If you want a cure for cancer, heart disease, Alzheimer, or diabetes, do not count on the academia, the National Institute of Health (NIH), or the biotech/pharmaceutical industry. With all the money they need spent on researching these diseases, they need very very little to point out for it.
In 1971, throughout the State of the Union address, President Nixon declared the war on cancer proposing “an intensive campaign to find a cure for cancer.” Since 1971, Americans spent, through taxes, donations, and private R&D, regarding $200 billion in inflation-adjusted dollars. This cash produced 1.56 million papers on cancer. Nonetheless, these days we tend to are not any nearer to a cure than we were in 1971. Why?
Think about what Dr. Almog said in his paper: Drug Business in “depression” (Almog, D. Drug business in “depression”. Med Sci Monit. 2005 Jan;11(1):SR1-4, I might urge you to browse his paper, it’s an eye fixed opener on relationship between academic analysis and commercial drug discovery): “When the fundamental science/biology of disease is not available, no new medication come back to market.” With the billion of greenbacks spent by the NIH on basic science, and also the numerous papers printed on the subject, the question is, “Why isn’t the fundamental science/biology of disease on the market? Individual discoveries in the biology of human disease are cornerstone in new treatments. However, in drug discovery, these basic science/biology discoveries are seemingly unrelated dots. To connect the dots you wish a theory. The Blind Men and also the Elephant may be a famous story regarding six blind men encountering an elephant for the primary time. Every man, seizing on the one feature of the animal, that he appeared to possess touched 1st, and being incapable of seeing it whole, loudly maintained his limited opinion on the nature of the beast. The elephant was thought-about a wall, a spear, a snake, a tree, a disciple or a rope, depending on whether the blind men had initial grasped the creature’s side, tusk, trunk, knee, ear or tail. The story epitomizes the problem of the reductionist approach in biology. A recent book Microcompetition with Foreign DNA and the Origin of Chronic Disease, by Hanan Polansky [11], presents an alternative. The book identifies the disruption that causes atherosclerosis, cancer, obesity, osteoarthritis, kind II diabetes, alopecia, type I diabetes, multiple sclerosis, asthma, lupus, thyroiditis, inflammatory bowel disease, rheumatoid arthritis, psoriasis, atopic dermatitis, graft versus host disease, and alternative chronic diseases, and describes the sequence of events that leads from the disruption to the molecular, cellular, and clinical effects.”
What are the implications of the NIH failure? A decline in the number of recent medicine introduced by pharmaceutical companies. Consider what professor Taylor says in his paper: Fewer new medicine from the pharmaceutical trade (Taylor D. Fewer new medication from the pharmaceutical industry. BMJ. 2003 Feb 22;326(7386):408-9): “In 2002 spending on medicines exceeded $400bn (£248bn; 377bn) worldwide. Optimists within the pharmaceutical trade believe that the worldwide market for their product can go on expanding by around 10% a year, with the United States continuing to steer towards higher per capita outlays. Expenditure on analysis by the pharmaceutical trade is also increasing worldwide. It is now over $45bn a year—twice the add recorded at the start of the 1990s—and projected to rise to $55bn by 2005-6. Considerations are growing, but, about the productivity of analysis being funded by the major pharmaceutical companies. … Empirical evidence indicates a crisis in productivity in pharmaceutical research. The quantity of medicines introduced worldwide that contain new active ingredients dropped from an average of over 60 a year in the late 1980s to 52 in 1991 and only 31 in 2001. The general range of recent active substances undergoing regulatory review is still falling.”
On the one hand, the expenditure on research is increasing. On the other, the amount of recent medication is decreasing. The professionals decision this case the productivity crisis in drug discovery.
The NIH failed to produce the so much needed biology of chronic disease because it’s caught within the reductionist mentality. Dr. Hanan Polansky offers an alternative. If we wish a cure for cancer, heart disease, Alzheimer, or diabetes, we want to noticeably take into account his alternative.