Your February 25th posting, “Evidence-Based Medicine Gets a Nod in Stimulus Bill,” gave an excellent description of what the research is intended to do, and why it is important that such comparative effective research be done. In addition, you cited Alicia Mundy’s WSJ piece, which “suggested that drug and medical-device industries were ‘mobilizing to gut’ the comparative research provision.”

I wasn’t at all surprised to read that. Nor was I surprised to read in THIS posting that the instruments that have been created for consumer “input” are very UNuser-friendly.

This is very sad.

But, to me, equally sad — and, I think, a point that NO ONE has yet adequately addressed — is that several extremely effective, lifesaving, inexpensive treatments may be completely LEFT OUT of the comparative effectiveness research mix. Why? Because they are treatments that are NOT manufactured by pharmaceutical companies.

I am referring here to two kinds of treatments: (a) “alternative” treatments; and (b) lots of other “science-based” treatments that are, unfortunately, often unfairly called “anecdotal.” These treatments are called “anecdotal” for only one reason: because they haven’t gone through the billion+ dollar double-blind randomized clinical trials. (Most of these “trials,” of course, are conducted and paid for by Big Pharma.)

I have interviewed pioneers in the successful use of several of these science-based, though so-called-“anecdotal” treatments on my website, HonestMedicine.com. The specific treatments I have written about so far are: LOW DOSE NALTREXONE for autoimmune diseases, such as multiple sclerosis; the KETOGENIC DIET for pediatric epilepsy; and INTRAVENOUS ALPHA LIPOIC ACID, for diabetic neuropathy and organ regeneration. Each of these three treatments has been helping thousands of people with very serious, often life-threatening conditions for OVER THIRTY YEARS. (You may read about them at http://tinyurl.com/cspj99 .)

Why, then, don’t I think that these treatments (and others like them) will be included in the comparative effectiveness research?

For proof that my suspicions are well-founded, all you have to do is go to http://tinyurl.com/bfc6wg, for a video of the recent Senate Hearings on Integrative Medicine and the new health plan, where Drs. Mehmet Oz, Mark Hyman, Andrew Weil and Dean Ornish testified.

There, you will find the following interchange between Dr. Mark Hyman and Sen. Tom Harkin (at 142:00 to 142:36) :

DR. HYMAN: (re the Comparative Effectiveness Research that will be done to determine which treatments work best for patients): “What are we comparing things TO? Drug to drug? Procedure to procedure? Or are we comparing the current medical practice with the best available things we’re talking about [e.g., integrative treatments]?”

SEN. HARKIN: “I’m afraid — I share your fear — that it’s going to be a comparative analysis between this treatment and that treatment.”

DR. HYMAN: “Within the allopathic model.”

And by the way, without stating it, when he refers to the “allopathic model,” Dr. Hyman is, of course, referring to the PHARMACEUTICAL COMPANY MODEL. It’s the only model the American Medical System acknowledges.

To listen to my interview with Dr. Burt Berkson (MD, PhD), pioneer since the 1970s of the use of Intravenous Alpha Lipoic Acid, please go to http://tinyurl.com/cgfjh3 . In it, Dr. Berkson speaks eloquently about how our medical education system teaches doctors NOT to be curious about more innovative, less expensive treatments — such as the three I have written about, both here and on my website.

I wish us ALL the best of luck with our new healthcare system. I strongly believe that all of us who know better must work really hard to get the word out to the healthcare decisionmakers in Washington, D.C.

Can the people at Ourbodiesourblog.org help? I know lots of people who would join in!

Julia Schopick
http://www.HonestMedicine.com