The funding is probably proportional to the likelihood of getting good results, and CCSVI is very new without a lot of data yet (26 hits on PubMed for CCSVI, a pittance). The people making the funding decisions have to decide if finite resources go to research well supported by history and evidence, or something new.
Seem to me starting out small and growing if there's evidence is the right way to go. It'll take a decade for something to go from research to a full blown treatment, the first paper on PubMed I read about CCSVI says there isn't even a gold standard way to assess CCSVI, let alone run clinical trials.
The Iginla canard is just emotional appeal and a false dilemma, it's not an either or... Iginla makes lots of money because lots of people pay money to go see the game.
It takes time for new stuff in Medicine, because it's complicated and expensive, and there's finite resources, and throwing $$ at everything that claims to be effective is impossible.
|