Executive Departments Part 2

[candygirl200413]

I've been working on an environmental health paper for the last few weeks and I had to use the EPA as a source twice and I was just concerned with how accurate the information was. We've been taught to use government sources for much of our work and yet I'm just like how can we? They don't believe in accurate evidence based science.

[SilverBeach]

26 minutes ago, candygirl200413 said:

I've been working on an environmental health paper for the last few weeks and I had to use the EPA as a source twice and I was just concerned with how accurate the information was. We've been taught to use government sources for much of our work and yet I'm just like how can we? They don't believe in accurate evidence based science.

Don't throw the baby out with the bathwater. I have worked with EPA scientists and they are some of the best folks around. The current political shenanigans have no bearing on the quality of their work. Pruitt may not believe in evidence-based science, but the agency has been around a lot longer than him. 

[fraurosena]

31 minutes ago, candygirl200413 said:

I've been working on an environmental health paper for the last few weeks and I had to use the EPA as a source twice and I was just concerned with how accurate the information was. We've been taught to use government sources for much of our work and yet I'm just like how can we? They don't believe in accurate evidence based science.

You might think of incorporating that in your paper, by stating that you find that using government sources (and the EPA in particular) for your work isn't as reliable as it was before. Be sure to give your reasoning, illustrated with examples. If you have other sources you find more reliable (and demonstrably so) use them instead, and say why.

Whatever you decide to do about your sources, good luck with your paper!

[SilverBeach]

6 minutes ago, fraurosena said:

You might think of incorporating that in your paper, by stating that you find that using government sources (and the EPA in particular) for your work isn't as reliable as it was before. Be sure to give your reasoning, illustrated with examples. If you have other sources you find more reliable (and demonstrably so) use them instead, and say why.

Whatever you decide to do about your sources, good luck with your paper!

I would be very specific regarding the actual EPA source, as it is likely perfectly reliable. Global warming since Trump/Pruitt? That might be a problem area, but EPA covers broad subject areas regarding human health and the environment, and prior work is unaffected by recent political events. If it is research you are referring to, it can be vetted as any other research would be, by evaluating the references. Government research/science is actually pretty rigorous and is leading edge, many private sector initiatives come out of what were first Government projects. You will find Government money behind quite a few private sector research projects. Long time fed here.

[candygirl200413]

@SilverBeach That is totally true but I guess I should have added, for example, I have a peer I grew up with. I believe she's working with NIH in research. She showed an example of one of her papers and how so much was cut out of it because of this administration. I totally understand and love that the scientists at various organizations are trying to do their job but this administration is just trying to take it all away :(.

@fraurosena That is also a very good point to make, I think I'll add a few sentences about that, so thank you! It's about lead contamination in water.

[SilverBeach]

Don't know much about the NIH, and current research may be more suspect across agencies. I'm close to the EPA, which is much more decentralized than the NIH. Day to day operations in the EPA regions are still pretty much unaffected, budget reductions notwithstanding. Pruitt is despicable and was appointed to gut the agency, but he may be gone soon, I truly hope so he has no integrity whatsoever. Lots of work done by the EPA regarding lead contamination in water, soil, and air. But I appreciate your skepticism.

[candygirl200413]

Thank you so much for that insight though! I guess it's just so interesting because you were always taught to trust .gov sites and that things like the EPA are luckily not changed but that now you have to have a little bit of skepticism. 

 

[AmazonGrace]

Because of course he did.

(When I wrote Bec the autocomplete feature suggested the rest... Even my phone knows the Trump admin is a disaster.)

[AmazonGrace]

https://twitter.com/kylegriffin1/status/988582132388839424?s=19 Ronny "239" is in trouble because of course he is

 

[AmazonGrace]

Because of course they did

[AmazonGrace]

 "Great guy, never met him, he was basically a short term volunteer..."

[onekidanddone]

1 hour ago, AmazonGrace said:

 "Great guy, never met him, he was basically a short term volunteer..."

He just brought me my two scoops.

[GreyhoundFan]

Sigh. Why isn't he gone yet? "Pruitt to unveil controversial ‘transparency’ rule limiting what research EPA can use"

Spoiler

Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Scott Pruitt is expected to propose a rule Tuesday that would establish new standards for what science could be used in writing agency regulations, according to individuals briefed on the plan. It is a sweeping change long sought by conservatives.

The rule, which Pruitt has described in interviews with select media over the past month, would only allow EPA to consider studies for which the underlying data are made available publicly. Advocates describe this approach as an advance for transparency, but critics say it would effectively block the agency from relying on long-standing, landmark studies linking air pollution and pesticide exposure to harmful health effects.

In an interview Sunday with radio host John Catsimatidis on 970 AM in New York, Pruitt described the change as a way to let the public judge “the data, the methodology, the analytics” behind any scientific analysis presented to the EPA as it drafts regulations.

“That’s transparency,” he told Catsimatidis. “It gives people the opportunity in real time to peer review. It goes to the heart of what we should be about as an agency.”

The individuals briefed on the rule, which will be subject to a 30-day comment period, spoke on the condition of anonymity in advance of the announcement.

Many scientists argue that applying a standard to public health and environmental studies that is not currently required by peer-reviewed journals would limit the information the EPA could take into account when crafting federal limits on everything from power-plant emissions to which chemicals can be used in agriculture and in homes. Some researchers collect personal data from subjects but pledge to keep it confidential — as was the case in a major 1993 study by Harvard University that established the link between fine-particle air pollution and premature deaths. That practice would not be allowed under the new rule.

House Science Committee Chairman Lamar Smith (R-Tex.) sought to establish a requirement similar to the one Pruitt will propose through legislation, but it failed to pass both chambers.

On Monday, 985 scientists signed a letter organized by the Union of Concerned Scientists urging Pruitt not to forge ahead with the policy change.

“There are ways to improve transparency in the decision-making process, but restricting the use of science would improve neither transparency nor the quality of EPA decision-making,” they wrote. “If fully implemented, this proposal would greatly weaken EPA’s ability to comprehensively consider the scientific evidence across the full array of health studies.”

Under the proposed rule, third parties would be able to test and try to replicate the findings of studies submitted to EPA. But, the scientists wrote, “many public health studies cannot be replicated, as doing so would require intentionally and unethically exposing people and the environment to harmful contaminants or recreating one-time events.”

Andrew Rosenberg, director of the Union of Concerned Scientists’ Center for Science and Democracy, said in an email that Pruitt’s move would expand on his earlier decision to change the standards for who can serve on EPA’s advisory committees. Last year, Pruitt barred any scientists from serving if they received EPA grants for their work. Researchers funded by industries regulated by the agency to continue serving, however.

“First, they came after the agency’s independent science advisers, and now, they’re going after the science itself,” Rosenberg said. “What is transparent is the unabashed takeover of EPA leadership by individuals who have demonstrated disinterest in helping communities combat pollution by using the best available science.”

 

[AmazonGrace]

 

[AmazonGrace]

 

[AmazonGrace]

 

Because of course they are.

[GreyhoundFan]

Wow, mishandling a schedule 2 drug and driving while intoxicated...it just keeps getting better.

Spoiler

WASHINGTON — Dr. Ronny L. Jackson, the White House physician nominated to lead the Department of Veterans Affairs, provided “a large supply” of Percocet, a prescription opioid, to a White House military office staff member, throwing his own medical staff “into a panic” when the medical unit could not account for the missing drugs, according to a summary of questionable deeds compiled by the Democratic staff of the Senate Veterans’ Affairs Committee.

A nurse on his staff said Dr. Jackson had written himself prescriptions, and when caught, he asked a physician assistant to provide the medication. And at a Secret Service going away party, the doctor got intoxicated and “wrecked a government vehicle,” according to the summary.

The two-page summary fleshes out three categories of accusations — prescription drug misuse, hostile work environment and drunkenness — that threaten to derail President Trump’s nominee. It details the testimony of 23 current and former colleagues of Dr. Jackson, many of whom are still in the military.

White House officials on Wednesday ratcheted up their public defense of Dr. Jackson, calling charges of workplace misconduct leveled against him “outrageous” even as new incidents of questionable conduct surfaced.

Sarah Huckabee Sanders, the White House press secretary, told reporters that Dr. Jackson had been the subject of at least four background investigations, including by the F.B.I., during his time at the White House. None, she said, had turned up areas for concern, and Dr. Jackson had drawn praise from colleagues and presidents in each.

“None of those things have come up in the four separate background investigations that have taken place,” she said, referring to the recent allegations. “There’s been no area of concern that was raised for Dr. Jackson specifically.”

But when pressed, Ms. Sanders said she could not comment on the credibility of specific charges.

“These are new,” she said. “I can only speak to some of the personal accounts that those of us have, as well as the records that we have that are substantiated through a very detailed and thorough background investigation process.”

Among those new charges she did not address: During an overseas trip by the Obama administration in 2015, Dr. Jackson went out drinking, came back to the delegation’s hotel and began banging on the door of a staff member’s hotel room, according to an account shared with the senior Democrat on the Senate Veterans Affairs Committee, Jon Tester of Montana. The noise was so loud that members of the Secret Service came to see what was happening and warned Dr. Jackson to be quiet so he would not wake up the president, who was staying nearby.

The episode was first reported by CNN.

Members of the Veterans Affairs Committee continued to investigate claims brought by more than 20 people who have worked with Dr. Jackson, including current and former military personnel, that as the head of the White House medical unit he oversaw a hostile work environment, improperly dispensed prescription drugs and was possibly intoxicated at times while traveling with the president.

Dr. Jackson had been scheduled to testify before the Senate committee on Wednesday, but its top Republican and Democrat announced on Tuesday that the session would be postponed to allow more time to investigate the claims.

Senator Johnny Isakson of Georgia, the committee’s chairman, said on Wednesday that he intended to hold a confirmation hearing for Dr. Jackson, but would first need to receive documents that he and Mr. Tester requested on Dr. Jackson’s time at the White House. To speculate on the nominee’s fate before then, he said, would be unfair.

“He deserves a hearing and he’s going to get it,” Mr. Isakson said.

An aide to Mr. Tester said on Wednesday that other former colleagues of Dr. Jackson had reached out to the committee to share stories since details of its investigation became public. Other stories the committee had already collected continued to seep into public view.

On another trip during Barack Obama’s presidency, White House staff members reached out to Dr. Jackson for medical reasons but found him passed out in his hotel room after a night of drinking, Tester aides said. The staff members took the medical supplies they were looking for without waking Dr. Jackson.

The White House’s pushback — both in public and behind the scenes — was targeted toward the general allegations and not specific episodes, many of which appear to have occurred during the Obama administration.

Marc Short, the White House’s legislative affairs director, told reporters that the White House would be requesting a confirmation hearing. Dr. Jackson told reporters in brief comments on Tuesday that he was looking forward to testifying to answer the charges against him.

Mr. Short pushed back against assertions that Dr. Jackson had casually doled out prescription drugs. Mr. Tester said that he had received numerous allegations that Dr. Jackson regularly distributed Ambien, a prescription sleep aid, to members of the White House staff and members of the news media flying on long overseas trips, as well as another prescription drug to promote wakefulness.

“Every year they come in and they do a review of the White House physician’s office on things like prescriptions,” Mr. Short told reporters. “And every year, they’ve said that he’s totally in compliance with what he’s been prescribing.”

On Capitol Hill, some Republican senators worried that Dr. Jackson was being asked to account for anonymous accusations that had not yet been fully vetted. Others were still awaiting access to the more detailed charges collected by Mr. Tester and others on the Veterans Affairs Committee.

“For us to hound somebody out just because somebody can make an accusation strikes me as unfair,” said Senator John Cornyn of Texas, the No. 2 Republican in the chamber.

Mr. Cornyn defended Dr. Jackson’s reported distribution of Ambien and other drugs during long trips as nothing out of the ordinary. He said that because Dr. Jackson was a doctor, it was not a problem that he distributed the drugs, even without writing a prescription.

“On overseas travel, yeah, sure, people take Ambien to help them transition through time zones,” he said. “It’s pretty common, I’m led to believe.”

Still, some Democrats privately wondered if the allegations, on top of existing concerns that Dr. Jackson lacked the experience to lead one of the federal government’s largest and most troubled departments, would be enough to cut his nomination short.

 

[onekidanddone]

10 minutes ago, GreyhoundFan said:

Mr. Cornyn defended Dr. Jackson’s reported distribution of Ambien and other drugs during long trips as nothing out of the ordinary. He said that because Dr. Jackson was a doctor, it was not a problem that he distributed the drugs, even without writing a prescription.

Handing out controlled substances like Skittles. Seems our little Ronny is a drug trafficker. We need to build that wall and put him on the other side. I mean that is what the wall is all about right?

[AmazonGrace]

 

Not sure this is comforting lol

Most nominees have been vetted even less than this guy? And they think this is a positive talking point?

[Howl]

On 4/24/2018 at 9:50 AM, onekidanddone said:

He just brought me my two scoops.

And he knew how to work the coffee machine....#great loss #nespresso

[Howl]

1 hour ago, GreyhoundFan said:

“For us to hound somebody out just because somebody can make an accusation strikes me as unfair,” said Senator John Cornyn of Texas, the No. 2 Republican in the chamber.

Mr. Cornyn defended Dr. Jackson’s reported distribution of Ambien and other drugs during long trips as nothing out of the ordinary. He said that because Dr. Jackson was a doctor, it was not a problem that he distributed the drugs, even without writing a prescription.

“On overseas travel, yeah, sure, people take Ambien to help them transition through time zones,” he said. “It’s pretty common, I’m led to believe.”

Well, of course! Everybody needs uppers and downers.  And my  personal stash?  Well,  who doesn't need uppers and downers at a moment's notice?   

This guy is going down so hard.  Why the hell is he continuing on? Anyway, here's my guess.  Get shit-faced drunk every night, wake up and pop some uppers to get a fresh start on the demands of the day!  And when you start to drag in the afternoon? Dip into the stash for some more uppers! 

Shepard Smith on Fox was mentioning that it's not unusual to take Ambien to help people sleep on long flights to different time zones, so what's the big deal?  I don't think Ambien is the problem. 

[Audrey2]

1 hour ago, AmazonGrace said:

 

Not sure this is comforting lol

Most nominees have been vetted even less than this guy? And they think this is a positive talking point?

In other words, working for Jackson doesn't sound much different than working for Trump. Yes, he'll fit right in in Trump's swamp.

[AmazonGrace]

Party boi withdraws his nomination but admits nothing. His defense is, "I must be great because I haven't been fired"

 

[GreyhoundFan]

I'm glad he's withdrawn his nomination, but I hate that we are still paying him to be the presidential physician.

[fraurosena]

Is there any possibility that now that the cat is out of the doctor's bag, that there will be a thorough investigation -- with the necessary consequences -- into him? Is that up to Congress? The administration? The Navy’s Medical Inspector General?