The logical non-sequitur mess has not improved from the first time such
was posted. Now, by exertion of free will, going back to the topic of
malaria in the US, ... What has science learned about the disease that
makes a vaccine difficult to develope, but perhaps one that is soon to be
overcome? Two chances now for extra points, when added to the question
about the history of it's introduction into the americas. Ah, shucks, I'm
feeling generous, tis the season you know, for even more points; what
disease is an genetic adaption to malaria and where did this adaption
happen and why?
Quoted message said: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/