Guest guest Posted January 23, 2006 Report Share Posted January 23, 2006 > [mailto: ] On Behalf Of Idol > > >The problem is that it's nutritional > >medicine, nothing you can patent, so no cash to study the solution. > >Without that, the FDA and AMA say the doctors can't discuss > it because > >it hasn't been proven. > > This is one reason of many that privatizing research was a > disaster. Research hasn't been privatized. Not fully, anyway. Governments and universities do a lot of research, and I hear about studies on the effectiveness of various foods and food extracts in preventing and treating diseases all the time. And certainly any government which spends a large portion of its budget on medical care (including the US) would have a powerful incentive to look into low-cost alternatives to conventional treatments. So how exactly does the existence of a private market for pharmaceuticals in one country suppress the advent of a golden age of natural health care in the rest of the world? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 23, 2006 Report Share Posted January 23, 2006 Chi, > Research has been privatized. I don't understand. When was research all public? The norm throughout history has been for research to be funded publicly, I thought. It is my understanding that around post-WWII the new peer-review system and government grants and so forth increased the amount of public money spent on research enormously. Is this wrong? > Please give an example of a study that shows a certain food is > effective in treating a certain disease. Off the top of my head, Enig mentions a study showing eggs improving mental decline in seniors in her book, and I've seen lots of studies about the benefit of omega-3 fatty acids from foods. There are lots of studies on herbal products, Suze has been looking at experiments on some product that I think is a sprout concentrate, there are studies on CLA-rich butter, and so on. They are all over the place. Chris -- Dioxins in Animal Foods: A Case For Vegetarianism? Find Out the Truth: http://www.westonaprice.org/envtoxins/dioxins.html Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 25, 2006 Report Share Posted January 25, 2006 Chris- >I don't understand. When was research all public? What's the purpose of turning this into a boolean question? Research used to be a lot more public than it is now since Bayh-Dole. That's simply not disputable. And though university research was certainly no paradise of perfection before Bayh-Dole, and though there's plenty of fiscally paradoxical research going on even today (i.e. research which serves no direct commercial purpose or which even acts against commercial purposes) the balance has unquestionably shifted dramatically. - Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 25, 2006 Report Share Posted January 25, 2006 , > Research used to be a lot more public than it is now since > Bayh-Dole. That's simply not disputable. I wasn't disputing it, I just don't know about the history of research. It must have been only a short period, then, where it was largely public, because wasn't there very little public funding of research before the 20th century? I'll have to google Bayh-Dole. I have no idea what that is. Chris -- Dioxins in Animal Foods: A Case For Vegetarianism? Find Out the Truth: http://www.westonaprice.org/envtoxins/dioxins.html Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 25, 2006 Report Share Posted January 25, 2006 > [mailto: ] On Behalf Of Idol > > Research used to be a lot more public than it is now since > Bayh-Dole. That's simply not disputable. And though > university research was certainly no paradise of perfection > before Bayh-Dole, and though there's plenty of fiscally > paradoxical research going on even today (i.e. research which > serves no direct commercial purpose or which even acts > against commercial purposes) the balance has unquestionably > shifted dramatically. But the Bayh-Dole Act is an American law. What about the more enlightened countries, like those in Western Europe, and also Japan and South Korea? Are they doing more of the kind of research you favor? And if so, why aren't American insurers catching a free ride on the results? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.