Cris Kerr, please enlighten us as to the details of this miracle drug, otherwise we will all regard your post as another lot of BS from a crackpot.

"And it has removed your own humanity as well. We might as well declare it every many for himself, since there is no absolute moral standard."

Well clearly the ones who claimed the absolute moral standard,
ie the Catholic Church, got it wrong!

Eggs, sperms, embryos, zygotes, you name it, are all flushed
down lifes toilet on a regular basis, quite naturally. As
Darwin pointed out, far more potential individuals will be
created, then can ever survive. Ignore natures laws at your peril.

Personally I think its far more human to focus on suffering,
rather then get carried away by organisms. But then thats
just my morality, versus that of the Catholic Church, which
seems to have the weird notion that suffering is ok, but we
should panic about holy sperms etc.

Perhaps the Church's claim to absolute morality is in fact
a flawed one.

Hi VK3AUU,

Here's an article on the subject written by a Brisbane crackpot:

'Anecdotal evidence points to relief for MS sufferers'
http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=3905

It will be interesting to see how these decisions are viewed in several decades time.

Lets take a look back through history - like the first few curious researchers who conducted autopsies.

No doubt they were conducting research that was viewed as immoral - evil. I dare say much of the rhetoric we are hearing today would have been directed at them, in even more harsh tones.
I'm not familiar with all the history, but I'd be very surprised if this research was conducted in the open. It was probably a sordid frankenstein-esque affair, conducted secretly in back rooms away from prying eyes.

Is there anyone here who would argue that conducting research into the human body and conducting autopsies was wrong?

Moral standards do change over time, this can't be denied. Perhaps one day we will exist in a world where brain-dead clones are created for organs. I'll agree it's a nasty scary thought.

But then again... those who opposed the first anatomy research probably wouldn't want to believe that one day they would be common. It was probably a 'nasty thought' too.

The question is... were those who were opposed to surgery morally superior? Will we be morally inferior if we undertake cloning research? Will the people of tomorrow look back on this decision as simply a brave one, on the road to better health for mankind?

Dunno yet. If I can find a time machine, I'll let you know.

Thanks for your link, Cris. I hope you won't mind me quoting from it:

"Clinical trials cost money and are typically initiated or sponsored by those who expect to recoup the cost outlaid for the trial by commercialising its successful results. That’s business and how it should be. If an organisation is prepared to fund the very high cost of research, development and clinical trials, then they are entitled to view the costs as an investment that will turn a profit.

However, Naltrexone has long passed its patent protection period. Drugs outside patent protection are classed as “generic” or “orphan” drugs, because they no longer have a sponsor. A clinical trial, therefore, does not present an attractive commercial proposition for those sponsoring organisations that have traditionally initiated clinical trials - because they wouldn’t gain exclusive rights (and subsequent profits) from a successful outcome. So regardless of the promise Naltrexone holds, nothing happens."

Australian cardiologistist Dr Ross Walker highlights this concept in an article on anti-oxidants. Obviously, no-one is going to spend a fortune conducting clinical trials on assorted fruits, vegetables and supplement ingredients and get nothing back. But Dr Walker says that he has noticed with his patients that those who take anti-oxidants tend to have better health than those who don't.

In regard to autopsies etc, TRTL, Boris Karloff was suitably sinister in the 1945 film, The Body Snatcher. For medical research, doctors were obliged to do illegal business with anyone who could provide them with bodies.

"The Body Snatchers was Karloff's moment. It was an Oscar-worthy performance as John Gray, the character who gives the movie its name. Gray supplies corpses for Henry Daniell's medical school. Of course, Gray does not just snatch corpses from graves; he will go out and find people and turn them into corpses. (BTW, this was a real issue in 18th and 19th century medical schools: the book The Italian Boy gives an account of the time, when medical schools kept wicker hampers outside their gates for the convenience of body snatchers.) Karloff dominates every scene he's in, smiling and gently sinister."

http://www.sff.net/people/rothman/GBF/bodysnatcher.htm

The results of a successful open-label pilot study at Pennsylvania State University College of Medicine were reported to an international gastroenterology conference in Los Angeles in May 2006. The trial demonstrated the safety and efficacy of LDN in a group of patients with Crohn’s disease, a classic autoimmune disorder. The researchers concluded that "LDN therapy offers an alternative safe, effective, and economic means of treating subjects with active Crohn's disease.” They have since received a substantial NIH grant and will be proceeding with a definitive Phase II placebo-controlled clinical trial.

In addition, there is some in vitro data that indirectly suggest the potential benefits of LDN therapy. Many anecdotal accounts and case reports have also been cited in favor of LDN therapy. Some of the many conditions for which LDN has been reported as beneficial include multiple sclerosis, Crohn's disease, HIV/AIDS, chronic fatigue syndrome, irritable bowel syndrome, psoriasis, fibromyalgia, autism in children and cancer. Several clinical trials have been planned.

On antioxidants, a patient initiated clinical trial of EGCG an anti-oxidant found in green tea is being conducted by the Mayo clinic its findings will be announed next month.

All we did to get this trial happening was raise $120,000.

So my response is get of your bum and find a creditable researcher then pay them to do it.

Off patent or orphan drugs is irrelevant and you are wasting energy complaining.

Just DO IT.