Categories
Compliance

Expertise procurement risk and reputational risk – medical and legal

These compliance documents are live pre-released drafts that are specifically not structured for scientific audiences. Specific scientific referencing can be provided in consulting contexts, not limited to practice management, claims management, underwriting or litigation support for professionals or organisations.

Copyright and redistribution rights are governed by our terms of site usage. Communication of factual or typographical errata or other suggestions is welcome. This content was originally contained here (external link), has been split into separate compliance sections on our website and is in need of significant ongoing update.

A journalistic summary of these documents for lay audiences will soon be published.


Care should be taken to reassess existing expertise sources in the field of post-viral disease and to distinguish between 1) the marketability or familiarity of expertise versus 2) disproportionate risk of divergence from legally sustainable standards. It is rare for institutionalised medical norms to exclude scientific consensus to the degree witnessed in this field. This results in an unusual context of unmanaged risk and continued consumption of these low standards by captive and new audiences in the public and private sectors.

Consumption of low standards by captive and new audiences in the public and private sectors leads to elevated likelihood of being party to violations of requirements and law, on arbitrary and discriminatory bases

Frontline managers and contracting parties must be alert to the elevated likelihood of being party to explicit violation of both requirements and law, which is often on an arbitrary and discriminatory basis. This manifests as an expensively institutionalised misbelief in practice – that standards, policy and law can be suspended when involving ME/CFS or other post-viral disease. The empirically substantiated need for frontline education underlies this elevated risk profile.

Existing networks of expertise procurement in the field of post-viral disease expose organisations to unusual risks of misinformation-based complacency and elevated probabilities of unlawful decision-making. Conflicts of interest in the marketing, provision and/or procurement of expertise into public health and financial services communities have generated and habitualised growing risk and liability exposures, exacerbated by mirrored weaknesses in media coverage. Habitual risk generation is not limited to dependence on or advocacy of demonstrably low scientific standards. It extends to committing literal mistruths, even in contexts that merely require elementary literacy to refute. Evidentiable lack of wider medical professional awareness or knowledge perpetuates the risks from both consequent liabilities and continued low-quality expertise supply.

The contrast with legally demonstrable realities can be remarkable – most often punctuated with apparent obliviousness to deficiencies or promotion of low and prejudicial standards

Further complicating procurement reassessment, it is common for eminently supplied expertise in this field to be unusually confident when supplying fallacious belief systems and come with media credentials (see the knowledge gap illustration and table vs liability audit trail). The contrast with legally demonstrable realities can be remarkable – most often punctuated with apparent obliviousness to deficiencies or promotion of low standards. These unusual levels of deficiency are presented, circularly peer-reviewed and printed with apparent formality for media consumption. Procuring bodies are thus rarely aware that expertise-networks’ low standards have not just been normalised. Fallacious low standards in medicine have even degenerated to:

  • redefinition of science to include otherwise illiterate standards, so as to validate verified low standards, thus purporting a fallacious ‘split in the science’ that does not exist (link)
  • scientifically-inert defences of ideas that suffer from founding occult lineage, commercialised cult behaviour and an explicitly misogynistic research foundation
  • obfuscation of the existence of Nobel Prize winning scientific governance assembled within the scientific consensus against those low medical standards
  • a consistent of vexatious attempts to undermine the employment and status of scientists and their collaborators
  • a consistent of vexatious mistreatment of disease sufferers
  • obfuscation of the UK House of Commons unanimous motion, which saw this medical failure condemned as ‘one of the biggest medical scandals of the 21st century’

Purported eminence of organisationally procured testimony is thus particularly welcomed by litigants/complainants. It allows for specific demonstration of the institutionalised extent of 1) scientific standards breaches and 2) contra-scientific belief systems within the medical profession that 3) have been repeatedly identified by scientific consensus and regulatory review and 4) have been sold into captive private and public sector audiences and markets. This litigation and reputational risk for procurers can scale with the institutionalised eminence of the purported expertise/expert – the greater the eminence, the greater demonstration of legally demonstrable and institutionalised ignorance. Care must also be taken with formal and informal groupings of low-standard expertise-networks, which can operate analogously to trade unions/industry bodies that represent vested interests within technologically redundant industries.

Litigation and reputational risks for organisations can scale with the institutionalised eminence of purported expertise – the greater the eminence, the greater demonstration of legally demonstrable and institutionalised ignorance

While nefarious contexts have been evidenced officially by some as explanation for supply of unusually low standards in the underlying research and marketing, that is beyond the remit of this document. Providers of poor expertise may merely have insufficient access to other fields’ generalisable and acutely basic scientific standards, thus lacking comparative awareness of the importance. The lacking educational and professional research standards in related fields, within and outwith medicine, appear unknown to providers of institutionalised lack of knowledge.

Nonetheless, demonstrating the intent, negligence, insufficient curiosity, neurosis, misogyny or occult predilection of a practitioner or other purveyor of unlawfulness is not necessary. Motive is irrelevant to legally unsustainable low standards and medical failure. Neither is demonstration of analogous medical failures that psychologised multiple sclerosis, asthma and diabetes (among other illnesses that suffered from efforts to describe them as ‘hysteria,’ etc.). Precedent of analogous medical failure is instructive, but not necessary. Proactive neutralisation of current risks for frontline services and relevant contracting parties is possible by avoiding unlawful consequences from 1) current expertise-risk, 2) lack of necessary education/training opportunity and 3) failures to meet obligations to record and communicate with detail proportionate to the statutory risk context.

The assumption of intent, negligence, insufficient curiosity, neurosis, misogyny or occult predilection is not necessary. Neutralisation of currently generated risks for frontline services and relevant contracting parties is still possible by avoiding unlawful consequences

The law does not allow clinical judgement to be discriminatory or to breach duties of care – with an unusual degree of unmanaged consequences for this field of disease. While unlawful misrepresentation of information and excess risk generation are often habitual to the point of normalisation across entire frontline professions in this field, habit does not change the terminal nor indemnity consequences (whether immediately or over time). Beyond consequent and unnecessarily distracted liability accumulation, reputational risk is further introduced by statutory discrimination contexts and where sustainable accusation of credulous low standards is made against expertise-procuring organisations.

Material divergence of habitually procured expertise from scientific standards and probity was already demonstrable in litigious contexts. US federal authorities’ longstanding rejection of low medical standards in the field of post-viral disease was but one factor demonstrating this. Further underlining associated increases in liability accumulation, assessment of procured expertise foundations as “low standard” or “very low standard” by the UK National Institute of Health and Clinical Excellence merely underlines a worrying pre-existing risk profile. The questionable lawfulness of preceding NICE guidelines and the inability of governmental and agency edicts to lawfully dictate unlawful outcomes merely reinforce that 1)parties that act unlawfully do not escape duties of care or liabilities merely because 2) they share habitual misconceptions with office-holders about ME/CFS etiology or pathology that are contra-scientific or contra-policylink.

The law does not allow clinical judgement to be discriminatory or to breach duties of care – this risk profile is worsening week by week, due to increasing momentum in the scientific consensus eroding previous artificial protections

This risk profile is worsening week by week, due to increasing momentum in the scientific consensus eroding previous artificial protections and resulting in an increasing risk of successful litigation, statutory mechanism deployment and/or reputational harm. Personal injury claims must be made within prescribed time-limits in most jurisdictions. This is currently three years in the UK, which previously minimised risk of liabilities, due to habitualised standards of ME/CFS diagnosis obfuscation, mistreatment and/or malpractice. This timeframe is now balanced with increased independent access to information for scientists, practitioners, patients and litigators, returning to more conventional probabilities of successful enforcement of lawful decision-making and/or restitution for harm or discrimination to unbiased probability.

Masked by this inappropriate normalisation and time-limits for personal injury claims that are increasingly less exploitable, expertise-risk opens up litigious contexts that offer:

  1. unusual ease of demonstration of the normalisation of low medical standards
  2. revealing that such standards are sufficiently low to result in employee dismissals, contract terminations or withdrawn treatments in any other medical field
  3. and that currently normalised standards underlying this field can be evidenced as insufficient to pass high school or undergraduate examination, let alone insufficient to determine public health or claims/actuarial assumptions

Low standard expertise shared within jurisdiction/contract-relevant time limits may offer recourse against providers, due to the longstanding and unusually elementary nature of such egregiously flawed counsel and/or the risk-generating negligence or wilful disregard underlying it

Where such low standard expertise has been shared within jurisdiction/contract-relevant time limits, organisations may also have recourse against those who have any contractual relationship related to the supply of it. This is primarily due to the longstanding and unusually elementary nature of such egregiously flawed counsel and/or the risk-generating negligence or wilful disregard underlying it.

Where advice or administrative guidance is captive to this lack of knowledge, that counsel will be inherently flawed and risks compounding liabilities further. Terminally sustainable conclusions must account for adjudicated fora that can 1) cross-examine the relevant factors beyond accepting merely eminent assertions, 2) demonstrate the low quality nature of foundational failings that generate risks and liabilities in this field, 3) compare low quality expertise to superior elementary standards within other fields and 4) identify low standard expertise as being the intentional and prejudicial preference of an organisation wishing to continue discriminatory or other unlawful decision-making.

Where advice or administrative guidance is captive to this lack of knowledge, that counsel will be inherently flawed and risks compounding liabilities further – habitual norms in, unlawful consequences out.

Positions, statements, outcomes or rulings that fail to account for the medical failure and scientific consensus outlined in these pages do occur, perpetuating unmanaged risks with misplaced reassurance. These most regularly occur with or after to terminally low standard expert testimony and risk generation. While such failures are not legally sustainable on appeal, such poor decision making occurs when processes are dependent on low standard evidence or when accommodating unlawfulness. Put more pointedly, habitual norms in, unlawful consequences out.