Doctor, your CDC protocols are unethical and potentially deadly.
The Ethical Dilemma of Medical Protocols and Overwhelmed Sick Healthcare Systems that many of us warned about and tried to prevent. Now is another opportunity.
Medical protocols are established procedures and guidelines designed to standardise patient care, ensuring consistency and safety in treatment across diverse healthcare settings. While these protocols aim to enhance patient outcomes, streamline healthcare delivery, and minimize errors, they often raise significant ethical concerns. The rigidity of standardised protocols, designed by medical computer geeks who have probably never treated patients past a hospital internship, can almost always undermine personalised patient care, perpetuate systemic biases, and prioritise pharmaceutical interests over individual well-being.
CDC Director Mandy Cohen, director of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), recently delivered a commencement speech at Wake Forest University. Although she aimed to inspire, her overly rehearsed speech epitomised everything wrong within the healthcare system. The speech intended to inspire. However, her overly rehearsed delivery highlighted the systemic issues plaguing the healthcare system.
Cohen shared a personal story from her early career, where despite following protocol, both her actions and the system failed her patient. She recounted treating a patient named "Jennifer" for unexplained hair loss, lethargy, weight loss, and bloating. After conducting numerous tests over eight weeks, all of which returned normal results, Cohen remained puzzled. It wasn't until a nurse suggested asking Jennifer if she had enough to eat that Cohen realised she had overlooked a fundamental aspect of patient care.
Cohen admitted that her failure to ask basic questions led to Jennifer’s needless suffering. She emphasised that, like many doctors, she adhered to protocols, often dubbed the "Big Pharma agenda," rather than practicing personalised medicine. The last few generations of doctors have graduated as protocol robots. Their clinical and critical thinking skills have been seriously diminished by conflicted medical schools that trained them.
CDC director Cohen leads the organization responsible for creating these protocols, which result in patients being treated as disease entities. Very little history and patient examination is conducted these days with symptoms and signs missed, overlooked, patients misdiagnosed then harmed by pharmaceutical interventions.
Cohen's speech also touched on the broader issues within the healthcare system. She noted that doctors often treat patients like products on an assembly line, following CDC recommendations that perpetuate the "Pharma Sell Cycle," ensuring continuous profits for pharmaceutical companies and dependency on a flawed healthcare, disease oriented system. Basically, the doctors and their professors have become salesmen and super salesmen respectively.
"The system I worked in made it super easy for me to miss the person in front of me," Cohen said, highlighting how easy it is for healthcare providers to dismiss vaccine injuries and other adverse effects. This same system, she pointed out, is responsible for the rising rates of chronic disease and illness in children, exacerbated by the push for widespread vaccination.
Cohen confessed that it was easier to order tests than to connect a patient’s lifestyle to their health, a mindset influenced by her education and training. She acknowledged the difficulty of connecting patients to essential resources like housing, counselling, and food, which are crucial for their overall well-being.
Despite her intention to show how she now prioritises people’s health, Cohen's words rang hollow, given her lack of an active medical license for over a decade and her current role in an agency known for creating one-size-fits-all protocols.
Cohen advised graduates to actually show up, look people in the eye, listen, bring their full selves to the table and build trust by demonstrating trustworthiness.
(I would also suggest they return to practicing ethical clinical medicine and stop gawking at their computer screens, tell the medical boards and regulators to dissolve themselves whilst we the doctors have secured united front with strong leadership)
However, her claims of truth and transparency seem insincere, as her actions have yet to align with her rhetoric. Cohen has an opportunity to build trust by engaging in an open conversation with Reform Pharma about the declining state of children’s health in the U.S. Trust in the CDC continues to fade and will be difficult to regain as long as Pharma are involved.
Reform Pharma has invited Cohen for a candid discussion to address these concerns. While the CDC has requested more information, Reform Pharma hopes Cohen will seize this opportunity. Meanwhile, as she continues her national tour, many wait for Cohen to "actually show up," "look us in the eyes," and "listen."
Reform Pharma, an initiative of Children’s Health Defense, aims to eliminate Big Pharma corruption and restore integrity to healthcare.
My concerns for Australians are that the tentacles of the US CDC now have a grip on our lovely country with the establishment of a seriously corrupted Australian CDC dictating our health policy.
Ian Brighthope
For more information, visit ReformPharmaNow.org.
The Ethical Dilemma of Medical Protocols
Ian Brighthope
Medical protocols are established procedures and guidelines designed to standardise patient care, ensuring consistency and safety in treatment across diverse healthcare settings. While these protocols aim to enhance patient outcomes, streamline healthcare delivery, and minimise errors, they often raise significant ethical concerns. The rigidity of standardised protocols can sometimes undermine personalised patient care, perpetuate systemic biases, and prioritise pharmaceutical interests over individual well-being.
One of the primary ethical issues with medical protocols is their tendency to prioritise standardisation over individualised care. Medical protocols are designed to apply universally, offering the same treatment approach to all patients with similar conditions. While this can be beneficial in ensuring a baseline level of care, it often overlooks the unique circumstances and needs of individual patients. Every patient presents with a distinct set of biological, psychological, and social factors that influence their health. More importantly, every individual has a different set of genes and in terms of genomics, individuality is a crucial factor in nutritional requirements. The one-size-fits-all nature of medical protocols can lead to treatments that are not optimally suited to individual patients, potentially causing harm, inadequate care and at the extreme, death.
For instance, protocols for managing chronic diseases such as diabetes often emphasise medication adherence, lifestyle modifications and significant changes to nutritional status. However, they may not account for patients' socioeconomic conditions, cultural backgrounds, or personal preferences. This can result in non-compliance, frustration, and worsening health outcomes. Ethical medical practice requires a nuanced approach that considers the whole person, something rigid protocols nearly always fail to provide.
Medical protocols can also perpetuate systemic biases within the healthcare system. These biases can manifest in various forms, including racial, gender, and socioeconomic disparities. For example, clinical guidelines and protocols are frequently based on research conducted predominantly on certain demographic groups, typically white males. As a result, the recommendations may not be as effective or appropriate for other populations, such as women, minorities, and individuals from different socioeconomic backgrounds.
The lack of representation in clinical research leads to protocols that do not adequately address the diverse needs of all patients. This perpetuates health disparities and contributes to unequal treatment outcomes. Ethically, healthcare providers have a duty to ensure equitable care for all patients, regardless of their background. To achieve this, protocols must be developed and continually revised with inclusivity and diversity in mind, incorporating data and insights from a wide range of populations.
Another ethical concern is the influence of pharmaceutical companies on the development and implementation of medical protocols. The close relationship between healthcare providers and the pharmaceutical industry leads to conflicts of interest, where the primary goal shifts from patient care to profit maximisation. This is evident in the "Pharma Sell Cycle," where protocols often emphasise medication-based treatments over alternative or holistic approaches.
Pharmaceutical companies invest heavily in research, marketing, and lobbying efforts to ensure their products are included in medical guidelines. This results in an over-reliance on drugs, sometimes at the expense of exploring other effective treatments. For example, the opioid crisis in the United States was exacerbated by protocols that promoted opioid prescriptions for pain management, driven by aggressive marketing from pharmaceutical companies. The consequences have been devastating, highlighting the ethical failures of allowing profit-driven motives to influence medical protocols.The same applies to the marketing of the useless and dangerous covid GMO vaccines.
Implementing ethical medical protocols requires a multifaceted approach. First, there must be a commitment to patient-centered care, where protocols serve as flexible guidelines rather than rigid rules. Healthcare providers should be encouraged to exercise clinical judgment and consider each patient's unique context. This can be facilitated through continuous education and training that emphasises the importance of personalised care. Unfortunately doctors have come to treat protocols as gospel and forgotten the principals of ethical patient management.
Second, the development of protocols must involve diverse voices and perspectives. This includes conducting inclusive research that represents various demographic groups and engaging with communities to understand their specific health needs. By doing so, protocols can be more equitable and effective for all patients.
Third, transparency and accountability are crucial. The influence of pharmaceutical companies on medical protocols must be scrutinised and minimised, with clear guidelines to manage conflicts of interest. Independent review boards and ethical committees can play a vital role in overseeing the development and implementation of protocols, ensuring they align with the best interests of patients. Unfortunately such boards seem to be conflicted as well.
The COVID-19 pandemic has brought unprecedented challenges to healthcare systems worldwide, prompting the implementation of stringent protocols aimed at controlling the spread of the virus and managing patient care. However, these protocols, while well-intentioned, have had dire consequences, particularly in intensive care units (ICUs). As someone who witnessed the effects of these protocols firsthand, I can describe how they contributed to patient mortality in several critical ways.
One of the most immediate impacts of COVID-19 protocols was the overwhelming strain placed on healthcare systems. ICUs, already designed to handle critically ill patients, became inundated with COVID-19 cases. Hospitals had to rapidly adapt to the surge, often without sufficient resources, staff, or equipment. This led to a situation where medical staff were stretched thin, working long hours under extreme pressure. The quality of care inevitably suffered as a result, with patients not receiving the timely and attentive care they needed. The use of preventive and early treatments would have kept patients out of hospital and intensive care units enabled to conduct themselves in the usual manner. This neglect was a major flaw in the management of Covid.
Isolation protocols were a significant aspect of COVID-19 management. To prevent the spread of the virus, patients were isolated from their families and, in many cases, from other patients. While necessary from an infection control perspective, these measures had severe psychological and physiological impacts on patients. The absence of family members deprived patients of emotional support, which is crucial for recovery. Moreover, the isolation often meant that symptoms and deteriorations in a patient's condition went unnoticed for longer periods, delaying critical interventions.
Visitation restrictions were another challenging aspect of COVID-19 protocols. Family members, who often play a vital role in advocating for their loved ones and assisting in their care, were barred from entering ICUs. This left many patients without the comfort and advocacy that family presence provides. In cases where patients were unable to communicate their needs effectively, this absence was particularly detrimental. Decisions about care were made without the input or knowledge of those who knew the patients best, sometimes resulting in suboptimal care plans.
The focus on COVID-19 patients also meant that other medical conditions often went untreated or were deprioritised. Routine surgeries and procedures were postponed, and many patients with chronic illnesses found it difficult to access necessary medical care. In ICUs, this meant that patients who developed complications or who had underlying conditions exacerbated by COVID-19 did not receive timely interventions. The delayed treatment of non-COVID-related issues frequently led to worsening conditions and, in some cases, death.
Resource allocation became a grim reality in many ICUs. With ventilators, medications, and even basic supplies in short supply, healthcare providers faced difficult triage decisions. Protocols were established to prioritise patients based on their likelihood of survival and potential for recovery. While these decisions were made with the best intentions, they inevitably led to situations where some patients did not receive the life-saving care they needed. The ethical and emotional burden on healthcare providers making these decisions was immense, and the impact on patient outcomes was devastating.
The early stages of the pandemic saw a heavy reliance on ventilators for treating severe COVID-19 cases. Protocols dictated their use for patients with significant respiratory distress. However, emerging evidence later suggested that ventilator use might not have been the best approach for all patients, causing harm in most cases. The initial protocols, driven by the urgent need to save lives, did not always adapt quickly enough to evolving understandings of the disease, leading to unintended negative outcomes.
COVID-19 protocols necessitated a highly standardised approach to patient care. With the overwhelming number of cases, individualized treatment plans became a luxury many healthcare providers could not afford. This lack of personalised care often meant that patients with unique needs or atypical responses to the virus did not receive the optimal treatment. The rigid adherence to protocols, while intended to provide a uniform standard of care, resulted in the neglect of the nuances that could make a difference in a patient's survival.
Witnessing the impact of COVID-19 protocols in intensive care units was a sobering experience. While some of these protocols were essential in managing an unprecedented public health crisis, their implementation sometimes had fatal consequences. The strain on healthcare systems, isolation measures, restrictive visitation policies, delayed treatments, difficult resource allocation decisions, and the lack of personalised care all contributed to patient mortality. These experiences highlight the need for flexibility, compassion, and continuous reassessment of protocols to ensure that they serve the best interests of patients, even in the most challenging circumstances.
The arrogance, ignorance and self-interest of the medical leaders and heads of hospital units was unprecedented but not unexpected. The delusional belief that ‘we know best’ by the intensivists has resulted in many unnecessary deaths, occasions that I will never forget.
Ian Brighthope
The CDC (and “guidelines”) is a battering ram used by corpofascist CEOs and HR departments to put employees under their thumb. Politicians do the same, shirking their responsibilities to balance economic and liberty concerns with real science and public health, following CDC faux-based to the other’s detriment. A very dangerous weapon indeed.
Ian, I don`t know anyone personally who suffered serious illness or death from covid. The fatality rate in Australia was ~0.16% and there has been significantly worse flu seasons in the past.
Unfortunately, I am aware of many people who suffered serious injuries from the bioweapon jabs, including possibly three members in one family. No doubt you are correct regarding the arrogance and self interest of the medical leaders contributing to this iatrogenic crisis.