Why isn't Everyone
Using Aminomics
Why Isn’t Everyone Using
Aminomics?
Science has its limits and often cannot give us a crystal clear picture. But this should not paralyze us. Our knowledge of the causes of and cures for cancer may be imperfect, but we have no excuse for delaying application of the nutritional therapeutic and preventive knowledge we now have, both for our own benefit in our later years, and the benefit of our children and grandchildren.
 TESTIMONIALS: Read what ISM clients are saying >>
Firstly, ISM has developed a unique database of thousands of case studies of clients with
chronic and acute disease states. We are not aware of any other client database that has
documented or analyzed the metabolic & immune system profile and impact of
orthomolecular and amino acid deficiencies to the same extent as that developed from the
ISM® client database.
Secondly, conventional cancer treatment is a multi-billion dollar health care business,
largely driven by patentable drugs and processes based on government approved clinical
trial methodologies. A fundamental problem that remains to be solved in the whole cancer
research effort, in terms of therapies, is that the preclinical models of human cancer, in
large part, are ineffective.
Most current cancer therapies are largely "shotgun"
approaches that blast away at tumors but also damage healthy tissues and often have
serious side effects. The scientific and medical community widely acknowledges the flawed
model of drug development…an obsession with tumor shrinkage…a focus on
individual cellular mechanisms, sometimes to the near exclusion of what’s happening
in the organism as a whole.
All these failures come to a head in the clinical trial—a
rigidly controlled, three-phase system for testing new drugs and other medical procedures
in humans. The process remains the only way to get from research to drug approval. Why if
everyone understands there’s a problem, isn’t anything being done?
Two reasons:
1) There’s no other model with which to replace.
2) Regulatory bodies have created industry inertia since they continue to recognize these
models as the gold standard for predicting the utility of drugs.
We face the fundamental problem that our whole healthcare system is geared principally towards repair and recovery as opposed to health promotion and disease prevention. There is a great deal of discussion regarding preventive medicine, but one need only review how medical care is insured and reimbursed to see how little recognition is granted to the value of health promotion.
In this era of evidence-based medicine, physicians are demanding large scale, long-term randomized clinical trials of nutrient interventions as proof of their efficacy and safety in the prevention and treatment of disease. While there are thousands of valid research studies, there are in fact very few such randomized clinical studies and very few are planned for the future. Science prefers simplicity. Research rarely considers mixtures of substances, and their potential to act synergistically - their sum possibly being more therapeutic than each substance individually.
When it comes to natural therapeutics, many medical practitioners will argue that we do not have all the evidence. Therefore, much of conventional medicine assumes that the appropriate response is that no therapeutic nutrient recommendations can be made due to insufficient evidence. From a scientific point of view, they are correct. We never have enough proof in science, and we can always do more research. That’s what science is all about; science is inherently uncertain.
But this is irresponsible. Do you wait until you have enough dead bodies before taking action? We have sufficient evidence to justify action. We do not have absolute proof. We have pieces of a jigsaw puzzle, enough pieces to start to see the whole picture. We ignore it at our peril. We must use our best medical and scientific judgment on the totality of available evidence about natural therapeutics, including basic research and observational studies as well as clinical trials.
Why would we want to ignore the data derived from in-vitro and cell culture experiments, animal models, case reports, population-based studies, and millennia of traditional medical and dietary practices and presume that a single research approach, randomized clinical trials, is the only way we can come to know about the value of nutritional intervention? Holding out for this single “gold standard” is not only too limiting to a full understanding of the impact of nutrient supplementation on chronic disease but holds out the false promise that all necessary trials will be done in our lifetime or even in our grandchildren’s lifetimes.
There are two significant issues with clinical trials. The first is that their duration and cost mean that drug companies—which sponsor the vast majority of such trials—have an overwhelming incentive to test compounds that are likely to win regulatory approval. For research-based pharmaceutical companies, any other approach poses a considerable threat to their patent-protected revenue stream. After all, they are public companies by and large, with shareholders demanding a return on investment. So the companies tend to focus not on breakthrough treatments but on incremental improvements to existing classes of drugs. The process does not encourage risk taking or entrepreneurial approaches to drug discovery. It does not encourage brave new thinking. Not when a drug typically takes 12 to 14 years to develop. And not with $800 million—that’s the oft-cited cost of developing a drug—on the line.
And while tens of billions of dollars have been spent searching for ‘the cure’, with few breakthroughs, only a very small portion of this funding has been earmarked for nutritional prevention and therapeutics – even though ultimately this is far and away our best bet for beating cancer.
Unfortunately, there is an enormous disconnect between what we have established in nutrition science and the actual practice of healthcare. There is a gap between what we know and the health state of the nation. We see a population that is carrying a burden of chronic disease that should be readily preventable by applying our current knowledge.
Thirdly, today’s allopathic physicians are trained by educational standards set by
the College of Physicians and Surgeons whose diagnostic and therapeutic curriculum is
largely predicated on existing pharmaceutical dogma. As a result, many physicians through
no fault of their own, have very little in-depth training on the specific interactions of
orthomolecular compounds in the body’s immune & metabolic systems. Insufficient
government health care budgets tends to mean that symptoms are treated…not causes!
This is a pattern in health care that is only slowly being changed to take into
consideration non-conventional diagnostics and therapeutics.
Contact us to request more information on our orthommolecular compounds and therapeutics for disease treatment and prevention.
|
