Eisen-Suppressed-Inventions-and-other-Discoveries-True-Stories-of ...

The Suppression of Alternative Medical Therapies 13
Sadly, in this supposed age of enlightenment, the ridicule of the medical
orthodoxy and a rigid system of testing and approval (calcified by the
same suspicions of alternative therapies that plagued discoveries for centuries)
keeps these treatments from ill patients who might benefit from
them, as De Felice, Director of the Foundation for Innovation in Medicine,
in 1987, lamented:
One of the tragedies of our times is that over the past 20 years, a pervasive
and aggressive regulating system has evolved that has effectively
blocked the caring clinical innovator at nearly every step. Let there
be no doubt that we have quietly, but effectively, eliminated the Louis
Pasteurs of our great country.
DR. HORROBIN'S CALL FOR AN END
TO THE SUPPRESSION OF INNOVATION
The Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA) in March,
1990, published selections from the first International Congress on Peer
Review in Biomedical Publications. Dr. David Horrobin presented "The
Philosophical Basis of Peer Review and The Suppression of Innovation,"
a classic presentation. Dr. Horrobin stressed that the ultimate aim of peer
review in biomedical science cannot differ from the ultimate aim of
medicine—"to cure sometimes, to relieve often, to comfort always."
(Believed to be a French folk saying of medieval origin, this beautifully
simplistic description of medicine's intent is inscribed on the statue of
Edward Trudeau at Saranac Lake, New York.)
Dr. Horrobin stated that the purpose of peer review should be nothing
less than to facilitate the introduction of improvements in curing, relieving
and comforting. Even in the fields of biomedical research that are
remote from clinical practice, the peer reviewer should always ask
whether the proposed innovation could realistically lead to improvements
in the treatment of patients.
He notes the necessity for a creative tension between innovation on the
one hand and quality control on the other. The innovators who generate
the future are often impatient with the precision and systematic approach
of the quality controllers. On the other hand, the quality controllers are
often exasperated by the seeming lack of discipline and predictability of
the innovators. If either side dominates, research progress falters.
The public is the ultimate source of money for medical research. They
agree to this use of their money for the sole purpose of improving their
medical care. When improvement does not progress satisfactorily, support
for medical research (and medical journals) will dwindle. The public
wants satisfactory progress; if such progress is not forthcoming, the pre-