If you prefer a remedy for cancer, heart disease, Alzheimer, or diabetes, don’t rely on the academia, the nation’s Institute of Health (NIH), or even the biotech/pharmaceutical industry. With the money they’ve allocated to researching these diseases, they have little to exhibit for this.
In 1971, throughout the Condition from the Union address, President Nixon declared world war 2 on cancer proposing “a rigorous campaign to locate a remedy for cancer.” Since 1971, Americans spent, through taxes, donations, and R&D, about $200 billion in inflation-adjusted dollars. These funds created 1.56 million papers on cancer. Yet, today we’re no nearer to a remedy than i was in 1971. Why?
Consider what Dr. Almog stated in the paper: Drug Industry in “depression” (Almog, D. Drug industry in “depression”. Mediterranean Sci Monit. 2005 Jan11(1):SR1-4, I’d urge you to definitely read his paper, this is an eye opener on relationship between academic research and commercial drug discovery): “Once the fundamental science/biology of disease isn’t available, no new drugs arrived at market.” Using the billion of dollars spent through the NIH on fundamental science, and also the countless papers printed around the subject, now you ask ,, “Why is not the fundamental science/biology of disease available? Individual breakthroughs within the biology of human disease are cornerstone in new treatments. However, in drug discovery, these fundamental science/biology breakthroughs are apparently unrelated dots. For connecting the dots you’ll need a theory. The Blind Men and also the Elephant is really a famous story about six blind men encountering an elephant the very first time. Each man, appropriating around the single feature from the animal, that they made an appearance to possess touched first, and being not capable of seeing it whole, noisally maintained his limited opinion around the nature from the animal. The elephant was considered a wall, a spear, a snake, a tree, an admirer or perhaps a rope, based on if the blind men had first understood the creature’s side, tusk, trunk, knee, ear or tail. The storyline epitomizes the issue from the reductionist approach in biology. A current book Microcompetition with Foreign DNA and also the Origin of Chronic Disease, by Hanan Polansky [11], presents an alternate. It identifies the disruption that triggers coronary artery disease, cancer, weight problems, osteo arthritis, type II diabetes, alopecia, type I diabetes, ms, bronchial asthma, lupus, thyroiditis, inflammatory bowel disease, rheumatoid arthritis symptoms, skin psoriasis, atopic eczema, graft versus host disease, along with other chronic diseases, and describes the succession of occasions leading in the disruption towards the molecular, cellular, and clinical effects.”
Do you know the implications from the NIH failure? A loss of the amount of new drugs created by pharmaceutical companies. Consider what professor Taylor states in the paper: Less new drugs in the pharmaceutical industry (Taylor D. Less new drugs in the pharmaceutical industry. BMJ. 2003 February 22326(7386):408-9): “In 2002 paying for medicines exceeded $400bn (£248bn 377bn) worldwide. Optimists within the pharmaceutical industry think that the worldwide marketplace for their goods goes on expanding by around 10% annually, using the U . s . States ongoing to guide towards greater per person outlays. Expenditure on research through the pharmaceutical market is also growing worldwide. It’s now over $45bn annually—two times the sum recorded at the beginning of the 1990s—and forecasted to increase to $55bn by 2005-6. Concerns are increasing, however, concerning the productivity of research being funded through the major pharmaceutical companies. … Empirical evidence signifies an emergency in productivity in pharmaceutical research. The amount of medicines introduced worldwide which contain new ingredients dropped from typically over 60 annually within the late 1980s to 52 in 1991 and just 31 in 2001. The general quantity of new active substances undergoing regulatory review continues to be falling.”
Around the one hands, the expenditure on scientific studies are growing. Alternatively, the amount of new drugs is decreasing. The experts refer to this as situation the productivity crisis in drug discovery.
The NIH unsuccessful to create the a lot needed biology of chronic disease since it is caught within the reductionist mentality. Dr. Hanan Polansky provides an alternative. When we want relief from cancer, heart disease, Alzheimer, or diabetes, we have to you should consider his alternative.
