5/5 The only way to write this paper is going to be to very carefully and strategically use the *wrong words* for what we're talking about and hope the readers pay close attention and the truth filters in through the cracks. This is one of the things this administration is doing to health research.

4/5 This study isn't about "economic resources." That's been done - we know poverty is bad for health. This study is about _community inequality_, a rapidly worsening problem the consequences of which we know a lot less. My exposures are two well-established metrics of inequality.

3/5 She pointed out that the "MAHA approach" dictates that we as health scientists focus on promoting child health, but avoid discussion of health issue history or context. I sighed, and briefly alluded to what we all already understood: you can't accurately accomplish the former without the latter.

2/5 It was brought to my attention by a senior member of the writing team that we will probably need to avoid using the term "inequality" per the new NIH guidelines, because it implies a system in which some people are disadvantaged. She suggested we say "economic resources" instead.

4/4. We are RAPIDLY losing our grip on the mechanisms by which we identify systemic threats to our health, and it’s because the right is so phobic of cultural growth and adaptation that they will cut off our fucking hands and let us die of disease before letting us write the words “pregnant people.”

3/4. I’m a sociologist, and a quantitative researcher. I don’t know shit about neurotoxicology. The CDC are *essential* to do this work.

I was also advised today that I need to be careful not to say “pregnant people” or similar trans-inclusive language, because our funding comes from the NIH.

2/4. She (and all CDC researchers) are being required to pause/retract *all new publications* so they can be checked for alignment with the Trump political agenda. If I want to publish my own work, I’m not allowed to rely on or credit CDC testing or expertise.