-
9) No truth, no hope, no justice, no peace!
Down
with Inductivism!
10) Establish good International Law in Outer Space, like
unto Maritime Law on Earth, to help forestall any possible Wild West
scenarios. There's gold in them thar Asteeroids!
-
11)
Optional
universal
Cryonics coverage, free of charge, for all
cadaverous donors.
-
12) Military policy:
-
Never Micromanagement, but
better oversight, in part accomplished by selectively removing peace time
exemptions from civil liability and also corruptive conflicts of interest
from military justice. Civilian Circuit Court Judges would adjudicate
Military Tribunals, and defendants could choose civilian Public Defenders
over military assigned defenders.
-
Women's equality means neither
obstruction nor condescending
lower standards, physical or otherwise.
-
Competition in war games can encourage morale
and excellence rather than cynical complacent conformity. In such a process,
different training regimens and even opposing assumptions about the nature
and essence of fighting readiness, Psychologically and organizationally, can
actually be tested in scientific
experiment.
Better pay, food, benefits,
training, and living and working conditions can attract better candidates
and forestall corruption.
-
Maximize benefits of Operations Other than War
including Peace Keeping and Disaster Relief.
-
Development of
inventive and highly cost
effective (genuinely)
non lethal weapons technology.
-
13) Waging the peace:
-
Wu Tzu, also known as Wu Chi, the probable true author of 'The Art
of war' that he so famously attributed to the historical figure of Sun Tzu,
nevertheless reserved perhaps his greatest pearl of wisdom to his own
renown, declaring that that war to suppress violence and unrest, inevitably famed as
righteous and honorable, is nevertheless best forestalled by proper and capable
government, enraged war regardless of cause, provocation or accumulating
animosity, only by the cultivation of humility, costly wanton wars
motivated
by greed and cynical advantage (Laissez fair and Real Politick),
hence so quickly bereft of
all
trustworthy
honor and propriety before all
the world, must be deftly misdirected, thwarted by resort to utter Machiavellian
low guile, deception and treachery, and in times of disorder, the weary
multitude agitated to insurgent war, forestalled by recognized authority and
dignity, legitimacy that in modern days we embrace only as the hallmark of
real
democracy.
-
Obviously, adroit
classification of, and
appropriate
response to curtail, any and all such impending strife is always crucial. Indeed, it will be worthy of
noting that President Jimmy Carter, so often hailed as:
"the best secretary of state we ever had for president!" the saintly
born-again soul of humility and the only other American president
aside from Gerald Ford in his brief term,
actually never to lead America into war,
simply assumed all potential war to be merely such as enraged by
provocation. Hence, Carter's brilliant and benevolent
successes
accrued when this was precisely so, and his cowardly boneheaded blunders
when it simply was not! In the rubric of Machiavelli, Carter simply did not
know
how not to be good as ever called for by
whatever the
situation! -Just the reverse of
our typical legislators who by contrast all seem no good at all at being
good...
-
14)
Accountability. Failure conditions specified and included in all new
legislation. Routine and public disaster investigation in case of persistent
failure conditions and national crises such as armed
conflict. And crucial legislated public
assistance or intervention which inevitably can only undermine market forces
must call for a projective market impact statement and then market stimulus
and repair proposals to restore or exceed whatever lost vital economic
incentives most cost effectively.
-
-
15)
The
Food and Drug Administration (FDA)
-
Holding out for
conclusive results is remains ever crucial to good
Scientific Method. But that becomes
somewhat
dishonest,
irresponsible and hypocritical when, for whatever reason, whatever requisite
research is quietly neglected and abandoned. There is a responsibility gap.
It's no fault of the FDA, if applicants for approval fail to meet the bar.
And even trying is an opportunity, not an obligation. Worse, while there is
an ombudsman to assist small businesses throught the daunting process,, no
one is responsible to the citizen, to the patient, the end user in need of
breakthrough medicine. It's nobodies jurisdiction, there is no one for the
average Joe even to talk to. Moreover, even the best
Scientific Method is not automatically
transitive to good public policy. There is no
certainty. Risk can never be eliminated, only controlled responsibly. And the very mandate of such medical regulatory agencies as the FDA
is irresponsible and liability-phobic. By being so stringent, medical
regulatory agencies as the FDA practice the most dire irresponsibility
masquerading behind a facade of stringent hyper-responsibility. Medical regulatory agencies as
the FDA strive to prevent sins of commission but simply ignore passive sins
of omission. Indeed, theoretically, uch bias may actually find basis in
human neurology. Medical regulatory agencies as the FDA are risk avoidant, but
ignore the famous maxim of Mark Zuckerberg: “The biggest risk is not
taking any risk [...] In a world that changing really quickly, the only
strategy that is guaranteed to fail is not taking risks.” Why are only
surgeons, with all of their clout, encouraged and enabled in risky but life
saving experimental medicine, and not other doctors equally? Doctors and
scientists can be no more infallible than
any other life and death decision makers every day. As TV doctor House MD says,
ultimately the treatment is the test. When
logically
valid assertion is
criticized
as inconclusive, that means that while remaining viable and unrefuted, that
the evidence could be stronger and more persuasive. But then, it always can
be. Since we are all fallible and there can be no certainty, the question
always remains quite rightly
controversial
as to reasonably how high to set the bar for what is to be deemed
conclusive. And here is where good science misapplied, yields such very bad
policy. For the mistake is to imagine that the conclusiveness of theory is
somehow transitive into the advisability of practice. But its more
complicated than that. Indeed, there are two quite
different problems of
Epistemological
Methodology:
In the ongoing quest of
Empirical
Scientific Method, ever closer to truth,
viable scientific hypotheses, such as do not at least yet stand refuted, are
evaluated according to ever debatable standards of supporting evidence,
experiment yielding repeatable observations. But this takes time. And in the
interim, there is the problem of effective and responsible decision making
in the here and now, indeed as including decisions upon the allocation of
resources for ongoing research. Pioneering visionaries
knew that spaceflight
was possible. It wasn't just lucky guessing, but assessment of engineering
feasibility from already established science. If no one believed a moon
landing possible, until such was accomplished, it never would have been
attempted. Lives often hang upon untested experiential medicine. Waiting for
conclusive results then is not an option, but an evasion of responsibility
and liability. In the short term, especially in
urgent matters, opinion, risk benefit assessment, effective and responsible
decisions, must all be guided by a preponderance of available evidence.
Demanding better evidence, is only good science. But
decidophobic willful blindness
simply ignoring urgent problems and existing evidence, and
paralysis adamantly demanding as yet unavailable unassailable evidence even for urgent
life and death decisions in the here and now
(for
example, Cryonics), is flagrantly irresponsible. Life
is trial and error, a progression of ill informed decisions.
-
And this is
also why the very mandate of the United States Food and Drug Administration
and of similar regulatory agencies around the world, is inherently irresponsible.
-
It is a policy that appears even
stringently responsible to the very highest standards, but is actually just
classic decidiphobic
perfectionism, overreach and unaccountability in
the very name of just such high ideals and standards. The FDA is a typical
bureaucracy entangled in ever more copious red tape. And it remains the
responsibility of the manufacturer to jump through every hoop and overcome
every barrier to market entry that thereby favors big business and stifles
independent
innovation.
The FDA is corrupt. Officials who accommodate corporations, can look forward
to cushy jobs at those corporations when they leave the FDA. And there remains a disastrous responsibility gap, in that no one is
accountable for all that we are deprived of when the system stalls and
fails. The FDA won’t certify
a new therapy to be made available on the market, until conclusive results
of its safely, as long as that takes, decades as need be, while patients
suffer and die. And all for the highest standards of our own safety. Ah, but
surely I am being naive! How can we release dugs and such before they've
been fully tested as safe? Answer: Nothing is ever fully tested as safe! This
partakes of the myth of inherency. Safety is not inherent to any therapy,
but contingent upon a wider picture. It's not just about avoiding mistaken
action at all cost and by whatever means necessary. Sins of omission are no
less damnable and dangerous than active transgressions. Responsible
decisions consist of comparing the risks and benefits of all options,
including inaction, to the best of available
knowledge at any given moment.
-making small reversible actions as much as that is possible and practical,
trial and error, learning from mistakes and making course corrections along
the way, in best patient treatment just as in life itself.
-
No medicine or
therapy should ever be deemed safe or unsafe, except by comparison to
whatever other available treatment options if any, and including simply
doing nothing at all, but only as at all tenable within hope whatsoever. The problem
therefore is
actuarial. Actuaries may work for insurance companies and consulting firms,
the government, employee benefits departments of large corporations,
hospitals, banks and investment firms, or most generally, in any businesses
prudently seeking to manage financial risk. An actuary is an arithmetically
competent and inclined business professional who analyzes the financial
consequences of risk versus benefit, by the application of mathematics, statistics, and
financial theory in order to study uncertain future events, especially those
of concern to insurance and pension programs. But clearly the application is
broader and neglected. Just as with making
environmental policy, granting a construction permit or going to war, the
risk/benefit of any new therapy must be compared to that of available
alternatives, to the best available
knowledge
at whatever the time. The risk of allowing any new therapy at any given
time, must be duly assessed compared to the risk of forbidding said new therapy, to best
of available
knowledge
at whatever given time. The risk/benefit of delay must also be assessed,
just like every other crucial factor. Delay times must then be estimated and
controlled. Procrastination till the last minute can actually yield the best
choices and strategy for treatment and the patient. But not longer. Who has
watched 'The Travelling Lobotomist' on PBS? Doctors once enjoyed
Godlike power,
trust and unaccountably. Now they are terrified liability
phobic and timid uncritical
install-monkeys in a client-server model. Without godlike authority and
impossible certainty, they suffer from inadequacy and inferiority. Again, regulatory agencies of health care
such as the FDA, like labor unions, the United Nations, and even the nuclear
family, are both indispensable and dysfunctional. And yes, also the police:
Protesters against police brutality are summarily brutalized. How
dysfunctional! And yet, in a city block occupied by protestors, driving out
the police, the murder rates skyrocketed, demonstrating the indispensable
need for the police. What non justification
prescribes, always, is continual error detection for ongoing course
correction in piecemeal engineering which is incremental progress in
small reversible steps, however uncertain. Alas that sober patience becomes
an unaffordable luxury under crisis. What indispensable yet
dysfunctional institution like the FDA really need, much as they discourage
it, is oversight from the loyal opposition of an activist citizenry, in this
case, of their medical and scientific community, ever spurring continual reform.
After all, doctors are still highly influential. And science needs to be open to public scrutiny and
controversy, in order to keep our
institutions accountable. To better do their job, the FDA and similar
regulatory agencies around the world, need a more courageously activist community of
healthcare practitioners and researchers together. The FDA
withholds from me vital life changing therapy, for no good medical reason
that I can discover, consulting every specialist I can find, after the most
extensive research on my own of which I am capable. I am stymied and kept in
the dark. FDA: Whatever the reasons you can't shit or get off the pot,
that's your problem! Stop making it mine! Grow up and take responsibility
already!
-
To begin with, Verificationism
or Justificationism in medical regulation, much like
Inductivism
in
law enforcement,
serves as a handy rationalization to shape the results of investigation so
as to fit desired conclusions and policy driven by bankrupt ideology and
thinly veiled routine Plutocratic corruption that is well
known
and well attested. We've heard it all before. But what follows may be new to
the reader:
-
Verificationism
or Justificationism is the long refuted
Epistemological
Methodology
that views science as the growing corpus of verified or justified
knowledge
resting therefore upon a firm foundation,
and in medicine as a special case, medicine as the growing corpus of
conclusively tested therapies resting likewise upon a firm foundation of
time tested cures , to which practicing Medical Doctors, actually
educated
that they are not scientists! (at most, "medical detectives"), must
be restricted. Fortunately, there is enough of a consistent failure rate in
such plodding and methodical indoctrination, or we would have no medical researchers. Medical
practitioners are not supposed to make discoveries out in the field, but in
reality they do. And if I could only get my
diagnoses and treatment from a researcher, I would. I get my dentistry from
students who are still curious, under the supervision of their professors
double checking their work. Alas there is no equivalent in general medicine.
So I am stuck with doctors who are convinced that they
know
what they are doing, and that they have no choice anyhow. Non justificationism views science as the competition between competing viable
unfounded conjectures, a process of refutation and elimination narrowing the
field to those hypotheses that remain viable at any given point in time. In
medicine, that would translate into responsible decision making from among the best
available options, likewise according to the best
knowledge
available at the time. And anytime that making any decision either way, is
better than making none, then we need responsive authorized decision makers,
not paralytic perfectionists. Indeed, surgeons, who have more clout, are even
known
to practice experimental medicine,
often for suffering patients simply so desperately infirm that it makes no
sense for them to wait indefinitely for certainty, and so who are willing to risk
uncertainty and even fatal complications down the line, for a cure
immediately simply in order to return to health and get on with their lives.
-
Alas that there remains the
natural tendency to bear the onus or responsibility for action more so than
for inaction and sins of omission, so to speak. Indeed, just for
example, many
irresponsible patients postpone or forgo crucial medical procedures because
of the very real dangers involved, while failing to consider the greater
danger of doing without the best possible treatment for whatever medical
problem. The FDA approval procedure for new therapies, is just as
irresponsible and in the very the same way. But in this regard, the FDA
endangers the public and not just themselves, by ignoring what is well
known,
even in flagrant
denial of the blatantly obvious, all
because of all that remains as deemed inconclusive. That is why even
terminal patients with nothing to lose, are still actively restricted or
else just passively obstructed, in what risks they may take, great or small,
even the ultimate heroic measure of
Cryonics
after they are already
dead by conventional medical standards and
recourse. Indeed, for the hesitant
patient and the verificationist medical bureaucrat alike, the problem well
exceeds inevitable sacrifices necessary in sensible hesitation for the sake
of legitimate caution towards extreme measures and untried procedures.
Moreover, by being so stringent, the
very irresponsibility of FDA masquerades as the very height of civic minded
responsibility in science and medicine. And of course it makes things even
worse that market demand on its own can be so impulsive and
shortsighted, whereas science and medicine require foresight and
perseverance. -Nor that Big Pharma has the clout to push through and
fast-track dangerous and even frivolous treatments and therapies, while
the little guy must struggle in jumping through every bureaucratic hoop,
even in order to bring the most urgent and life saving
innovation
to market.
-
Whereas in China, doctors charge patients for each day of
wellness, rather than for treatment and illness, the Profit Motive may have
become skewed here in the West. Indeed, there are such huge and sustainable profits from
electively prescribed boner pills in constant demand, but no profit in new
antibiotics that are victim of their own life saving success because they work so well that the patient typically never needs them again.
Therefore without funding for development of new antibiotics, a plague of
newly emerging resistant infection is deemed imminent! And that would be costly for the
insurance industry. So why doesn't the insurance industry step in to help
fund the research? Are they too busy denying our claims? Any free market
solution to our insurance needs first requires a free market for insurance,
and not just ideological
propaganda
pretense. There is,
however, an even more fundamental problem with conventional
healthcare regulation: We live in a society where our most
indispensible institutions are profoundly and fundamentally irresponsible.
Our families are dysfunctional,
schools are oppressive, labor unions are
corrupt and confused, and the United Nations is just broken. The peer review system of scientific
journals guarantees mediocrity, filtering out the most rank incompetence and
fraud, affording sources of at all reliable information, but also silencing
and stifling excellence and scientific advance. The Food and Drug
Administration and its counterparts around the globe, are the peer review of
medicines, likewise affording the guarantee of mediocrity. - brilliantly protecting us all from the most useless and dangerous
treatments, from fraud and snake oil outright, but also barring us from the best and most advanced options,
frequently obstructing, endlessly delaying and scandalously screwing up.
They protect us with one hand, while constraining and menacing us with the other.
-shielding us with one hand, while drowning us with the other!