- Joined
- Jul 28, 2004
- Messages
- 27,966
- Reaction score
- 56,404
For the latter, I would suggest starting around 1934.
WSJ: New “Woke” Medical Schools...
- Thread starter drusso
- Start date
- Joined
- Jan 9, 2010
- Messages
- 11,011
- Reaction score
- 5,679
Back to the point of the thread... Climate change is not directly related to health or medicine any more than meteorology. It should not be taught in med or tested in med school.
- Joined
- May 30, 2010
- Messages
- 1,651
- Reaction score
- 1,607
I can see why asking people to recycle and not burn their garbage instead could be extremely offensive and distasteful.
- Joined
- Jan 9, 2002
- Messages
- 6,517
- Reaction score
- 3,074
Agree.
it might be a little more difficult to "tune out" those opinions if the anti-vaxxers killed 6 million of your friends, family, and ethnic group. horrible metaphor
just so you righties understand the level of your hypocrisy:
www.axios.com
Trump's attacks on the free press could end up strengthening rights in the long run
"Trump's relentless attacks ... have yielded strong pushback."
which god would that be? the god that parted the red sea, or the god that wants us to wear magic underwear? ah, maybe you mean the god that gives us 72 virgins in heaven. thats the one we should probably be listening to
gimme a effing break.
i think you are sort of trying to say that free speech is a "natural" right. i agree that it is a crucial part of the democratic process. but leave "god" out of things if you want to have any credibility.
Last edited:
- Joined
- Mar 22, 2008
- Messages
- 3,540
- Reaction score
- 2,163
just so you righties understand the level of your hypocrisy:
Trump's attacks on the free press could end up strengthening rights in the long run
"Trump's relentless attacks ... have yielded strong pushback."
A free press is supposed to inform the public. What we have from major news outlets is leftist political opinion with the rare fact thrown in. That’s apparently not your viewpoint since you’re calling us hypocrites for demanding non-partisan information. Pick a topic: Charlottesburg—Trump clearly did not endorse the right extremes there but the “press” labels him racist on a daily basis claiming he supports white supremacy. Collusion—no evidence yet CNN and MSNBC programs for two years basically were talking like established fact. Kavanaugh—what the Times published two days ago wasn’t journalism in any definition. It was a left wing hit piece, nothing more. Your defense of this all just makes one wonder: do you think the news provides fair, unbiased reporting or do you think the editors allow a pervasive anti-Trump bias? The first article on cnn.com right now in the second paragraph is taking how the Trump Administration makes a mockery of checks and balances. Really? Sounds biased. No mention that Obama withheld his advisors from testifying citing executive privilege. That would be too non-partisan.
Don’t stop there though. What has DT actually done to limit the press above complaining about it? I remember what Obama did, which was actually put a DOJ investigation on a reporter it didn’t like. Your articles’ lack of mention of that while bemoaning Trump would be actual hypocrisy if you need it to be pointed out to you.
- Joined
- Jul 28, 2004
- Messages
- 27,966
- Reaction score
- 56,404
Yep, and I truly do feel for them (I know that sounds trite, but its the truth). But that doesn't mean its worth making it illegal.
Also not a metaphor, its an analogy.
How many times do I need to say "I didn't vote for Trump and I think he's, at best, a narcissistic idiot" before it sinks in that I'm not a fan of the guy?just so you righties understand the level of your hypocrisy:
Trump's attacks on the free press could end up strengthening rights in the long run
"Trump's relentless attacks ... have yielded strong pushback."
touche'
but you are not the only "righty" on the board, and not to whom i was specifically referring. you seem to have at least some sense of a moral compass and the ability to compromise and understand an opposing point of view.
- Joined
- Jun 1, 2005
- Messages
- 3,861
- Reaction score
- 1,194
Genius , we were specifically talking about countries that enacted Holocaust deniers laws
- Joined
- Aug 15, 2007
- Messages
- 1,426
- Reaction score
- 542
- Joined
- Jul 28, 2004
- Messages
- 27,966
- Reaction score
- 56,404
Gee really?
I've got a 90 year old patient who has smoked 2 packs per day for 80 years. Obviously smoking isn't bad for you.
We are, I believe, the oldest continuously Republican/democratic government on the planet. I can't with 100% accuracy say that its because of the Bill of Rights but pretty much every time a country falls into a dictatorship some or all of those rights get infringed.
It could be a coincidence, but I doubt it and its certainly not worth testing.
- Joined
- Jun 1, 2005
- Messages
- 3,861
- Reaction score
- 1,194
not sure what this has to do with your previous witless statement
- Joined
- Jul 28, 2004
- Messages
- 27,966
- Reaction score
- 56,404
Likewise
- Joined
- Jan 9, 2002
- Messages
- 6,517
- Reaction score
- 3,074
No.
As an American citzen, I have freedom of speech. Freedom to practice any religion I wish.
Your antitheism is discriminatory. Interesting that Stalin and Mao made practicing religion a crime, unless it was the religion of Communism. Religion is still persecuted in modern China. Eliminating religion is an important step toward successful tyranny.
Therefore I don't need to leave God out of anything. I believe atheists have an natural right to free speech as well. Including you.
Furthermore, another example of how you dismiss others with differing opinions. Dont agree with climate change fearmongering? Dismissed! Believe in a God(s)? Dismissed!
On one hand you want to control speech and infringe on free speech. Next you say you believe free speech is a crucial part of the democratic process (as long as it is free speech YOU agree with).
Last edited:
you can worship whoever you want. go for it. but dont base your argument on a system of government based on god. that is asinine.
free speech is crucial, but there are and should be limits.
- Joined
- May 30, 2010
- Messages
- 1,651
- Reaction score
- 1,607
> advocates for free speech
> takes issue with medical schools teaching viewpoints they disagree with
> takes issue with medical schools teaching viewpoints they disagree with
- Joined
- Jan 9, 2002
- Messages
- 6,517
- Reaction score
- 3,074
> advocates for free speech
> takes issue with medical schools teaching viewpoints they disagree with
Medical schools should be teaching medicine, not "viewpoints," politics, or left or right wing propaganda of any sort.
- Joined
- May 30, 2010
- Messages
- 1,651
- Reaction score
- 1,607
So you take issue with Loma Linda, Duke, Emory, Georgetown, Creighton, and Liberty University having medical schools, too, then?
- Joined
- Nov 10, 2010
- Messages
- 1,175
- Reaction score
- 811
Finally something everyone on this forum can agree on!
- Joined
- Jan 9, 2002
- Messages
- 6,517
- Reaction score
- 3,074
Why?
- Joined
- May 30, 2010
- Messages
- 1,651
- Reaction score
- 1,607
They're all religious institutions that teach what many would consider right wing propaganda.
- Joined
- Oct 7, 2011
- Messages
- 14,652
- Reaction score
- 5,953
as noted before, there are certain limitations towards free speech - specifically if it presents "clear and present danger".
for governments in Europe, my guess is that Holocaust denial is banned because of the historical content of >11 million people that were directly harmed by actions taken due to like words. that thankfully doesn't exist in the US.
interestingly, some of those organizations that have been denigrated on this website are ones that do not support laws against Holocaust denial - specifically ACLU.
for governments in Europe, my guess is that Holocaust denial is banned because of the historical content of >11 million people that were directly harmed by actions taken due to like words. that thankfully doesn't exist in the US.
interestingly, some of those organizations that have been denigrated on this website are ones that do not support laws against Holocaust denial - specifically ACLU.
- Joined
- Mar 4, 2002
- Messages
- 1,531
- Reaction score
- 493
Kaiser med school FTW!
- Joined
- Jan 9, 2002
- Messages
- 6,517
- Reaction score
- 3,074
What is Kaiser doing?
- Joined
- Nov 21, 1998
- Messages
- 12,566
- Reaction score
- 6,962
training docile doctors...
Kaiser Permanente School of Medicine to open summer 2020
The school, which received preliminary accreditation, says it will waive tuition for the first five classes of students.
permanente.org
"The school will use a small-group, case-based medical curriculum in a learning environment that embraces all dimensions of diversity and values students’ well-being. The school aims to prepare future physicians to become collaborative, transformative leaders committed to prevention, fluent in data-driven care, and adept at addressing the needs of underserved patients and communities."
training docile doctors...
Kaiser Permanente School of Medicine to open summer 2020
The school, which received preliminary accreditation, says it will waive tuition for the first five classes of students.
"The school will use a small-group, case-based medical curriculum in a learning environment that embraces all dimensions of diversity and values students’ well-being. The school aims to prepare future physicians to become collaborative, transformative leaders committed to prevention, fluent in data-driven care, and adept at addressing the needs of underserved patients and communities."
that description even makes ME want to vomit
- Joined
- Mar 4, 2002
- Messages
- 1,531
- Reaction score
- 493
The Kaiser Death Star is nearly complete! Come work for the empire and enjoy free tuition and be debt free! Ignore the rebel scum in private practice and their ecosystem of competition and free thinking. We only teach Kaiser Medicine (TM) and are completely apolitical, free from all distractions of left or right propaganda. Our pension will forever (disclaimer: past performance is no guarantee of future results) reward your complete devotion to the empire unless you unionize.
Once our reactors are fully operational we will use bundling and economic power to add services and features to destroy any promising competitors!
- Joined
- Jan 9, 2002
- Messages
- 6,517
- Reaction score
- 3,074
Like what?
- Joined
- May 30, 2010
- Messages
- 1,651
- Reaction score
- 1,607
Mandatory faith-based curriculum, anti-abortion, birth control, etc.
At Georgetown University providers cannot prescribe OCPs, for example. Loma Linda has required religion courses.
LUCOM teaches young earth creationism, faith healing, etc.
Last edited:
- Joined
- Jan 2, 2016
- Messages
- 2,100
- Reaction score
- 2,076
How far left does one have to be to bundle Creighton, Duke and Liberty U??
Curricula in the undergrad and professional schools are not really similar. Requiring a few religious courses is no different than requiring some gender/race studies courses in a liberal arts undergrad program, IMO. Undergrad education is proving to be of less and less value...
OTOH, professional school (particularly medicine) should be fairly standardized. There isn't much room for fluff.
- Joined
- May 30, 2010
- Messages
- 1,651
- Reaction score
- 1,607
I have absolutely zero issue with these religious institutions teaching whatever they want, so long as our future doctors are getting the core curriculum -- the same as I have no issues with schools teaching about climate change and how to treat transgender people with dignity and respect. You ultimately have the choice what medical school you want to go to. I, for one, would never in a million years attend LUCOM because I know we aren't a good fit for each other. You also won't see me on here posting sensationalist articles about how they're supposedly ruining medical education.
- Joined
- Jan 2, 2016
- Messages
- 2,100
- Reaction score
- 2,076
Don't want to speak for others, but I think the rub is tax dollars being used to teach something worthless. This has gotten out of hand at the undergrad level. That may be a fun conversation here, but a fairly worthless discussion.
I think we can agree it's important to hold medical schools to a high standard for core curriculum. I don't think we need to micromanage the style, but the outcomes should be pretty objective.
- Joined
- May 30, 2010
- Messages
- 1,651
- Reaction score
- 1,607
Unless there is objective data that schools that teach about these issues have worse education outcomes and cost more than those that don't, it's a moot point.
who's tax dollars? private institutions can teach whatever they want. you want to go waste your money at Liberty U, go for it -- no qualms there.
state schools get their money primarily from tuition and state-based tax revenue. what is taught at your particular state school is determined by the will of the state, their people, their elected officials, and their values. i'd imagine the education UC Berkeley is a bit different than at Alabama.
what is worthless to you (climate change, sexual orientation training) may not be worthless to others. similarly, things that are important to you (bible thumping, creationism, banning huck finn, oil drilling, bloodletting, alchemy, slavery, the inquistion, chernobyl, ted cruz appreciation) may seem ridiculous to me.
"worthless" is in the eye of the beholder
- Joined
- Jan 2, 2016
- Messages
- 2,100
- Reaction score
- 2,076
As a field, we should have a high standard for what is learned. "Worthless" is a strong word, but all your examples above have very little value in medical education, IMO. Schools can dabble in this stuff, but it shouldn't come at the expense of lower board scores, etc. (objective standards).
It would be interesting if tax payers actually had significant influence on what is taught at public institutions. While "popular opinion" may differ greatly around Berkeley and Tuscaloosa, I bet what is taught at the institutions is more similar than the "will" of the people.
Even private institutions receive tax dollars!
- Joined
- Nov 21, 1998
- Messages
- 12,566
- Reaction score
- 6,962
I'm a UC Berkeley graduate. One of the smartest kids I knew at Cal hailed from Tuscaloosa.
- Joined
- May 30, 2010
- Messages
- 1,651
- Reaction score
- 1,607
That wasn't really his point but cool.
D
deleted993114
That is fine.
I would simply ask you to view the literature of AGW as you would any other piece of scientific literature and apply the same standards. If you do so, you will have less enthusiasm for this hypothesis. AGW has captured the same enthusiasm as the anti-vaxers and those who embrace holistic and naturopathic medical treatments. Prinicipally, review the methods and statistics of the Mann article and understand that Mann published this in his first year after obtaining his PhD and was subsequently voted by his peers at Penn State (He published this well before arriving at Penn State) to be removed from the faculty for this article- he was saved by the chancellor due to political pressure.
One should divorce emotional or political views/sentiments with these issues and maintain your scientific objectivity and critical level of thinking. When a group of individuals vilify those simply questioning a hypothesis as "deniers", one should be very wary, as no other scientific hypothesis evokes such emotions and condemning those who question its premise. Emotion and politics should never alter or sway scientific issues.
As evidence of the emotional vitriol used by the supporters of AGW, simply look at the venom generated by the poster above. Certainly not in the mode of open scientific discourse to which we are accustomed to and not in the spirt of rational science. One should remain objective, calm, and remove emotion and our personal bias when evaluating scientific articles/literature.
Last edited by a moderator:
- Joined
- Oct 7, 2011
- Messages
- 14,652
- Reaction score
- 5,953
IMO, it is not the scientists studying climate change that are condemning the non believers. Just as it is not scientists that are the anti-vaxxers or climate deniers. In all those cases, it is the “lay” people who are most hypercritical...
D
deleted993114
Well............... I am an ardent environmentalist, which is one of the reasons I find the scientific disingenuity of AGW to be very harmful. I have planted thousands of trees and created many wildlife habitats. I consider a flawed hypothesis, such as AGW to be a form of eco-terrorism, as its "remedies" are very harmful to the environment. Why?
1. The planet has had increased "greening" with higher CO2 levels- optimum for plants is 1000 ppm. Toxicity to humans occurs at 5000 ppm
2. The rain forests in the Amazon are being destroyed by demands for farmland to grow switchgrass, instead of using fossil fuels
3. Solar energy is very toxic, as the heavy metals remain in the soil for generations. Wind energy is slaughtering millions of birds on migratory pathways.
4. Massive amounts of funds are being diverted from real pollution problems- pesticides in the water, plastics and trash in the oceans, dead zones in the oceans, acid rains, and depletion of ancient aquafers. These are real issues that should be addressed, rather than using funds for an unproven hypothesis. 90% of plastics in the oceans come from developing/third world countries, not the US.
5. The AGW premise is based on four very different temp measurements, all with different standards of error, yet treated as modern satellite data in the pro-AGW papers.
6. Only in the last 20 years has there been uniform, established standards in temp monitoring- over that period, there has been no increase in temps.
7. AGW defies rational thought:
a. CO2 production declined 55% in the Great Depression, yet temps rose
b. CO2 production increased 200% during WW2, yet temps fell
c. If we believe Boyle's Law (PV=nRT), we should have seen a global increase in barometric pressure- it has fallen over the last 100 years.
d. The contribution of water vapor to CO2 with regard to "warming" is 15,000 fold, due to the concentration of water vapor and its relative absorbtion spectrum of water vs CO2 over the IR spectrum.
e. AGW has relied upon data which was "urbanized" and markedly under represented the poles and oceans until the advent of satellite data in the late 1970s.
f. temperatures were greater in the time of the Roman Empire, despite lower CO2 levels
g. the influence of solar activity, the decline in the earth's magnetic field (that increases IR energy entering the atmosphere) and other natural phenomenon has not been excluded, which is demanded in "refuting the null hypothesis".
8. "Environmental engineers" who support AGW have recommended drastic, potentially very harmful "remedies" to AGW, such as flooding the atmosphere with Sulpher Dioxide and covering expanses of land with reflective plastics. Similar "remedies" have led to destroying massive areas of the Brazillian rain forest, which WILL have long lasting consequences to the planet. I certainly do not want these over zealous, misguided individuals to cause irreparable harm to the environment.
Last edited by a moderator:
D
deleted993114
No- as ridiculous as denying the holocaust is, people are entitled to their opinion, just as the anti-vaxers, naturopathic medicine adherents, GMO food haters, and those who believe organic foods are beneficial. All defy objective evidence, yet there are groups who ardently support those positions. Holocaust denial is harmful is some regards, as such sentiments are fueling renewed anti-Semitic behavior around the world. Witness the rise in anti-semiticism in the US, even among US representatives in Congress.
You cure ignorance through education. Efforts should always be made to educate, rather than personally attack people who have different beliefs. Very few, if any, respond to aggressive condemnation and derisive labels, but are more receptive to rational, well considered evidence.
We, as physicians, are scientists and should try to remain objective in evaluating medical, as well as other scientific hypotheses. I have partners (MDs) who do not believe in creation due to religious reasons. I am a Catholic, yet believe in evolution and understand the Bible has many allegories, which are not to be taken literally. One of the brightest men I have ever encountered (James Van Allen- of the Van Allen radiation belts and NASA) was a devout Catholic who saw no discrepancies between Christianity and science.
BTW- Van Allen trained James Hansen (the originator of the AGW theory) and thought that his assertions were blatantly false and not based on objective scientific data.
- Joined
- Nov 10, 2010
- Messages
- 1,175
- Reaction score
- 811
What’s AGW?
D
deleted993114
Anthropomorphic Global Warming.
D
deleted993114
Where do I get some of that magic underwear? Does it come in boxers?
Religion is a personal issue; I am a Catholic convert (previously atheist as a kid). Much of physics (like Laplace and theories of time) are based on statistical probability. Some of the greatest scientists I have know have been religious men as well, and really feel as though there is not incompatibility between religion and science, due to the statistical probability of an organized universe. These men were very objective, critical bench scientists as well, and were not superstitious rubes.
To each his, own, however. I never try to convince anyone to believe in God or not and think that is a very individual, private decision. I can tell you when you are facing near certain death, however, it comes in pretty handy in making you feel better. When I go to mass, I walk away feeling better, so it works for me. I really don't care if other people do not like it, just as I don't care what political party someone belongs to, their race, favorite football team, or music style.
I often wonder why many other people care about what someone else thinks anyway? Who cares? Per this, political discussions and discourse should be eliminated from a medical curriculum, as it is not relevant to medicine and creates emotional divisions among the staff, when we really, really need a united front in patient care. When patients or staff ask me who I am going to vote for, I always tell them I am voting for them.
I wonder whether I am "rightie", or "leftie", "ambidextrous" or just don't care?
- Joined
- Jan 9, 2002
- Messages
- 6,517
- Reaction score
- 3,074
Video showing hundreds of shackled, blindfolded prisoners in China is 'genuine'
Human rights groups say China is holding one million people, mostly ethnic Uighurs, at detention camps - a charge Beijing denies.
news.sky.com
Mass concentration camps in China of Uyghur Muslim Chinese citizens. Some estimates that there are 1,000,000 in detention centers.
Their crime? Religion that is not the state religion.
This is what socialist antitheist leftists like some here on SDN want for those of us who do not agree with THEIR viewpoints. Thought crimes. Detention centers. The only accepted religion is leftist socialist dogma. Any deviation is intolerable.
What do I want for leftists and all citizens of the USA? Free speech (even if it hurts feelings), religious or anti-religious freedom. The ability to fight back against a tyrannical government.
This is what happens when thought control runs amok. This is exactly the end goal of PC culture. State control.
D
deleted993114
Video showing hundreds of shackled, blindfolded prisoners in China is 'genuine'
Human rights groups say China is holding one million people, mostly ethnic Uighurs, at detention camps - a charge Beijing denies.
Mass concentration camps in China of Uyghur Muslim Chinese citizens. Some estimates that there are 1,000,000 in detention centers.
Their crime? Religion that is not the state religion.
This is what socialist antitheist leftists like some here on SDN want for those of us who do not agree with THEIR viewpoints. Thought crimes. Detention centers. The only accepted religion is leftist socialist dogma. Any deviation is intolerable.
What do I want for leftists and all citizens of the USA? Free speech (even if it hurts feelings), religious or anti-religious freedom. The ability to fight back against a tyrannical government.
This is what happens when thought control runs amok. This is exactly the end goal of PC culture. State control.
The basis of modern liberalism lies in the Frankfurt School, which was a marxist think tank created by Stalin in order to make the west more susceptible to communism. It is an interesting history that people should understand, particularly those who are enamored with modern leftism, which was not created for altruistic purposes.
Schiller InstituteTHE NEW DARK AGE The Frankfurt School and "Political Correctness"
THE NEW DARK AGE The Frankfurt School and "Political Correctness"
archive.schillerinstitute.com
One can understand how and why PC language, attacks on the family, the middle class, and the church have become central objectives of this philosophy. An interesting read for those who are fond of the origins of political movements. As a student of history, I have always been fond of the political musings of totalitarians, as one comes to appreciate how their ideology, despite being deeply flawed, is propagated to the general population. One SHOULD read the writings of the Frankfurt School, Das Kapital, and Mein Kampf to understand the mindset of those who oppose the concept of individual liberty and the strength of individual rational thought and achievement. Of course, one would hope that a healthy dose of Jefferson had preceded those readings.
