Replies

There is a health monopoly in this country, maintained by the government, as is to a greater extent in Europe. Numerous regulations and bureaucracies, including the FDA, drug laws, HMOs, etc., create a restrictive environment for those who want to innovate in this field. Moreover, those in the field have an obvious incentive to uphold the existing system: it protects their position and excludes potential competition.
That said, I don't think it's reasonable to argue that simply because suppression exists in the medical industry, that somehow alternative treatments are more likely to succeed. They could work, certainly (perhaps even better than what's in the mainstream). But, in fact, the alternative treatments which fall outside of the mainstream medical industry carry a higher risk, by their very nature. Of course, it should be a patient's decision (or a parent's decision for his child) whether to take that risk or not. The government should have no say in these matters, but unfortunately, it has a great deal.
We're in a conundrum. What are you going to do -- overhaul the entire regulatory structure of the medical industry?