Thanks Telemando. Yes, I agree trials are the key for medical acceptance of new methods of treatment. My post on Nimbolide was to stimulate interest in the U.K. both at the medical practicioner level and potential users (patients).

Nimbolide has already shown itself to be effective in the treatment of many cancers, particularly prostate cancers and has shown some efectiveness in difficult to treat cancer like pancreatic cancer. We cannot ignore exploring its potential use when the vast majority of drug treatments already in use are derived from the plant life around us.

Trials often take 10 years to evaluate their efficacy and goodness knows how many lives could be lossed in that time !

Hi Dennykins. 

I agree with you that the delay between finding a new potential treatment and getting the results of clinical trials is frustrating. Sadly, there's no way round it if we are avoid useless treatments with possibly dangerous side effects from becoming part of the standard treatment protocols, and doing more harm than good.  

Of course, there are opportunities for patients to get on clinical trials and possibly getting some benefit that way.

I'm not sure that any non-medical person advocating a non-standard treatment will really make much difference. If the results from Singapore stand up to scrutiny, then the information will be transmitted by the usual methods used by researchers around the world, which are generally presentations at national and international conferences, and papers in peer-reviewed journals. 

My fear about advocating unproven treatments is that some desperate people will resort to self-medicating, with all the risks that entails. That in turn may poison the well against further research by proper professionals. 

Hi Dennykins. 

I agree with you that the delay between finding a new potential treatment and getting the results of clinical trials is frustrating. Sadly, there's no way round it if we are avoid useless treatments with possibly dangerous side effects from becoming part of the standard treatment protocols, and doing more harm than good.  

Of course, there are opportunities for patients to get on clinical trials and possibly getting some benefit that way.

I'm not sure that any non-medical person advocating a non-standard treatment will really make much difference. If the results from Singapore stand up to scrutiny, then the information will be transmitted by the usual methods used by researchers around the world, which are generally presentations at national and international conferences, and papers in peer-reviewed journals. 

My fear about advocating unproven treatments is that some desperate people will resort to self-medicating, with all the risks that entails. That in turn may poison the well against further research by proper professionals.