Healthy Mitochondria

Jordan B Peterson to be "re-educated" due to his political opinions.

In this interview, Peterson describes how the Canadian court ruled that, although he has a fundamental right to free speech, the "College of Psychologists" can make up any rule at any time that can limit his free speech.

NOTE: what makes this worse is that nothing he did or said had anything to do with a patient; he no longer has "patients" but he maintains his license. Is it truly a fundamental right if a group can infringe upon that right at their sole discretion, when the right isn't being exercised under the purview of the field (a/k/a on your own time)? This position is a slippery slope stance that could eventually be expanded to open up risk to every self-help author and influencer, and anyone with their own opinion who makes that opinion public. (We have already seen in the last couple years how people were censored for not agreeing with the government supported stance; but now their stated positions are being validated. These professionals had educated themselves and came to vastly different conclusions and were silenced because they would not conform.)

This leads me to my personal belief that this has also been happening in the medical profession for decades. The AMA, NIH, or any other sub-category organization, creates a one size fits all "treatment protocol" for practically every condition or situation. It has turned a great majority of medicine into an "if this, then that" checklist that a small group determines and implements. Unfortunately, a one-size-fits-all pill is usually at the end of that process. Doctors are endocrinated to accept these flow charts and utilize them instead of taking a case-by-case, individualized approach.

How? The organization gains wide consensus by telling professionals that "treatment protocols" offer protection against malpractice suits, because following these established standards will insulate doctors from findings of wrong-doing if every other potential doctor-witness testifies they would have done the exact same thing.

Except now the doctor has been forced to accept and incorporate whatever the organization deems correct, with no deference for the doctor to make an independent decision. More correctly, the doctor "can" make that independent decision, but they do so by placing themselves at risk:

 - to be found liable in a suit;

 - for an action against their license by the licensing organization;

 - or at a minimum, professional alienation by the whole of the group who will feel compelled to distance themselves, which will ultimately result in attacks to their reputation.

All of these risks will effect the professional's ability to make a living practicing their chosen field that they spent massive effort and a fortune to become qualified.

So I found Peterson's comments enlightening in that any professional organization can make up standards at any time, using any basis they choose, even if it is contrary to the science, and those "standards" can be used not to protect the practitioner or the field in general (that's the excuse they spout out loud), but rather to control the professional's freedom to truly "practice" their field at all.

The above discussion doesn't even scratch the surface of all the backdoor interests driving the creation of these policies and standards, all focused on monetary gain.