Collegian calculus and the vaguely possible protocol

The college has no authority or credibility because of it's own numbers. Their word cannot be used in court as the public's attorney would immediately call attention to these numbers (the sum totals of their investigations). How many of the college's rare rulings (against a doctor) are related to a sexual offense as opposed to quackery? The fact of the matter is if we applied pure math to the college's numbers it would be necessary to throw them all out. Recalling our last dicussion on collegian calculus we discovered the vast majority of of the college's rulings (against a doctor) were of a sexual nature and had little to do with the practice of medicine or public safety. How could this be possible? These numbers represent an anomaly too large to ignore and as a result bring into question every decision the college ever made.

Why was the college's weak protocol ever substituted for the manufacturer recommendations for Cipro? Someone at the college suggested medicine is not an exact science but is that still valid when it is engineered to be so? Would it be difficult or confusing to direct blame of a malpractice if doctors follow this thin, engineered protocol rather than the CPS. Is this the real reason why somehow the college's protocol which relies on only a single vague possibility (empirical treatment for possible UTI) came to replace the CPS and has allowed great quantities of Cipro to be pumped compared to if the necessary safety protocols had to be followed? For instance the manufacturer advises susceptibility tests be performed (in a test tube, not the college's way). In addition if NGU is suspected, which is the leading cause of bladder infection in young adult males (possible UTI), then a concurrent regimen of doxycycline would be necessary to prevent risk of a superinfection which is an exponential bacterial overgrowth resulting in cell destruction and mutation. The reason being that any bacteria unsusceptible to Cipro is propogated exponentially as a mutated strain instead of being killed. So how does that translate to a human testsubject? If you consider the path of NGU (travels through the penis, then testicles then prostate), when Cipro is introduced the NGU is propogated exponentially creating a localized trauma (in your penis).

The results of this experiment can be seen in nature. Say you have a crossbow with a stored energy of 200 lbs. It has stirrups for your feet and your boots are too big. As you are pulling back the bolt to full draw, the stirrups slip off your toes and the knock is driven back into your penis with a concentrated force. A couple days later your penis may appear swollen but the next morning you awake to find your penis looking shriveled and deflated. This condition does not improve and when you see the doctor he tells you there is a 50/50 chance your penis could eventually grow back as it has sustained significant localized trauma. The similarity to a superinfection ends there as one is an unfortunate accident and the other is a deviant malpractice. In truth this could be accomplished with a single well placed blow with a 24 oz framing hammer which represents the blunt instrument that is the college's protocol.

The college would have you believe that the sheer sophistication of their doctors would completely make up for their primitive protocol but the only way to know if a bacteria is susceptible to Cipro is with a susceptibility test. To believe this could be detected by the naked eye or by using some innate sixth sense or superior powers of reasoning and deduction is more evidence of the college's elitist counter culture. Obviously it is crucial our institutions are legitimate even if their word is no good in an actual court of law. The college's counter culture is too cynical, partisan, biased and incapable of empathy for the public if they can only see what is vaguely possible and not the actual truth. There is no point sitting back waiting for the rest of the civilized world to decide when empirical treatment with Cipro will be banned as this only lends to the illusion our institutions have not been complicit in these cruelly calculated experiments when they most certainly are. Supposedly this is a complicated issue but can no one recall " What a tangled web we Weave " or Pandora's box? That is where our governments store their Cipro.

At this juncture I am asking for a federal intervention in the form of a nation wide ban on empirical treatment with Cipro. The practice of medicine is provincial jurisdiction but reporting the side effects of Cipro is federally mandated.

The college's elitist counter culture and their refusal to table the relevant warnings in the CPS or the German studies I submitted to both the college and the ministry of health in 2001/2002 , preclude them from being able to draw the necessary parallels to ascertain what the side effects of Cipro even are. That and the fact that their own experiment, where the outcome is already assumed, lacks the controls of a proper experiment and compromises the people's empirical data .

In the many letters I wrote to the college/ government in that time period I implored them to explain how this protocol could be adequate or even consistent with basic human rights. But in 16 years time I have received no answer. There can be no meaningful discussion in Alberta or anywhere in Canada if our regional authorities have nothing to say because there is nobody capable of plugging the gaping hole in their feeble protocol (bluntest of instruments).

Until empirical treatment with Cipro is banned, the public will continue to be at the mercy of the whims of the college's sophisticates who believe they can ascertain susceptibility to Cipro through visual examinations and superior instincts and reasoning. The existence of the college's blunt instrument is clear evidence of their animus towards the public.

0 likes, 2 replies