Hauntings, Exorcisms and the Like

Just had to interject here. The above isn't true (though it may have been twenty or so years ago), and I'm not sure on what you are basing this information. It is true that commercial drug companies don't put money into such research because the result would not be proprietary.However, there is still an enormous amount of research going on regarding 'nutritional' treatment of existing cancer. Vitamins D, E, etc., phenolics from green tea, soy derivatives, antioxidants; not to mention prebiotics - and this is just the research going on on the floor I work on.The largest annual cancer meeting sponsored by the American Association of Cancer Research has day-long symposiums of medical scientists presenting the kind of research you say doesn't exist. I believe the NIH also has branch decicated to the funding of this kind of research. You seem to be making my point here - how could these scientists get government funding and positions in top hospitals if their research ideas weren't accepted by the scientific community at large?In any case I am just realizing the topic is a more supernatural, and thus the natural response of tumors to nutrional compounds has little bearing.I've met a lot people who stated supernatural powers such as you suggest you've had in the past, but I've never met anyone who was capable of demonstrating them. I wish someone would... if they could...

I wasn't talking about God, I was talking about mere mortals like Dynamo321, who has claimed to have had dizzying psychic knock-out powers at some point in the past.In any case, I've always found it awfully convenient that dieties only perform miracles for those who already believe that the dieties are performing miracles. I assure you I hold no hate for Jesus or any person on this planet. I would be genuinely interesting in observing a demonstration, as would many others. I would love to have Dynamo make me dizzy with his mental powers, solely for my edification - not to mention the cover of the journal Nature it would get us if he could do it reproducibly.Miracles are called such solely by believers for a reason - they have always been explainable by some means other than the supernatural (unless you can give me a documented example). I have a feeling the case is similar for the endless claims of psychic powers that are never accompanied by demonstration.

Delbert,
- I'm not an atheist.
- I wasn't obsfucating.
- Perhaps buzsaw was obsfucating a bit by answering my comment about a forum member's potential psychic powers with a comment about God, miracles, and loss of Godsense.
- If you think buz 'hammered' me, you should learn to read contextually.
- John 2:11 This beginning of miracles did Jesus in Cana of Galilee, and manifested forth his glory; and his disciples believed on him.

Not just natural medicine, advances in medical research in general take a long, long, long, long time to make it into practice, if they get there at all. It is an inherent problem of the biomedical research machine, and particularly of bureacratic (FDA) procedures. It's not just a matter of time, it's also how tumors/diseases are classified, and how standards of treatment are defined, so that in many cases quite valuable new treatments never stand a chance. In the case of some diseases, standards of treatment were originally arbitrarily chosen, and some haven't changed in twenty years or so. I could get up on a soapbox for a while on this topic, but am again realizing I'm off-topic.Sorry if I came off at all accusatory in my reply to you; you shouldn't be expected to know the state of current research if you don't work in the field. However, misconceptions of neglect areas of research are frustrating to the toiling researchers, especially when some groups try to exploit those misconceptions.

I'm a cancer researcher in the US, have been involved in the therapy development process, and have authored a publication that led to formation of an NIH consortium to deal with certain aspects of preclinical research - so I'm not being 'glib'. I've had plenty of first-hand, and frustrating, experience with the nature of the drug approval process. I also wasn't referring to alternative medicines, but rather drug approval in general (hence the title). If only that were true. Unfortunately it is not.It's not that MDs don't want to help their patients, or that preclinical and clinical researchers aren't coming up with viable therapies - a major hurdle lies between these two in the form of an outdated approval system.For example, though it is now slowly evolving, the FDA definition of cancer remains by tissue site. "Breast cancer" is considered a single disease, as is "colon cancer", which is absolutely preposterous given the knowledge about the variability of cancer. In other words, "colon cancer" represents hundreds of different pathologies, which can be categorized by underlying molecular defects.Increasingly, targeted therapies are being developed that can essentially cure a small, predictable subset of tumors. Imagine a drug that can predictably cure 5-10% of lung cancer cases, with absolutely no side effects. Such a drug currently exists, but isn't seeing use beyond clinical trials because it doesn't beat the cure rate for the standard of lung cancer treatment (with sometimes lethal side-effects) when given to a randomized population of lung tumors. However, the drug was never meant to be a standard of treatment for all lung tumors, only a specific, diagnosable subset of lung tumors - the approval system isn't equipped to deal with this situation, and so advancement of such disease profiling and customized treatment is floundering.In slightly different vein, therapies are pulled out of trials at the slightest hint of adverse toxicity, even if the current standard of treatment is worse, and even if toxicity susceptibility of the new drug is predictable. In other words, a possible cure is banned if 0.1% of people taking the drug will die, even if a simple test could be produced to predict that 0.1%.Appeals to the current complexity of the approval system are incorrect, because the actual problem with the approval system is that is too damn simple. It is so simple it is virtually blocking all new cancer therapies from mainstream use, because the nature of the new therapy is more complex than the system to approve it.It is high time the bureaucracy caught up with the medical science, and there really is no excuse at this point.

I don't think of it as an executive problem so much as a need for policy change. The problem seems to be systemic, including to some extent the medical community, and I think evolution of the process will come with turnover of the next "intellectual generation", so to speak.As in many situations it is in part a matter of the revered and respected running the show; but unfortunately that seems to mean a conservative stance, reluctant to embrace the inevitable next step in medicine - customized therapy. However, as more career 'middle-aged' scientists are rising in reputation and power, their pressure seems to be acting as a catalyst for some change.Another big push is coming from drug companies because the new classes of drugs they've spent millions developing are set up to fail approval. There are companies that have developed fantastic drugs for customized therapy, and they are in some cases suffering severe financial problems due to approval problems. There is also some concern that drug companies are beginning a slow transition away from developing cures for life-threatening diseases, and towards producing 'lifestyle drugs' that are easier to get approved and often more profitable - think sexual dysfunction, anxiety, heartburn, etc... I hope this ends up not being the case, because drug companies do contribute a large amount of monetary power to disease research, and gobs of money brings the kind of influence that could change the system.I suppose if the right person got in the right position an extensive overhaul of the approval system could be enacted, unfortunately these positions of power aren't usually filled with the type to shake things up. Or perhaps a President or the Congress could demand an overhaul - but I wouldn't hold my breath given the low priority health matters seem to be assigned at the federal level.Ideally, I think there should be an integrated group that constantly updates the bureaucracy to keep pace with the science. This stems from the appearance that change seems to follow those involved with the process rising in reputation - however, by the time they have influence their big ideas may be ten years or more outdated. So change occurs, but much later than necessary.One thing I haven't done is extensive research into how other countries approve drugs. It seems that some European countries do approve therapies relatively quickly, cheaply, and safely.Hopefully my ramblings provide some insight - currently change will come slowly, brought about by the usual suspects of time, money, and power...