The Next Step

The drug failures of Vioxx, celebrex, bextra, and the numerous other failures between Nov/Dec 2004 and March 2005, and the conflicts of interest problems at the FDA underscores the need for independent research. The issue has been furthered, by repeated articles in the journal Science, warning of research reports being skewed to produce favoriable (or at least optimistic) results to secure funding from "review" based granting foundations. Everyone knows of the these foundations, who don't actually do the research that they raise funds for. Private foundations, societies and associations, have become a major source of funding other than the NIH, FDA and other such government agencys. They raise money for research, that researchers compete for. Conflicts of interest are supposed to be eliminated, by the "peer review" process, but many "reviewers" compete for grants themselves. It's these conflicts of interest that cause the ethical questions raised innumerous articles in the journal Science.

Here are just some of the problems that have arisen;


1. medical care costs have risen,

2. leaving 5 million Canadians without a family doctor

3. An increase in the health insurance (OHIP) premium.

4. in the US nearly 30 million people are without health insurance

5. health care costs have caused large companies like GM to issue earnings warning.

6. failures of the pharmaceutical industry and regulatory bodies like the FDA.

The 5 million Canadians without a family doctor (due to a shortage of GP's) is a significant issue, because many politicians are looking to Canada as a solution to the medical crisis in the US. Few Canadians understand where their medical system comes from, or how long it takes to ensure that the medicine that they are getting (or want) is safe for public use. Most Canadians only notice the shortfalls when there is a specific need or emergency - like SARS. The reason is that most medical science is hidden behind gilded walls seen only by the appointed doctors, who's rule was absolute. However, now they are viewed as elitists by a political system that prefers nurse pratictioners. This shortage of doctors has pushed health care costs up, but it's only aminor factor.

The major factor in the raise in medical cost, has been the amazing developments of medical science and medical technology. The pharmaceutical and biotech industry has spent billions since the 1970's developing the medicine and technology (under the regulatory guidance of the FDA and NIH) that we began to see in the 1990's. Technology and medicine that was supposed to bring future generations a longer lifespan and better health.

However, was not to be, the problems of healthcare cost and conflicts of interest - even with the regulatory bodies of the FDA and NIH - isjust the tip of the iceberg.

1. There are ever increase numbers of drug resistant strains of infections (CDC & WHO - Center for Disease Control & the World Health Organiztion),

2. The AHA (the American Heart Association) has conituned to reported an increase in heart disease, and project that heart disease will start in men as young as 30 (it was 45 in the 1970's and 80's)

3. The ADA has reported a continual increase in diabetes

This along with reported increases in asthma , cancer, severe allergies (peanuts, etc), gi disorders and neurological disorders. The irony here is that despite all of the medical improvement, future generations will be facing a decrease in life span! This means our children will be dying younger. This is a very serious problem because all and any solution will come from medical research. And currently, the only avenue being explored is the pharmaceutical and surgical avenue, at theexpense of other valid medical science avenues.

Since the primary source of the problem seems to centered around funding, we began by changing our funding formula. Our first step wasto create a medical science fund that has no middlemen - it's not a charity, foundation or society that simply collects money to be "used" in research, minus their administration costs. All funds generated go direct to research. The next goal, is to create a fully independent source of funds for research that will not cause the problems written about in the journal Science. A difficult prospect due to all the foundations, charities who also want funds from the public. As well, the message that foundations and charities offer is not the real view of the risk of medical research and the length of time required. This means that public donations are insufficient for the monthly funds required to keep a good research program going. As such, funds from public donations can only be a small part of the overall funds generated. Other avenues of revenue generations is being researched as the funding formula is redeveloped. However, the funding issues cannot overshadow the medical research.

This brings us to our next step, which is to bring the science back into medical science. Medical science, like most other sciences (except for physics), is stuck in theories and standards laid out in the 1800's. While physics has moved from classical physics (standards and views set in the 1800's) to modern physics, the rest of science is still under the classical standard. Under the classical standard, scientific knowledge was "absolute" and scientists were experts (for example Newton's Laws). Universities adopted the classical standard from which they taught and set their academic standards. However, in phyics, this view of science ended around the 1900 with Albert Einstein and was buried with the development of Quantum Physics (modern physics). It was found that knowledge of the universe (the focus of astronomy and physics) was far beyond the capacity of the human mind (something that contradicted the classical view) and was relative. The experiment that was supposed to support the classical view of physics became known as the ultraviolet catastrophe. In classical physics (and classical science) all knowledge was absolute and could be understood (and controlled) by the human mind. Experiments were supposed to be created to confirm what theory already understood. However, in physics, when they began to explore the particle structure of nature (molecules, atoms and sub-atomic particles) all the classical theories collapsed with the experiment that became known as the ultraviolet catastrophe. An experiment, that Einstein would take and build his theories of relativity around - which inturn would become central to the concepts known as Quantum physics, Super string theory and the physics work done here. From this point on, it would be experiments that lead theory in physics and astronomy. This standard lead to the space program, computers, computer technology and all medical and genetic technology.

However, this standard was never applied to any other field of science - until now. The changes in physics were buried - hidden - to prevent the collapse of the entire academic system. Further, because much ofphysics and astonomy (modern) was of extreme interest to government (because it was used to develop the atomic bomb), much of the standards in physics were classified. Hidden, by the government, from the general view of the public. This suited universities and academics just fine because, the reality of physics no longer threatened the classical view of the university and the other sciences. It's only been since the 1990's that the technology (and physics) of the cold war became declassified and used by the general public. Technology that brought in the technology for DNA analysis, computer technology (like that used in PET and MRI scanners), lasers for laser surgery, etc. .

It was the scientific standards of physics that pushed the successes in medical technology. This means that to resolve the problems listed above, and develop a better medical system for future generations, the standards of physics needs to introduced and applied to medicine. As such, we have begun the work necessary to take a research technic from astronomy, known as a general field survey, and apply it to medicine. This method is akin to building a large puzzle (between 2000 and 3000 piece puzzle). The more pieces of the puzzle you have put together, the clearer the picture becomes. However, as anyone who has built one of these large puzzles knows, this is not that simple. There is a lot of trial and error in matching pieces, a process that can easily take a month to complete. Astronomers have another problem, unlike a puzzle the pieces of the puzzle is not provide, nor is there really a picture. This is what the general survey does, it provides the general picture and provides hints as to what pieces need to be collected. More specific surveys are required to identify pieces.

In the application of this standard, we already have a good IT system in place and have been collecting the various pieces for about 6 years. In this time, it has become apparent that a proper general survey has never been done in medicine. The general picture developed from the pieces of the medical science puzzle, is that there is no general picture. There is no modern scientific structure, just the classical structure. However, this has been the focus of this institute to bring the pieces of the medical science puzzle, into a structure based on modern physics.