the gag of experimentation

The world health structure is founded, in point of pharmacological therapies, on the evidence of experimentation, considered an indispensable guarantee for each new proposal. However, there is something amiss in the research organization, since a myriad of researchers invariably, upon fixed times, end up in the net of crime.
Clearly the escapes represented by the so-calld non allowed scientific behaviours are the proof of a freedom of thought coercion and of the consequent institutionalized repression.

In order to solve a problem, one needs a method of reasoning different from that which originated the problem”
– Einstein

Who adopts a different reasoning, however, is considered an outlaw and banned, especially in point of cancer, where the seriousness of the problem imposes (this is the official theory) a constant vigilance and protection of the ideas. On one side there is the failed official oncology running wild; on the other side the outlaws look for solutions longed for by the whole society.
The paradox, though, lies in the fact that those who have failed have the power to repress any innovative thought with the authorities’ consent. In order to understand this grotesque situation it is worth making some preliminary considerations.

First consideration, the block of knowledge:
Contemporary epistemology has been traveling for many years within an anarchic perspective, understood as acceptance of any principle in the development and progress of knowledge, which includes mainly the warning to go further, or to refuse, any encoded and commonly accepted methodological proceeding, especially when it comes to solve non contingently solvable problems, called “riddles” (cancer, for instance).
In this light all the philosophical views of science of this century have been argued, such as Popper’s falsification theory, Kuhn’s theory of scientific revolutions or Lakatos’s research programs, considered too conformist, and thus restrictive compared to the real essence of the prograss of knowledge.

Further: going forward in the revision of contemporary epistemology’s statute, we have reached the boundaries of the attemptable borders of knowledge, where these mix and are fed by domains strager to it, in particular those economic and social.
In other words, knowledge or better the freedom of knowledge is mainly conditioned by economic and institutional factors: simply said, research can be made only with huge quantities of money and with the institutions’ permission. In this perspective, those who go against or stand outside the economic or politic logic, who make up the so called legal research methods, are considered heretics. How is it possible that the most creative and honest minds are always banished in a position of illegality? The answer is easy: through the institutional block and the economic block.

Second consideration: the institutional block:
Intuition, intuitiveness and creativity are a prerogative of free and young minds, who habitually do not belong to individuals normalized or “framed” in officially credited and standarised contexts.
It would be wonderful, and convenient, if an innovative an revolutionary idea came to mind to a ministry of public health, a parliament doctor or an outstanfing university professor, because it would be enacted in a very short time, to the benefit of the society.
Unfortunately, this never happens for obvious reasons, thus an idea is obliged to suffer the torture and destruction by the institutions. Let us take for instance a young graduated in medicine who senses a deep truth: what should he do, or what ways should he go in order to go on and demonstrate his discovery? The obvious answer by the conformist or worse, by someone in bad faith would be: he must carry out a trial which proves the validity of his theories.

In order to carry out a trial, however, he must have the necessary structures, or better the outstanding individuals who would allow the use of such structures; he should therefore have the backing of an eminent universitiy professor or faculty principal, or powerful politician, or influential prelate. Otherwise, any idea will remain a dead letter.
Considering that (also in my personal experience) most of the times university professors are moody and haughty, prelates are not interested in revolution, politicians are collusive and opportunists, it is no wonder that the basis for a renewal of thought are relegated within the realm of mirages.
The obstruction of the experimental procedure thus conceived and encoded, is therefore a ruinous element for patients and for the society, because it excludes any pure creative and innovative resource. It is the real enemy of progress, since it is too superstructured and conditioned by forces stranger to the pure research of the mind.

Third consideration, the economic block:
If the poor researcher lacks the right acquaintances or the ability to flatter outstanding personalities, he may always rely on carrying out his studies on his own, as long as they are in compliance to the applicable law.

There comes yet another rub, the economic obstacle. In fact, unless the researcher is an industry or finance tycoon, or he is an emir or the offspring of a noble family, it is a mystery how he will manage to complete a research in strict accordance to the rules of legality, since to comply with it, he should spend out of his own pockets huge amounts of money, if you just consider the various phases (1, 2, 3 etc) provided for any medical experimentation, which generally require millions of euro.

Conclusion:
The canonical experimentation is allowed only if you follow the rules convenient only for those who have the economic or political power, the rest is just useless talks. The society, through the politicians should protect the most fertile minds, allowing them to experiment their ideas freely.

On the contrary, today, with the pretext of protecting the citizens deemed most ignorant, it only protects the powerful’s interests, to the detriment of the patients. Besides, history teaches that the patronizing attitude by souverains towards the ignorant subjects has always been an excuse to pursue their own filthy interests.

 


Pin It on Pinterest