[Harrison]

Tim,

Interesting post for lots of reasons – you really found my activist button on this one! I wish I had more time to elaborate on this, since I wholeheartedly support naturopathic, homeopathic and many other “untraditional” therapies which these articles seem to discount. So, in no particular order:

• Most folks here have tried everything to “fix” their spine problem stemming from an undiagnosed disease that causes degeneration in their spinal discs. But isn’t it smart to try just about anything before having surgery? Some times, therapies do work and surgery is avoided. This is good, eh?!

• The way the NIH allocates funds to other organizations (like Harvard) to design studies around alternative therapies is questionable. Many scathing articles have critiqued how these study funds were allocated, let alone how the studies were designed. If this was not enough, I’ve read about the staggering amount of our tax dollars that have been allocated for Harvard (et al) studies for “alternative” therapies; millions have gone to studies of ecosystems of other planets (astrobiology). How does this allocation of tax funds (to discount alternative therapies; study other planets) help spine patients get better?

• Clinical studies generally will serve the need of the sponsorship, whoever that may be. Many of the ones for artificial discs benefit patients (like me!), while others may result in terrible outcomes. On another more topical note: how many rigorous studies were performed on the three versions of the H1N1 vaccine? This particular vaccination is aggressively being pushed out to the masses with flimsy “clinical” data. Ironically, a homeopathic remedy from France has been selling like hotcakes to help people ward off the flu; it even has some kind of clinical study supporting its efficacy.

I really don’t want to get into the whole vaccination thing again. I think the real problem is how to help the smaller, innovating, medium-sized or international firms find low-cost ways to get their solutions tested and then to market. In the meantime, China is exploiting this American need and “buying” their citizens to become clinical trial participants for US products.

Furthermore, if we leave only the wealthy, giant companies to be the “deciders” of clinical trials, then we as consumers – and patients – will suffer the consequences of buying ONLY palliative and/or orthopedic solutions. And that to me is very sad; as it does not address the root causes of disease(s).

Some of you already know of this non-profit’s mission:

We are committed to helping each and every spinal patient identify appropriate treatments to preserve healthy, natural spinal motion and to help them return to the highest possible quality of life.

Our goal is to empower patients by including them in a global community, providing support in their problem-solving, and accelerating their path to wellness. We aspire to help patients research and consider the best solution for their spine dysfunction, whether device-based, biological, or naturopathic.

Our success is measured by these patients’ ability to return to work, recreation, and the freedom of movement. Our day-to-day operations are rooted in our commitment to education, patient care, and advocacy.

Tim, I think we all enjoy your posts and I hope you aren't taken (too far) aback with my candor. So what's the problem as you see it? How do patients find and trust alternative treatment therapies if the deck is stacked against those therapy providers?