Accreditation: protecting us from crocuses or depending on them?


Allan Gaw blogs a description of the Victorian peddlers selling cures to an impoverished and uninformed populace:

“…“Our profession is known, sir, as ‘crocussing’ and our dodges and decoctions as ‘fakes’ or rackets. Many other words make up a sort of dead language that protects us and the public from ignorant impostors.  It don’t do to juggle with drugs, leastwise to them that are ignorant of the business. I was told by a chum of mine, a university man, that ‘crocussing’ is nigh as old as Adam, and that some of our best rackets were copied from Egypshin’ tombs.”

Regarding themselves as members of the medical profession, they communicated with each other in ‘crocus’ Latin and employed a cryptic nomenclature for their remedies…

The pharmaceutical industry is now heavily regulated.  But how much has changed when the quality accreditation industry can provoke a loss of confidence in order to sell its unproven cures to the medical profession?

Why is the inspection cartel exposed in this blog still not tested to standards outside its own ideology?

Why do doctors knowledgable in assessing clinical trials allow their profession to be parasitised by the accreditation of clinical measurements which can promise only “confidence”?

This entry was posted in Bureaucracy, Cartel, Laboratory medicine, Medicine, Questions and tagged , , , , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s