> > Protocols have been developed to ensure that we actually gain knowledge, and not at the expense of the patients.
> If medicine could be reduced to protocols, we wouldn't need the doctors.
They are called protocols and not algorithms for a reason.
> You can rest assured right now many MDs are prescribing off-label meds, diagnostics tests, making non-protocol judgement calls etc all around the world.
Sure, sometimes for good reasons, others for less so. Every patient is different and the doctor has incomplete knowledge, and the protocols are in the end just that: Guidelines.
I would be happy, if I get a doctor, which is critical of guidelines in the sense of being aware of their limitations and won't follow them like they are written in stone (on a case by case basis).
However, as I understand it, we are talking here about deviating from the guidelines without good evidence or without a procedure to gain knowledge from it in a structured manner, not a case-by-case basis, but on principle.
Quite frankly, I would stay the hell away from such doctor, which thinks that is a good idea.
>It is special in that everything about it has been very high profile, and in this day and age of hyper-connectedness, when expert institutions mess things up it is harder to cover up and their authority is at a greater risk.
>Let's be honest that is why they are being very iron fisted about out-of-band covid treatments, not because of a proportional threat to life.
I had limited contact with the expert institutions, but do have direct contact to people who did work in an ICU with Covid-19, (and a below average mortality rate).
Whenever the topic of, as you call them "out-of-band" treatments arose, the look on their faces would silence the topic.
So, if you feel adventurous, I would suggest to cross-check your opinion with someone in the field.