There are significant differences of opinion among experts about certain new medical products and protocols, but those who present empirical evidence that counters the claims of those who sell the P&Ps–pharmaceutical companies, government bureaucrats, medical corporations, hospital administrators, and broadcasters in league with them–risk their jobs and in some cases their licenses, for speaking up.
This should not be.
First, because consumers have a right to know, and secondly, because when it comes to medical products and protocols, there are already standards in place to protect patients that whistle-blowers and insiders allege are being ignored, placing patients in harm’s way.
For three key examples:
- Scientific Method:https://www.extension.purdue.edu/extmedia/ID/ID-507-w.pdf
- Clinical Trial Protocol: “A best practices protocol for managing a particular condition which includes a treatment plan founded on evidence-based strategies and consensus statements by peers in the field” (freedictionary.com).
- Regarding clinical trials see also PROTECTION OF HUMAN SUBJECTS. Such official documents can be cumbersome to read and time-consuming, but when considering products and protocols that impact literal life and death decisions, truth is in the details.
- And of particular importance in this case, consider also The Nuremberg Code.
See what you think.
But think critically.
P.S. And if you know what this refers to, you’ve already begun.-pbn
Note: if the following is scrubbed or unavailable (that in itself worthy of concern with regard to the standards), try it on the sites below.
If the video is unavailable, try this source:
Or this one: