Why aren't those therapies accepted by health authorities?
There are hundreds of reasons! I will try to list some of them here:
- There is no solid research proving safety and proving benefits. Why is there no solid research? Because those who are deciding where money for research will be directed to are extremely negative on researching any alternative cancer therapy. And also because it can be very costly to study therapies cause they are always offered as a part of very complex integrated program.
- Reason for the lack of research into alternative cancer therapies is that many are offered as part of an integrated program. For example, the National Cancer Institute's laetrile study produced negative results. However, proponents of laetrile point out that the NCI study ignored diet, nutritional supplements, and other substances that are synergistically involved in producing laetrile's positive effects.
- Cancer, like heart disease, is a multidimensional disease. It is nearly impossible to study the effects of diet, therapeutic agents, and other influences in the traditional research framework. Investigating several variables calls for dozens of experiments and impossible amounts of research funding. The traditional experimental approach calls for checking one substance at a time, and this leads to a search for a "magic bullet" to cure cancer. However, the very nature of this traditional research method ignores the multidimensional nature of the disease. What we need is new ways to evaluate the effectiveness of alternative cancer therapies.
- Many Alternative Cancer Therapies can not be evaluated through randomized double blind placebo controlled studies cause there is no known placebo for many of the therapies including exercise, diet, fasting, massage, acupressure, acupuncture, cleansing, Amalgam replacement ... Example: You can not design a randomized double blind placebo controlled study to find out whether combination of those procedures: dental cleanup, house/office cleanup, bowel cleanse, kidney cleanse, liver/gallbladder cleanse, "cancer diet", dietary supplementation, psychotherapy, physical activity, stretching, spiritual therapy, meditation and visualization, massage, acupuncture, oxygen therapy, Essiac, palm healing, love, support ... really cures cancer. Either there is no placebo, or it is simply impossible to study several therapies all at once, because double blind study can be used only to find out if one or few therapies "works".
- Sure, you can compare the results of the multidimensional therapies with therapies offered by medical establishment and in that case you will have the clear result on which therapy is more effective, but so far, authorities were not interested in investing money into research of the most promising therapies like Gerson therapy, Ozone Therapy, Hyperthermia etc...
- Another problem: Natural therapies are often individually suited for every single patient. How many patients, that many therapies. Just like the cancer diet. As many people, so many diets. They can not be evaluated as one single therapy. Natural therapies are holistic therapies, dealing and working with body, mind, spirit, and environment. We still does not have a Science to evaluate it. In other words, most natural programs for curing cancer can not be proved effective by the same means as conventional therapies. Breaking program in peaces and evaluating every single piece rarely give positive results. Of course there are studies that have studied only effects of dietary supplementation with very few supplements, and many actually gave positive results. ( selenium, germanium, beta- carotene, H2O2,...)
- Practitioners offering alternative cancer therapies may also oppose double-blind placebo controlled studies because they regard it as immoral to give half the patients inactive Sugar pills or distilled water injections when these people are in desperate need of real help. Cancer kills, and giving people placebo would equal killing them.
- Probably the most significant reason that many pharmaceutical companies do not try to get their drugs marketed in the United States is the enormous amount of time and money that it takes to satisfy the FDA requirements.
Normal FDA approval for a new cancer drug takes about 10 years and cost up to $250 000 000 (250 million). Many drugs are well researched and marketed in other countries, but remain unapproved by the FDA in the United States. This is especially true for a number of the alternative cancer therapies.
- The main criticism that the medical establishment has of alternative cancer treatments is a lack of traditional scientific testing and documentation. One reason for the absence of mainstream research on alternatives is that the funding institutions that dole out the money for cancer research do not support research into alternative cancer therapies.
This situation creates a double bind for alternative therapies. They are criticized for not having adequate research to document their effectiveness, yet funding is not made available for studies.
- Drug companies, which fund many of the studies for new drugs, have little interest in pursuing alternative treatments, since they are generally inexpensive and cannot be patented. Money can only be earned with the drug that can be patented. You can not patent anything that exist in the nature. For example, there is no money to be made from spending millions of dollars on research to show that vitamin C helps to fight cancer, since anyone can buy the substance at the corner drugstore.
- Treatments like psychotherapy, visualization, and support groups receive little funding for research because they are not drugs, and the traditional medical community tends to be suspicious of anything that identifies a mental aspect to a disease.
Viewed 178549 times
All #56153's Answers