(December 31, 2012 at 3:59 pm)Fidel_Castronaut Wrote:(December 31, 2012 at 2:16 pm)Mark 13:13 Wrote: Well that's how science is supposed to work but in reality its not; just try and get funding to research for non current medical beliefs on curing cancer. Its called Paradigm Shift if science worked the scientific method properly as you outlined i'm quite sure we would be beyond the pill popping chop it out stage in medicine by now. But theres money in pills as ther is money in fossil fuels so why change.
Sorry, I disagree (and this is actually something I know a bit about).
Evidenced based research. Have you heard of this story?
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/health...tment.html
A mother attempted to block treatment for her son's rare (but treatable) brain cancer (a combination of chemo & and radio-therapy which has possible side effects, but not as bad as death) so she could explore alternative therapies (including diets and other so-called "experimental treatments"). She attempted to get medical evidence to back up her claims. Guess what she got? Nothing. Zero.
To say cancer therapies are just pill-popping exercises is grossly misrepresenting the vast array of treatments that are being researched and, further, are being used to good effect due to years and decades of testing.
Did you know the average drug/treatment from the initial proposal stages can take anywhere from 10 to 20 years before it's accepted by medical councils? Even then, trials continue until it's available for general release.
Now, there are most definitely flaws in the funding of medical research in the UK (and I assume the US too). Part of what you say is actually correct. Drug companies and other private interests will always go for maximum return, which is why an illness that requires continued, on going treatment (such as depression) is much more lucrative than something that requires a one off dosage (antibiotics for bacterial lung infection).
This is where public research councils come in, especially in the EU/UK where university based research is still one of the main avenues for medical research (my partner is a microbiologist investigating antibiotic resistance in e-coli and salmonella).
If a treatment is proven to work, ie, if it proves to be effective in 99.9% (if not 100%) of the multitude of double blind studies it is tested in, then the claims behind its effectiveness are more believable.
This takes me back to the original point. The combination of chemo- & radio-therapy to treat the boy's medulloblastoma has been proven to work, in both medical trials, double blind studies, and through repeated use in real-life settings. The so-called 'alternative' treatments which people (including the boy's mother) role out whenever the conspiracy of the medical establishment is brought up as a serious discussion (it's not) have no substance. No evidence, no medical trials, no double blind studies, nothing.
What these 'alternatives' are are dangerous. they put people's lives at risk, for no other reason than the silly delusion of some people who think they know better than decades of research conducted by people with decades of education and decades of experience.
The point i'm making is that science moves not smoothly but in sudden jolts where studies that don't prove the existing theories get placed to one side and the ones that reinforce the current theories get held onto and promoted and in the modern climate of funding by vested interests funding will go into the areas they want to explore leaving little or none for alternatives. The paradigm shift happens when the body of evidence gets too big to ignore and then the whole scientific body then jumps ship. I suppose is kind of like even in science there is a form of politics. And yes I knew the story and given the circumstances I can appreciate the courts judgement although I haven't researched it to death.
