Started a few different replies, but here I am with nothing. Let's see. I did not like this article very much. I'm sure the author, as an insider, has witnessed funding fail to align with optimal benefit in the medical research field. But I disagree with him (and with b_b^) that such a cheap -- and yes, it is comparatively damn cheap overall no matter how much the trials will cost -- and effective treatment will be completely ignored. I wonder if, were the author to go through and name individual cases in which he thinks this phenomenon occurred, I wouldn't be able to pick apart each one, or at least raise ceteris paribus doubts. Health care as a science is about a million times more developed than it was 50 years ago, which in turn was a million times better than 1915, etc. This is because health is the one thing that will never fail to be demanded, so in a sense the health care industry is the last place I would look for cost/benefit misalignments (on the producers' side only! obviously). ^hospital margins fall in the weird science category; they may seem low on paper but that does not equate to a lack of liquidity or an unwillingness to invest like it might in another industry
That's a safe claim. The Wikipedia article was created in 2006. The section on remote ischemic preconditioning was added in May 2014. Would you care to make a prediction as to when the word "experimental" will be removed from the first sentence?I disagree ... that such a cheap ... and effective treatment will be completely ignored.
I don't know enough about medical research to even semi-accurately predict how long the testing process is. I made a safe claim because I didn't have the tools to make a bold one. Also don't like using Wikipedia as a metric. So let's say that I think, within the next five years (two years? really no idea), this process and the relevant application from the article will have funding for trials. Private or public, though we can perhaps agree to both be wrong and pleasantly surprised if it's public. Lot of Boomers getting cardiac surgery.
No reduction in risk of death with ischemic conditioning As reported in The BMJ, the team analyzed results from 68 randomized controlled comparisons, and found that 205 out of 5678 patients undergoing ischemic conditioning died, compared with 219 of 5646 in the control group (risk ratio [RR]=0.96).“Adoption of ischaemic conditioning cannot be recommended for routine use unless further high quality and well powered evidence shows benefit,” write Martin Gallagher (University of Sydney, New South Wales, Australia) and co-authors.