Counselors, doctors, chemists, physicists, and others all have to learn the scientific method of research and experimentation; they are all scientists in their particular specialty of study.
There is big money involved in whoever's "scientific" study is approved, so sometimes the fight isn't about scientific truth as much as it is about bottom line truth. Tesla, the scientist, is a great example of a man in search of truth but whose ideas were suppressed and/or stolen so that Edison or others might profit.
Don't kid yourself, scientists are fallible human beings and subject to the same passion of greed as anyone else.
Medical doctors must study and understand scientific research. If I'm not mistaken, they are ethically required to stay abreast of current research so that they can help their patients in the real world. Is real science only conducted in clinical trials or can real science also be practically applicable through observational studies.
When there are two opposing opinions and outcomes on the application of medical treatment, whose opinion is most valid?
The doctor who has the loudest voice or the doctor who has had success in treatment outside of a clinical trial? What is a clinical trial anyway?
A clinical trial has different phases in behavioral and biomedical research. At some point human beings volunteer to try medication to determine its efficacy in treating depression, cancer, diabetes, or other diseases. There are always risks to the procedure and the volunteers are made known of the risks, such as potential side effects which may sometimes include the risk of death. Every medication that passes clinical trials have side effects so it behooves the public and patient to research those side effects. For instance, some blood pressure medication prescribed to those at risk of heart attacks, may cause a heart failure in some in some individuals. So every medication that passes clinical trials and is deemed "safe" can be potentially harmful. We've all heard the stories of those prescribed certain anti-psychotic medications, becoming more violent or depressed. It's not often, thank God, but it is a risk.
All medications have risks associated with them, it's part of the deal and no way to escape it at the present time.
So here's my question. If hydroxychloroquine has been given to some patients, with their consent, to treat CV-19 and it has been successful, why are we disregarding this as a valid experiment just because it wasn't done in a "controlled environment"? I'm sure some have been harmed but that was a risk they were willing to take. As stated, ALL clinically approved medications have risks, including death. So why is one side of the scientific argument being removed from public debate by a few elitists who are not scientists and have decided to listen to only one side of the debate? Makes you go MMmmm.
Why are google, facebook, and others deciding which scientific voice is right and which is wrong by stifling public debate?
Which scientists are the social media guru's listening to when it comes to hydroxychloroquine? What are their names? Where do they practice their clinical studies? When is the last time they conducted a clinical study? And why is their opinion considered more valid than practicing physicians who have had success?
At the end of the day, suppression of other's voices won't matter, because just like Tesla, the truth will become reality and what works will become the norm. Unless of course, the passion of greed suppress what works in the pursuit of personal gain.
