Should there be more? Of course! But the money has to come from somewhere. For a study on potatoes and inflammation it has to come from the taxpayer or a non-profit institute. For a study on a new drug that has a potential to make a huge profit, of course it's much easier to find someone besides those to fund it. There are many problems with the modern medical system but I don't think this aspect is totally broken, definitely not to the degree that nay sayers would have you believe.
This is a thought-terminating cliche. It's entirely possible nobody has studied it yet.
It's also worth pointing out that drug companies have no incentive to research subtractive diets. They want to find additive treatments that keep symptoms at bay.
maybe i'm a bad reader but i believe that's what the person you're replying to is saying
In what world do we not see an alignment of interests for studies from nutritionists and dieticians on this topic?
We have a LOT of studies on low fodmap diets and their health effects.
First things first: Don't you think that if we had better drugs for whatever you have, that we wouldn't go with that in general? (I know there are exceptions that say that we wouldn't, but these are exceptions).
Second: 25% effective is better than nothing. I have MS. The first real drugs - all injections with plenty of side effects - were around 33% effective or something like that and might have reduced severity of the stuff it didn't stop. This wasn't after 2 years, this was the out-of-the-box effectiveness.
And it was still worth it. This is because an imperfect solution is better than no solution whatsoever. Know what happens in MS when you have fewer flares? You have less risk of permanent damage. It meant your risk of bad events is less. You have less chance of not being able to walk or not controlling your bowels or having full vision.
The drugs were imperfect because our knowledge was (and is) imperfect. That was the best we had at the time. But then again, it was the foundation for modern drugs which are more effective (and easier to take than an at-home injection). Cost is still an issue, but single-payer systems still pay for them because the overall cost is less than the cost of unchecked disease.
Most, if not all of the diets advertised for MS have not proven themselves, despite the claims of the folks writing the books (most of which have had other interventions and might have just been lucky with their disease progression, like I have been so far).
TLDR: An imperfect drug that helps a little is better than no help at all.
In his case there is an alternative. It will never be promoted.
You can limit stress and find many practices and supplements which reduce anxiety and cortisol.
I'll pretend this insult wasn't here.
>Governments that provide and purchase healthcare services are also in the business of funding research.
Well, some research, but the $100M+ cost of studies to get anything approved as a medication is exclusive done by companies hoping to profit from selling it, AFAIK.
One effect of this system is that no one funds such studies for non patentable substances.
If this treatment could be turned into a drug that had billions of dollars in revenue, as some arthritis drugs have, then there would be endless studies.
Sadly, that's not the world we live in.
"Lack of studies" in many cases is code for "there's no money to be made here."
This is too bad, because many extremely effective and effectively free treatments are ignored by scientists because they can't fund the research.