*Corresponding author: Jose Luis Turabian, Independent Researcher  Abstract The “Mad Protocol Syndrome” is a condition in physicians who rigidly or normatively apply clinical guidelines or protocols. This syndrome, understudied but widespread, is seriously dangerous because it generates iatrogenic effects, promotes polypharmacy and drug interactions, is frequently based on controversial, unsound, and rapidly changing foundations due to the rapid emergence of new studies, fails to consider patient-centered care, is not developed collaboratively by medical specialties and patients, is often influenced by powerful interest groups (such as the relationship of almost all panelists on clinical guideline development committees with the pharmaceutical industry), always maintains an exclusively biomedical perspective ignoring broader biopsychosocial viewpoints, and because there are hundreds or thousands (or perhaps millions?) of clinical guidelines that contradict each other in their recommendations. The patient is a biographical, social, and spiritual reality, never an isolated analytical value. No laboratory target (HbA1c, LDL, or blood pressure) justifies destroying a human being's autonomy, lucidity, or daily well-being. "The Mad Protocol Syndrome" ultimately represents the dehumanization of medicine through bureaucracy. To break this absurd cycle of over-prescription and alienation, 21st-century medicine doesn't need to generate more guidelines from distant experts, but rather urgently reclaim the sovereignty of clinical judgment, safe deprescribing tools, and critical methodological approaches that return control to the primary care physician and dignity to the patient. Studying and reflecting on these concepts is the first step toward transforming clinical practice and rescuing the humane, critical, and sensitive medicine that patients so desperately need. Here is an example of clinical guidelines and protocols for overdiagnosis of COPD. Keywords: Guidelines; Methodology; Applicability, Evidence-based medicine; Patient-centered; Personalized medicine, General practice Introduction Clinical practice guidelines provide evidence-based recommendations to optimize patient care, while protocols dictate rigid, step-by-step procedures. In general medicine, these tools are designed to reduce practice variation and translate complex scientific research into actionable, patient-specific encounters (1, 2). However, clinical guidelines face significant systemic challenges. Key problems include a one-size-fits-all approach that fails to account for individual variations, a lack of universal applicability, and potential conflicts of interest. Misuse of guidelines can sometimes lead to suboptimal care (3-5). The concept we describe as the “Mad Protocol Syndrome” perfectly defines the phenomenon of the tyranny of clinical guidelines or normative biomedical reductionism. This refers to the growing concern that modern medicine focuses too rigidly on treating isolated biological pathways and rigid, one-size-fits-all algorithms. This severely limits personalized care and ignores the complex, multifaceted realities of human illness (6). In the scientific and critical medical literature, promoted by movements such as Choosing Wisely, evidence-based medicine without conflicts of interest, and quaternary prevention (7-10), there are blatant examples of guidelines that exhibit these characteristics: medicalization of risk factors, rigid objectives that induce massive polypharmacy in patients with multiple pathologies, a high rate of panelists with conflicts of interest with the pharmaceutical industry, and a complete disconnection from the biopsychosocial model. Below is an example of clinical guidelines and protocols for overdiagnosis of COPD. CLINICAL CASE: The "Mad Protocol Syndrome" applied to COPD (Overdiagnosis of COPD) Thomas, 67 years old, former smoker (quit 15 years ago, with a moderate smoking history), moderately overweight, and with a primarily sedentary lifestyle. Retired, he spends most of his time reading or watching television. His physical activity is limited to very short walks. The "Mad Protocol" Approach (The fatigued patient is a COPD patient) Thomas visits his health center because he has noticed that for the past few months, he has been experiencing "shortness of breath" (dyspnea) when trying to climb the stairs in his building or when walking briskly. The doctor, mechanically associating the symptom of "dyspnea" with the patient's history as a "former smoker," orders spirometry with a bronchodilator trial (11, 12). The spirometry shows an FEV1/FVC ratio of 0.68 after bronchodilator use. The spirometry machine software and the doctor rigidly apply the fixed threshold of the GOLD guidelines, which dictates that any value below 0.70 is an unequivocal sign of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). The doctor ignores the fact that the FEV1/FVC r