies and chemical manufacturers have urged the E.P.A. to focus on steps like strengthening warning labels, complaining that there are few reasonably priced alternatives.

Ms. Hamnett said Dr. Beck raised the possibility that people were not following the directions on the labels. She also suggested that only a small number of users had been injured. “Is it 1 percent?” Ms. Hamnett recalled Dr. Beck asking.

Methylene chloride is killing people but that’s bad for business and so you have to work to find ways to say what the administration wants–sure it’s killing people but maybe they didn’t follow the directions and anyway it’s not that many people.

And here’s how the administration replies when a news agency continues to be politically incorrect:

“No matter how much information we give you, you would never write a fair piece,” Liz Bowman, a spokeswoman for the E.P.A., said in an email. “The only thing inappropriate and biased is your continued fixation on writing elitist clickbait trying to attack qualified professionals committed to serving their country.”

Goodbye Cassini

The Cassini spacecraft is scheduled to plunge into Saturn’s atmosphere tomorrow ending its 13 exploration of Saturn. Here’s a picture (Credit: NASA/JPL-Caltech/Space Science Institute), it’s not the best but it is one of the last:

For better views you can get a short movie here (WordPress doesn’t allow me to put it in this post) or there’s a nice book here.

It’s been a great ride Cassini, thanks for the great pictures and videos over the years.

Trump administration out to cut contraception

It seems that Trump officials in Health and Human Services lie as much as he does (via here):

Secretary Tom Price, who has claimed that “there’s not one” woman who can’t afford birth control on her own (despite the high up-front cost of the most reliable contraceptives).

She (Teresa Manning) insists that contraception is ineffective, despite evidence that hormonal methods are 91% effective and long-acting reversible contraceptives such as intrauterine devices (IUDs) are 99% effective at preventing pregnancy.

She (Charmaine Yoest) asserts that condoms (whose use reduces the risk of HIV transmission by at least 70%) do not protect against HIV or other sexually transmitted infections. Yoest also claims contraception does not reduce the number of abortions and says that to accept this argument “would be, frankly, carrying water for the other side to allow them to redefine the issue in that way.”

Yoest and Manning are joined by Katy Talento, who has been named to the Domestic Policy Council, in claiming that the most effective types of contraceptives cause infertility and miscarriages. Talento has published some particularly outlandish articles on this topic, mis-citing a 2012 study whose author disavowed her description of his work in asserting that contraceptives are “breaking your uterus.”

Even worse, Yoest continues to cite long-discredited studies that used retrospective reporting to support her assertion that abortion causes breast cancer, despite the overwhelming evidence to the contrary from properly constructed prospective studies. … Nor, as she has claimed, does abortion cause mental illness; in fact, a long-term study that compared women who were denied abortions with those who were able to obtain them revealed that it is being forced to carry an unwanted pregnancy to term that is associated with near-term adverse psychological outcomes.

Perhaps the most insidious and politically potent assertion by these appointees is that common forms of contraception are actually abortifacients.

Hormonal contraceptives work primarily by preventing ovulation and thereby preventing fertilization. Even in cases in which they affect the endometrium, studies more recent than those used for the initial Food and Drug Administration–approved labeling have shown they do not interrupt an established pregnancy.

These people are against contraception but they know that a large majority of Americans support the use of contraception:

More than nine-in-ten adults think using birth control is either morally acceptable (36%) or not a moral issue at all (57%); just 4% say using contraception is morally wrong.

so they try to bend the definition of contraception to claim it’s abortion. It’s not and they’re lying to try to get rid of contraception.

Previous Older Entries

%d bloggers like this: