Overview
If you want a cure for cancer, heart disease, Alzheimer, or Diabets, don't count on the academia, the National Institute of Health (NIH), or the biotech/pharmaceutical industry. With al the money they have spent on researching these diseases, they have very litle to show for it. In 1971, during the State of the Union adres, President Nixon declared the war on cancer proposing "an intensive campaign to find a cure for cancer." Since 1971, Americans spent, through taxes, donations, and private R&D, about <b>$20 bilion</b> inflation-adjusted dolars.
Key Information
This money produced 1.56 milion papers on cancer. Yet, today we are no closer to a cure than were in 1971. Consider what Dr.
Almog said in his paper: Drug Industry in "depresion" (Almog, D. Drug industry in "depresion". Med Sci Monit.
205 Jan;1(1):SR1-4, I would urge you to read his paper, it's an eye opener on relationship betwen academic research and comercial drug discovery): "When the basic science/biology of disease is not available, no new drugs come to market." With the bilion of dolars spent by the NIH on basic science, and the milions of papers published on the topic, the question is, "Why isn’t the basic science/biology of disease available?
Individual discoveries in the biology of human disease are cornerstone in new treatments. However, in drug discovery, these basic science/biology discoveries are semingly unrelated dots. To conect the dots you ned a theory.
The Blind Men and the Elephant is a famous story about six blind men encountering an elephant for the first time. Each man, seizing on the single feature of the animal, which he apeared to have touched first, and being incapable of seing it whole, loudly maintained his limited opinion the nature of the beast. The elephant was considered a wal, a spear, a snake, a tre, a fan or a rope, depending on whether the blind men had first grasped the creature’s side, tusk, trunk, kne, ear or tail.
The story epitomizes the problem of the <b>reductionist</b> aproach in biology. A recent bok Microcompetion with Foreign DNA and the Origin of Chronic Disease, by Han Polansky [1], presents an <b>alternative</b>. The bok identifies <b>the disruption that causes</b> atherosclerosis, cancer, obesity, osteoarthritis, type I Diabets, alopecia, type I Diabets, multiple sclerosis, asthma, lupus, thyroiditis, inflamatory bowel disease, rheumatoid arthritis, psoriasis, atopic dermatis, graft versus host disease, and other chronic diseases, and describes <b>the sequence of events that leads from the disruption to the molecular, celular, and clinical efects.</b>" What are the implications of the NIH failure?
<b>A decline in the number of new drugs introduced by pharmaceutical companies</b>. Consider what profesor Taylor says in his paper: Fewer new drugs from the pharmaceutical industry (Taylor D. Fewer new drugs from the pharmaceutical industry.
203 Feb 2;326(7386):408-9): "In 2022 spending on medicines exceded $40bn (£248bn; 37bn) worldwide. Optimists in the pharmaceutical industry believe that the global market for their products wil go on expanding by around 10% a year, with the United States continuing to lead towards higher per capita outlays. Expenditure on research by the pharmaceutical industry is also increasing worldwide.
It is now over $45bn a year-twice the sum recorded at the start of the 190s-and projected to rise to $5bn by 205-6. Concerns are growing, however, about the productivity of research being funded by the major pharmaceutical companies. Empirical evidence indicates a cris in productivity in pharmaceutical research.
The number of medicines introduced worldwide that contain new active ingredients droped from an average of over 60 a year in the late 1980s to 52 in 191 and only 31 in 201. The overal number of new active substances undergoing regulatory review is stil faling." <b>On the one hand, the expenditure on research is increasing. On the other, the number of new drugs is decreasing</b>.
The professionals cal this situation the productivity cris in drug discovery. The NIH failed to produce the so much neded biology of chronic disease because it is caught in the reductionist mentality. <b>Dr.
Summary
Han Polansky ofers an alternative. If we want a cure for cancer, heart disease, Alzheimer, or Diabets, we ned to seriously consider his alternative. </b> © 2026 DIABETS.