Selecting people to lead based on their skills and abilities rather than skin color or sexual persuasion is “malignant,” according to the Liaison Committee on Medical Education (LCME), which accredits all medical schools in North America.

The LCME, which is cosponsored by the American Medical Association (AMA) and the Association of American Medical Colleges (AAMC), also now says that there is “no genetic or scientific basis” behind the idea of race.

Both the AMA and the AAMC, by the way, released a controversial guide on October 30 about “advancing health equity” through “language, narrative, and concepts.”

“Those concepts include the ideas that ‘individualism and meritocracy’ are ‘malignant narratives’ that ‘create harm,’ that using race as a proxy for genetics ‘leads directly to racial health inequities,’ and that medical vulnerability is the ‘result of socially created processes’ rather than biology,” reported the Washington Free Beacon (WFB).

The U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) put out a similar “inclusive communications” guide around the same time that calls for Americans to view health through a more tolerant “health equity lens.”

Should any of this nonsense go mainstream, it will ruin the practice of medicine by degrading its integrity. Five professors and doctors told the WFB that allowing this would be a “catastrophe,” resulting in “underqualified doctors, missed diagnoses, and unscientific medical school curricula.”

Not only will doctors end up talking differently, these people added, but the way they treat patients will also change. People with certain skin colors (ahem, light-skinned people) could get discriminated against, among other concerns.

Making medicine “progressive” will be the final nail in the coffin

There are also genetic components to disease that may also get overlooked. People from certain ethnic backgrounds appear to be more prone than others to becoming chronically ill, which if not detected early could result in death.

“Some vulnerability isn’t about economic or social marginalization,” says Jeff Singer, a general surgeon in Arizona. “A lot of conditions vary based on genetics. We’re talking about matters of life and death here.”

One such condition is Tay-Sachs, which is said to disproportionately impact Ashkenazi Jews. Another is triple-negative breast cancer, which disproportionately affects black women.

Back in March, five black professors published a paper in the New England Journal of Medicine (NEJM) describing genetic denialism as “a form of naïve ‘color blindness'” that has the potential to “perpetuate and potentially exacerbate disparities.”

This effort to institutionalize progressivism into public health rhetoric and curriculum will only end up worsening health outcomes for everyone. And perhaps that is the true goal, along with creating chaos and more social division.

A few members of the AMA have spoken out against the agenda, but they would seem to be the exception rather than the rule. They warned that changing language and curriculum to suit a progressive agenda will alienate patients while injecting an ideology into medicine.

“That ideological injection has been administered by an incestuous network of nonprofits that supply and legitimize the language of activist physicians,” reported the Beacon.

“The guide’s citations include Race Forward, which lobbied against the Trump administration’s executive order on critical race theory, and the Narrative Initiative, which promotes ‘durable narrative change’ to ‘make equity and social justice common sense.'”

Race Forward is funded by the W.K. Kellogg Foundation, and the Narrative Initiative “was conceived and funded by The Atlantic Philanthropies and Ford Foundation,” according to the group’s website.

George Soros is also behind this agenda, his Open Society Foundations claiming that the practice of DNA testing “weaves together dominant narratives of racism and individualism into a biological determinism.”

No comments:

Post a Comment