Use my Search Websuite to scan PubMed, PMCentral, Journal Hosts and Journal Archives, FullText. Kick-your-searchterm to multiple Engines kick-your-query now !>

A dictionary by aggregated review articles of nephrology, medicine and the life sciences Your one-stop-run pathway from word to the immediate pdf of peer-reviewed on-topic knowledge.

10.1093/shm/hkr166 http://scihub22266oqcxt.onion/10.1093/shm/hkr166 C4558944!4558944!26345469     free     free     free       Soc+Hist+Med 2012 ; 25 (3): 719-28 Nephropedia Template TP {{tp|p=26345469|t=2012. The Global Menace |pdf=|usr=}}{{26345469}} gab.com Text The Global Menace JO: Soc Hist Med http://www.kidney.de/pget.php?&tw=1&pmid=26345469 #FOAvip The history of medicine has gone ?global.? Why? Can the proliferation of the ?global? in our writing be explained away as a product of staying true to our historical subjects? categories? Or has this historiography in fact delivered a new ?global? problematic or performed serious ?global? analytic work? The situation is far from clear, and it is the tension between the global as descriptor and an analytics of the global that concerns me here. I have three main concerns: (1) that there is an epistemic collusion between the discourses of universality that inform medical science and global-talk; (2) that the embrace of the ?global? authorises a turning away from analyses of power in history-writing in that (3) this turning away from analyses of power in history-writing leads to scholarship that reproduces rather than critiques globalisation as a set of institutions, discourses and practices. Twit Text FOAVip The Global Menace ????Soc Hist Med http://www.kidney.de/pget.php?&tw=1&pmid=26345469 #FOAvip Twit Text # Free Paper on # # # # # LINK http://www.kidney.de/pget.php?&tw=1&pmid=26345469 #FOAvip English Wikipedia <ref>{{Cite pmid|26345469}}</ref> The Global Menace #MMPMID26345469 Hodges S Soc Hist Med 2012[Aug]; 25 (3): 719-28 PMID26345469show ga The history of medicine has gone ?global.? Why? Can the proliferation of the ?global? in our writing be explained away as a product of staying true to our historical subjects? categories? Or has this historiography in fact delivered a new ?global? problematic or performed serious ?global? analytic work? The situation is far from clear, and it is the tension between the global as descriptor and an analytics of the global that concerns me here. I have three main concerns: (1) that there is an epistemic collusion between the discourses of universality that inform medical science and global-talk; (2) that the embrace of the ?global? authorises a turning away from analyses of power in history-writing in that (3) this turning away from analyses of power in history-writing leads to scholarship that reproduces rather than critiques globalisation as a set of institutions, discourses and practices. äThe Global Menace (epmc).pdf DeepDyve Pubget Overpricing