Fredxx wrote:

On 23/12/2019 22:53:15, Rod Speed wrote:


wrote in message
...
On Monday, 23 December 2019 13:20:10 UTC, Roger Hayter wrote:

Anyone with the cash to hire competent people and administer the trial
can run one. As you say, there is no reason a drug company should
spend its shareholders' money on such things, and a university
department would need some reason to suppose there was a benefit.
Contrary anecdata is that chilli pepper (especially Scotch Bonnet) is
very good for stomach problems, respiratory viruses and illness in
general and this is also a solanaceous plant. So I don't believe a word
of it. There is no obvious reason why doctors should tell patients any
old wives' tale that they may have come across, prove it if you want us
to believe it.

Medical studies with enough participants to be
useful are expensive. You'll only get the funds
if someone stands to benefit financially from it.

That's not true of most govt funded medical research.

Most funding of medical research is private.

Most in terms of cash and manpower is by drug firms; drugs are
incredibly expensive to license. But if you look at in terms of
number of different research topics the picture is somewhat different,
because much non-drug research is much, much cheaper. And a
epidemiological research, for instance, is rarely privately funded apart
from charities, which are functionally more part of academia than of
business.

--

Roger Hayter