BlipBlap

Right, so if you have a psych degree, you should be familiar with the monoamine hypothesis for depression. Since you didn't make the connection between my initial comment regarding the similarity RLS has to depression, I'm going to go out on a limb and say that your degree didn't actually got into the physiology or it's very much out of date.

Distinction without a difference. The point is that you didn't natively know it and had to consult material outside yourself, hence the term "looking it up". You had to look up the doctor who eventually gave it to you, yes? Note that I didn't say that that sleep study was entirely useless, just pointless. As I asked before, why would I bother ordering a sleep study on something that isn't a sleep disorder? If insurance companies are supposedly making it unprofitable to listen to your patients, why are you acting like ordering superfluous tests that will cost you more as a patient is somehow a good thing? If you come to me with RLS, I'm not going to order all that. I'd just give you a low-dose dopamine agonist and reevaluate in 6-ish weeks.

Again, why would a sleep study be particularly relevant to RLS when it isn't a sleep disorder and can often occur when awake? It's a movement disorder like Parkinson's.

Monoamine problem. In the case of RLS, a deficiency of the neurotransmitter dopamine.

It isn't unique to them, but this is certainly a case where the Skinner meme applies. "Am I the problem? No, it's the bigger group that is the problem". Look at all of the excuses made for it. Racism Sexism -phobia Affluenza Poverty The first three are especially popular, and when it's pointed out that the labels are illogical or that past realities are no longer reality, other concepts have to be introduced. See the concept of "microaggression". See "equality" being replaced with "equity" with nary a word said about when those things will be satisfied, almost like the advocates of such don't want it to be satisfied. They just want an excuse to do as they please based on past problems they never faced and current "problems" they have to either exaggerate or manufacture whole cloth without any regard for the damage it will cause. While I think their politics are atrocious, Key and Peele did a skit about 12 years ago called "Office Homophobe". The last 20 seconds or so is something that never seems to be considered by the population at large.

Of course I looked it up, why wouldn't I have? You certainly didn't know that it had been described as early as the 1600s without looking it up yourself. The issue is that you're missing the point. While it may have been described that long ago, the description provided can be applied to several other conditions as well, which makes bringing it up a pointless argument. A doctor likely didn't recommend a sleep study because a sleep study generally isn't used to diagnose restless leg syndrome at all. It CAN be used, but it usually isn't because it isn't all that useful. He likely thought you were depressed because you were describing symptoms that go right along with it. Even then, the current prevailing hypothesis for RLS is similar to depression No one here's arguing that pointing out stagnation is equivalent to saying there's no value. The point is that everything is a two-way street, and the popular opinion is that institutions are always held to a higher standard while those that inhabit them who aren't in leadership/provider roles aren't. Again, see RLS. You complain that a sleep study wasn't done, but you lack sufficient knowledge about the usefulness of a sleep study in diagnosing RLS to justify your criticism. Hint: A sleep study won't help work out a dopamine deficiency, which is the current prevailing hypothesis for the cause of RLS. It would've been a pointless study and therefore a pointless expense. It isn't really a sleep disorder at all (especially since it can occur while awake but still), but something more akin to Parkinson's. Insurance companies haven't made listening to patients unprofitable. If anything, the opposite is the more likely case. If doctors don't listen to their patients, they wouldn't make any money at all as people would stop going.

Chapter 4 is especially concerning since it opens the door for pointing out the likely possibility of not only infiltration of the medical system by ideologues, but external pressure from special interest groups to effectively force prioritization of affirmative care. We already know that doctors have been successfully sued for refusing to provide, and while the lawsuit was based on non-discrimination laws, that creates other problems, namely at what point does that end and "do no harm" begin? They'll get sued for not providing the care and then get sued again years later by the same people for providing the care that has caused them harm. It's a constant Catch-22 brought about by the shrill, jackbooted trans lobby.

Of course sometimes doctors are to blame, but how often are institutions blamed for the failings of those that make them up versus the individuals themselves in popular discourse? It's almost always "the system", "the man", "the establishment", etc. Self-criticism and accountability are anathema to the modern human ego. Strictly speaking, restless leg syndrome wasn't "ignored", it was just very difficult to diagnose properly as it relied entirely on subjective information. It was only described in a most basic sense in 1672, and based on the description, there's no way to differentiate it from a host of other conditions that present similarly. Even now the cause is unknown, and part of that is due to the difficulty of doing any kind of human testing. Much of the same crowd who will complain about doctors ignoring them on one hand will make it more difficult for doctors to conduct rigorous study on humans with the other. There doesn't need to be active promotion or a list of recommendations. Sure, they're helpful, but you can still go out and assess material on your own. No one worth listening to is going to rag on you for not having time, but you should take that lack of time into account when developing your feelings about something. I do not have much experience with car engines and I don't feel like I have the time to devote to studying them. Therefore, I do not try to work out an opinion on the quality of any particular engine. Futhermore, as no mechanic is infallible, I'm not going to take the word of any single one at face value. This goes beyond the "leading a horse to water". At some point, the horse is going to have to walk itself to the water.

To add to it, such a concept was espoused upon by figures who are (or were) held in high regard in other churches. They even have similar teachings that have continued, see theosis in Eastern Orthodox and Eastern Catholic traditions.

It's almost like context matters and projecting modern morals doesn't work.

Almost like they know that negative news sells. The church doesn't say much of anything about retention rates, but no church does that at all.

Implying that God's commandments have only to do with morals. It stands to reason that such prohibitions were for health reasons and that the people, for the most part, were unable to comprehend the idea of micro-organisms in blood that could cause food-borne illnesses. We encountered similar in places like Afghanistan, where a lot of the locals did not go to the bathroom in an area that was separate from where they ate. You tell them to not crap where they eat and to wash their hands, they see their health improve, and they thank you for it (some do at least). You don't need to go into microbiology other than "Hey there's bad stuff in your feces and you don't want that in your food", "Hey there's bad stuff in this meat, so either don't eat it at all or make sure it's cooked very thoroughly". Slavery doesn't go "unaddressed". It was considered as reparations for war or as a penalty for crime. That can be easily determined through comprehension of the written texts as well as understanding the context of the time in which these texts were written (if you believe that Moses wrote the original Torah) or the time of which the texts illustrate (if you don't). So slavery among the Hebrews wasn't initially chattel slavery, but as a form of restitution. Again, this is the issue with presentism. You can't ignore that Mosaic Law was for a primitive people, so modern thoughts on certain moral topics are not applicable. This is especially true when context has to be ignored in order to justify any outrage.

And yet you can't discount the idea that you can be the issue. Doctors aren't always to blame for the conditions of their patients.

While that may be true as a general rule, Russia had passed anti-proselytizing laws back in 2016 as part of the Yarovaya laws attempting to combat what was seen as terrorism. Like most European nations, Russia doesn't really have freedom of religion, so this was bound to happen sooner or later regardless of the war in Ukraine.

We can look to the Old Testament and see that polygamy wasn't considered as wrong by default. Nathan quite literally tells David that God gave him Saul's wives. The verses in Exodus regarding the fair treatment of multiple wives wouldn't exist if polygamy was wrong by default. It would simply have been considered another form of adultery and those engaging in it would have suffered the same punishment.