Tullakseen hyväksytyksi syövän täydentävänä hoitona nykyisten hoitojen rinnalla ketokarppaus tarvitsisi kunnollisia RCT-näyttöjä. Niitä ei kuitenkaan niin vain putkahda mistään, ellei joku rahoita kalliita tutkimuksia - lääketehtaita se ei tietenkään kiinnosta. Ja sitten tarvittaisiin vielä tutkimusluvat. Onko näyttöasiassa rima liian korkealla? Jääkö tehokas hoito turhaan hyllyyn odottamaan?
http://healthinsightuk.org/2017/02/20/h ... cer-cells/Lainaa:
It’s true. There is a problem with the diet
Promising as all this is, one of the criticisms made by Grimes to debunk the ketogenic diet as a cancer therapy is accurate. He claims that that there is a ‘lack of overall credible data’ and he’s right.
This means that there are no double-blind, placebo- controlled phase three trials to support the ketogenic diet as an adjunctive cancer therapy. This is the so-called gold standard of proof and the reflex reaction of most mainstream oncologists faced with a possible cancer treatment is to dismiss it out of hand unless it comes with a full Randomized Controlled Trial costing millions.
So the question becomes just how high should the bar of burden-of-proof be set? A growing number of oncologists and researchers now believe it is insanely high.
Highly respected oncologists—such as the original pioneers of combining chemotherapy drugs—Vincent DeVita and Emil Freireich – have been railing against the absurd criteria that the FDA has arbitrarily established as a threshold to approve a new therapy for years. They point out that good therapies — potentially lifesaving therapies—sit on the sideline because they will never get the billion-dollar backing necessary to shepherd them through a massive phase three trial.