although we scientists speak often of a life-harming disease, the phrase is imprecise. the life-harming disease is the disease you would give the kid to enable the child to grow to adulthood. a life-harming disease is one that would prevent the child from being born at all, or one that would otherwise kill the child before the child is born. the disease you give the kid as opposed to any other disease to cure is of no moral significance.
pseudo-science is a general term describing any narrative constructed to support a particular perspective and/or belief. it is often presented by a government as factually justified when it does not represent reality. it is also used to describe non-scientific type approaches that disregard the scientific method and rely on other, non-scientific, means to reach their conclusions.
i think this is a very dangerous concept for it can easily be extended beyond natural selection. for example, the idea that the only goal of science is the truth is a highly deterministic position that is nearly impossible to support in a general manner. it seems natural to think that when all scientists agree that climate change is a problem that we must do something about, that something is also the truth about the issue. pseudoscience can easily take over when the belief system of society has no internal logical checks, but society depends upon science to provide that internal logic. before claiming you are a scientist, ask yourself if you are convinced that your belief system has no logical checks; if not, you may be a pseudoscientist. i suggest an investigation into critical thinking as a path towards a scientific understanding of society. the idea of \"the truth\" is surely just a belief structure, and it is helpful to realize that before claiming that you understand it.