Re: WITH THE RAINS, COMES MALARIA

Quoted message said:

Congratulations, no end of wonders when one uses a search enjine. The
below reflects, but is only a shadow of, the science involved in the
history of malaria control in the US. Note the '42 date, it was WW II and
scores of military camps were placed in malarie infested areas of the
country, it was the war that was the greatest incentive to find a way to
control the disease. And it was done and it was a excellent application
of the methods of science/medicine that made it possible, meantime, in
other parts of the world where such public health techniques were not
avalible, drugs old and new were used to protect troops from the disease.
Now for extra points, what is thought to have been the entry of the
disease into the americas? Crude attempts to wedge what is medicine and
not into some agenda driven box do not serve. Language is a wonderous
thing, but it holds no salvation for your goals.

The ideology of free will brings up bigger issues then merely being
pro or anti science. Politically, in the United States, the
pro-science people are the ultra-liberal academics. Whereas the
conservative and religious groups and the Republican political party
are viewed as being anti-science by the pro-science people. Or, in
other words, the majority of the population and institutions, like the
judicial system, in the United States can be accused of being
anti-science. The ultra-liberal academics as a group are often accused
of promoting revisionist history and a secular agenda. They always
present a revisionist history of medicine, for example. Every good
development is seen as a direct result of medicine. While all bad
things are presented as quackery and the work of alternative medicine.
Thus, being pro-science can be likewise be viewed as being
pro-revisionist history and pro-secularism.

So, the ideology of free will says that the real choice is between the
worldview of the hard deterministic scientists and the classical
Western worldview. Hard deterministic scientists believe that
individuals should blame everything on their biology, molecules,
genetics, and their use of prescription medication. The patriarchal
medical system presents physicians as father figures who always look
after the best interests of their child like patients. Which is in
direct opposition to patient empowerment which views patients as being
autonomous adults making consumer decisions about economic goods and
services. These natural health advocates claim that there is more to
being a person than mere chemistry.

While these pro-science hard determinists have suggested that your
health is merely a choice between scientific biomedicine and
anti-science alternative medicine; there are actually bigger issues
involved. The pro-science ultra-liberal academics want weak, passive
child like patients who are merely the passive recipients of whatever
health care the patriarchal doctors think is best. While those in
favor of free will want strong, dominant, responsible patients who act
like adults by being actively involved in their own health and who are
in control of their own health care decisions. The pro-science
ultra-liberal academics want doctors to be in a position to take
advantage of their patients. While those in favor of free will want
the patient to be always in control. The free will classical Western
worldview demands that individuals take personal responsibly for the
health choices that they make. It always demands choices and patient
empowerment.

Bye ultra-liberal academic, pro-sciece, secular history revisionist
Bull-[censored] artist.
--
john gohde
http://tutorials.naturalhealthperspective.com/