Cure Remedies, Natural Cures

If you would like a cure for cancer, heart disease, Alzheimer, or diabetes, do not count on the academia, the National Institute of Health (NIH), or the biotech/pharmaceutical industry.  With all the cash they need spent on researching these diseases, they have very little to show for it.

In 1971, throughout the State of the Union address, President Nixon declared the war on cancer proposing “an intensive campaign to seek out a cure for cancer.”  Since 1971, Americans spent, through taxes, donations, and private R&D, concerning $200 billion in inflation-adjusted dollars.  This cash created 1.56 million papers on cancer. Nevertheless, today we have a tendency to are not any closer to a cure than we were in 1971.  Why?

Take into account what Dr. Almog said in his paper: Drug Business in “depression” (Almog, D. Drug trade in “depression”. Med Sci Monit. 2005 Jan;11(1):SR1-4, I’d urge you to read his paper, it’s a watch opener on relationship between academic research and business drug discovery): “When the basic science/biology of disease is not accessible, no new medicine come to market.” With the billion of greenbacks spent by the NIH on basic science, and therefore the a lot of papers published on the subject, the query is, “Why isn’t the essential science/biology of disease out there? Individual discoveries in the biology of human disease are cornerstone in new treatments. But, in drug discovery, these basic science/biology discoveries are seemingly unrelated dots. To connect the dots you wish a theory. The Blind Men and therefore the Elephant could be a famous story about six blind men encountering an elephant for the first time. Every man, seizing on the single feature of the animal, that he appeared to have touched 1st, and being incapable of seeing it whole, loudly maintained his restricted opinion on the character of the beast. The elephant was thought-about a wall, a spear, a snake, a tree, a devotee or a rope, relying on whether or not the blind men had initial grasped the creature’s facet, tusk, trunk, knee, ear or tail. The story epitomizes the matter of the reductionist approach in biology. A recent book Microcompetition with Foreign DNA and also the Origin of Chronic Disease, by Hanan Polansky [11], presents an alternative. The book identifies the disruption that causes atherosclerosis, cancer, obesity, osteoarthritis, sort II diabetes, alopecia, sort I diabetes, multiple sclerosis, asthma, lupus, thyroiditis, inflammatory bowel disease, rheumatoid arthritis, psoriasis, atopic dermatitis, graft versus host disease, and alternative chronic diseases, and describes the sequence of events that leads from the disruption to the molecular, cellular, and clinical effects.”

What are the implications of the NIH failure?  A decline in the quantity of new medicine introduced by pharmaceutical companies. Think about what professor Taylor says in his paper: Fewer new medication from the pharmaceutical business (Taylor D. Fewer new drugs from the pharmaceutical industry. BMJ. 2003 Feb 22;326(7386):408-9): “In 2002 spending on medicines exceeded $400bn (£248bn; 377bn) worldwide. Optimists in the pharmaceutical business believe that the worldwide marketplace for their product can go on expanding by around 10% a year, with the United States continuing to steer towards higher per capita outlays. Expenditure on analysis by the pharmaceutical trade is also increasing worldwide. It is now over $45bn a year—twice the sum recorded at the start of the 1990s—and projected to rise to $55bn by 2005-6. Issues are growing, but, about the productivity of analysis being funded by the most important pharmaceutical companies. … Empirical evidence indicates a crisis in productivity in pharmaceutical research. The number of medicines introduced worldwide that contain new active ingredients dropped from a median of over 60 a year in the late 1980s to 52 in 1991 and only 31 in 2001. The general number of new active substances undergoing regulatory review remains falling.”

On the one hand, the expenditure on research is increasing.  On the other, the amount of new medication is decreasing.  The professionals call this situation the productivity crisis in drug discovery.

The NIH failed to provide the thus abundant required biology of chronic disease as a result of it’s caught within the reductionist mentality.  Dr. Hanan Polansky offers an alternative.  If we want a cure for cancer, heart disease, Alzheimer, or diabetes, we have a tendency to would like to significantly think about his alternative.

Technorati Tags: alzheimer, biotech, Cancer, chronic disease, cure, Diabetes, drugs, heart disease, medical discovery, NIH, Parkinson

Tags: alzheimer, biotech, Cancer, chronic disease, cure, Diabetes, drugs, heart disease, medical discovery, NIH, Parkinson

This entry was posted on Thursday, February 18th, 2010 at 2:20 pm and is filed under Natural Cures and Remedies. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.