If the head of the CDC says outside of a published research study, ‘I think it’s totally okay to lie about the results of scientific research in order to push an agenda’ do you think it’s out of bounds to point out this casts a shadow over research they may oversee?
Btw, Not everything is about climate change.
Only that by seeing what other researches saw about the critics and the reaearch itself, other resarchers see the data coming from those CDC papers as valid but with the usual caveats.
As pointed before, if the critics were correct in everyrhing that they accused the CDC, then the researchers, reviewers and editors of the journals would had been discredited; as I see it, after looking at more recent researchers outside the CDC, those researchers are still being recognized in their fields and their research still looked at. I can grant that in the right wing info-sphere they are seen as bad scientists, but wishes from the right are not much taken into account where it counts.
Is this a hypothetical question? Has the head of the CDC ever said any such thing?
Btw using climate Science is once again used to show how extreme the levels the right is doing to disparage science elsewhere, It is clear that the main reason why I point at climate science is that like with gun reasearch I notice just about the same attempts at discrediting research that goes against their interests. There was already a very good example when climate change deniers and the right wing media attempted to pass email comments as if that showed a plot to fool others.
As anyone that uses logic and then reviewers found: no, what scientists said outside their research could had been bad opinions, but opinions that in the end did not affect or change their research. Reseach tha BTW was confirmed later.
And so it is wirh the CDC reasearh, as pointed in the other thread, reasearchers from 2013 decided to use the CDC data as they considered the critics points as plausible, but that other reasearch pointed the conclusions of the CDC as valid, so far as caveats that are normally used are.
I think if the head of the CDC said such a thing (provably) he/she would find their job in great jeopardy and any studies they oversaw would be revisited and gone over with a fine tooth comb.
Do you know of the head of the CDC saying such a thing?
Yes, even the NRA states that such is illegal.
Umm, check the names, one of those is the first name one one of the most highly cited CDC gun control study.
Whether or not you feel that all suicides must be prevented, that is a big side issue, and the number of suicicdes is only included to make the numbers more scary.
"We’re going to systematically build a case that owning firearms causes deaths. We’re doing the most we can do, given the political realities.” P.W. O’Carroll, Acting Section Head of Division of Injury Control, CDC.
I don’t see them saying anything about lying in that but I would definitely not let them work on anything relating to gun violence at the CDC and have a review done of any previous work they did. If they fudged numbers/conclusions then fire them.
That does not mean the CDC should stop studying gun violence.
That is one quote amoung several.
But the CDC can study gun violence. What they cant do is: "*a limitation to prohibit the National Center for Injury Prevention and Control at the Centers for Disease Control from engaging in any activities to advocate or promote gun control.”
*
So they can study but not if the purpose of that study is to advocate or promote gun control.
But if the result of a study is that guns are bad, then that would promote gun control. In other words, you’re saying that they’re allowed to study it, but only if they get the results that you want. Which is exactly the sort of academic dishonesty that you and Bone are railing against, but in the opposite direction.
It’s a hypothetical.
It dispenses with the nonsense that things said in their personal capacity or outside of a specific study are not germane to evaluating the credibility of the studies or the people involved. That’s what I think Gigo was saying in post #100, though I admit, it’s hard to tell exactly.
Bingo.
And I have to notice that I pointed early that that kind of bias was something that was never demonstrated in the research, if that was the case it would had been declared invalid and the research discredited, where it counts that was not the case.
It is nonsense indeed to continue to say that it is germane after others have taken a look and found that the CDC research is still valid. (As much as you want to dismiss it, other scientific efforts have been dismissed by many on the right using the same flawed arguments.)
As I pointed before what it was needed before forbidding the CDC to research this issue was to remove the guys that said biased things and then continue with the research. But what was done was not science but to go almost to Lysenko solutions at the federal level.
So, should we disbelieve that smoking is bad for you because the studies showing it is are “anti-smoking”? Should we disbelieve literally everything the NRA publishes because they are “unabashedly pro-gun”? You “pro-gun” guys are just picking a team and then denouncing the other team. Facts & logic seem to have nothing to do with your position. Why shouldn’t we treat your faction & its claims as the political equivalent of Scientology & its hatred of psychiatry?
It’s not up to the NRA whether something is illegal. It’s not up to the NRA whether something is constitutional.* It’s not up to the NRA.*
From this response, I really don’t think you understand how* laws *work.
No. The CDC can say that X is associated with Y, etc. What the CDC cannot say is that the legislature should ban guns. If at the end of a study the conclusion is that guns are bad that would certainly be a poor and non fact based result.
The absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. That’s your claim here right? That’s sufficient to rebut this post without going through the actual presence of evidence.
As mentioned, what you and others reported about how that research is seen by other researchers does not follow what you wish. Others continue to reference the CDC paper.
Well, YMMV. But to me, when you have on system where the individual applying for the gun licence provides all the information, and compare that to another system where the individual must provide the name and contact information of their spouses and former spouses, who have to sign off on the permit application, you have two quite different systems.
Suppose the CDC did a study that showed that compared to regions where most people use public transportation, high automobile areas suffered an elevated death rate. Should their recommendation then be to phase out the private ownership of automobiles to the greatest practical extent?
Maybe they should do a study on swimming pools too.
This again. “Knives, cars, swimming pools”. Lather, rinse, repeat ad nauseum.
And it’s not exactly a useful analogy if you’re discussing a case where one option is to incentivize an alternative (public transport). It’s not like we’re proposing a campaign along the lines of “Thinking of killing someone? Next time, why not try a knife? Or maybe a swimming pool?”
Of course, we have already implemented quite a lot of restrictive laws relating to automobile use - to the vehicles themselves, to how they are used, and to the people who are permitted to use them - most of which were the result of extensive safety studies.