It’s insane, people are willing to fork over cash for any old village quack, but paying highly qualified medical doctors or fees for advanced diagnostics techniques like MRI, well NOOO, that’s a rip off. Hrumph.

     by crni on January 24, 2006 at 6:29 am

<i>A long history of use is not a sufficient qualification for acceptance</i>Correct. Consider the age-old  practice of witchcraft, and the related ones.

     by Loxias on January 24, 2006 at 8:55 am

Ooo Michael I forgot to check the mail.  This stuff is all over tha place. As you may know the president DrnovÅ¡ek recently said that he "erased his illness out of his head". A quote from Nacional.hr: "In 2000, while the President was still Premier of Slovenia, he was
diagnosed with kidney cancer. His kidney was removed but a year and a
half later, there was suspicion that he might be suffering from lung
cancer. Last week, the Slovenian tabloid Direkt released that Drnovsek
had turned to Oskar Keleminovic for help, a Croat expert for
alternative medicine living in Slovenia. According to these claims,
Keleminovic helped Drnovsek completely overcome his illness using
alternative methods." A few days ago I saw the famous anthropologist and university professor Vesna V. Godina saying on national TV that alternative medicine is acceptable for curing cancer and other diseases, since each culture brought with it its own medical practices - and we shouldn’t be ignoring them. She also said that every one should be given choice between the "offical" and alternative medicines. I almost screamed in rage. An established professor and she never heard of the scientific method !?!? But it really gives me the creeps when I hear a nutritionist talking on "Studio City" that HIV doesn’t cause AIDS - bad eating habits do.  I feel really sorry for DrnovÅ¡ek.

     by marbit on January 24, 2006 at 9:10 am

The mainstream medical profession is actually quite brutal and nasty,
so you really have to be careful and not buy everything you hear from
there either. On the other hand, thinking that the ‘alternative’ part
of ‘alternative medicine’ makes it either good or bad isn’t exactly the
right way to go either.

     by JS on January 24, 2006 at 9:57 am

There is no difference between alternatice and mainstream medicine.
Both are quacks (= ideologically challenged). One has to be careful
with both. My preferred medicine is Ajurveda  (not everything, but
within the boundaries that I understand). en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AyurvedaIn general I congratulate Drnovšek and I like his new attitude.

     by Nik on January 24, 2006 at 10:45 am

The patient HAS to have the option to back out of the medical treatment, performed by the hospitals. If it is their choice, it should be respected. You cannot force anybody to undergo procedures they find repulsive or without meaning to them. There are patients who have gone through several radiation therapies and have seen little or no success in treating their cancer. I can understand why these people would be keen on trying something else.While I cannot understand how any homeopathic medication could work, I do accept that this alternative form of treatment might have its positive effects. First of all: people are bound to be very disappointed if the official medicine fails them, while they might not feel the same way about homeopathic treatment when the latter fails to cure their disease. And secondly, the doctors HAVE to tell the patient all the possible outcomes. They say: you’ve got 90% chance of survival, but it is also possible that you might not survive your cancer. The doctors are bound by law, whereas homeopaths are not. They tell the patient they’ve got this wonderful new treatment, which will certainly cure you, you just have to believe it. When somebody acts this way, the patient is more likely to trust their methods, just because they offer survival without the "slight chance of not making it".Also, you expect the official medicine to work, that’s why you don’t really call it a miracle, when somebody survives cancer by a combination of chemotherapy and radiation therapy. But when "all the official methods fail" and someone survives by using homeopathic medications, it suddenly is a miracle. Double standards, eh? Additionally I would be very interested in these "all the official methods failed to cure me". Does this mean they underwent a full course of radiation therapy/chemotherapy and were just not recuperating fast enough, so when they miraculously survived by using homeopathic medications, this was just the triumph of traditional medicine, coupled with positive attitude?

     by Nadezhda on January 24, 2006 at 11:51 am

  I’ve had a chronic skin condition for over ten years now. I spent years going from one dermatologist to another, from Milan to Munich, and I probably saw all of them in Ljubljana. They were prescribing me everything and the opposite of everything, but nothing really helped, apart from short-lasting effects of cortisone, which in my case had a terrible rebound effect and damaged my skin considerably, making it even more vulnerable. Then last year I decided to give homeopathy a shot. It’s the first thing that is actually giving results. Is it just in my head? Well, it’s certainly weird that I wouldn’t have this kind of effect with all of the other stuff. I was certainly desperate enough to believe in anything. I also had no idea how homeopathy works at first. The homeopaths didn’t tell me you had to cure the body starting from the inside and that the skin would be the last to be affected. Yet, the first thing to improve was my migraine. I used to pop pills against headaches like crazy. Now I can do without them and I’m confident that my skin condition will further improve also.  This stuff is very personal, but I think that people who have no experience with this kind of treatment should not give judgements about it. There are lots of things we still can’t explain, but this doesn’t mean they don’t exist.

     by boÅ¡tjan on January 24, 2006 at 12:10 pm

There are millions (literally <i>millions</i>) of stories like Bostjan’s. Striking
out everything that’s not part of the so-called "Scientific Method"
it’s not only silly, it’s also discriminating and dangerous.I mean, how many thousands of year has this oh-so-revered scientific method being going on? One? Two if you really stretch it?Chinese medicine has been used, taught and refined in schools, academies and universities for more than 4 thousands years. Ajurvedic medicine, even more.Don’t
get me wrong, I’m all for science — but let’s not be just Eurocentric
here (western science being an European way of looking at the world,
after all). 

     by Carlitos Yoder on January 24, 2006 at 12:39 pm

First of all: Homeopathic medicines are just regular substances used by traditional/scientific medicine. The active principle in homeopathic drugs ar just about the same as in the classical ones. the difference is that their concentration is much much lower.Aspirin could also be seen as an ayurvedic treatment as it is or was primarily obtained from willows.

     by mAT on January 24, 2006 at 1:52 pm

Hey, don’t get me wrong, if you don’t trust the scientific method and want to fork over some cash to a witch doctor, go ahead. Get a discounted voodoo doll of me and stick a pin in its crotch while you’re at it for all I care. But we all know what this sort of legislation means in a country with socialized medicine like Slovenia - it eventualy means the support of quacks through the compulsory medical insurance tax that everyone is paying. I am a compassionate person and don’t mind paying out of my ass for someone else’s treatment - when there is science behind the procedure! All these quacks are doing is banking on the placebo effect. You hear these success stories from the believers, but you rarely hear the stories of worsening conditions of people who have stopped their conventional treatments to go to some snake charmer. Of course, in the end even in those cases it was the "conventional medicine" that failed…

     by crni on January 24, 2006 at 1:57 pm

you rarely hear the stories of worsening conditions of people who have stopped their conventional treatmentsIn the interests of sharing, I can tell one. A family friend of ours was recently diagnosed with cancer, and decided to rely exclusively on alternative treatment. She believed in the theory that cancer doesn’t exist — that it’s a mental problem, or a sickness of the soul. The reason people die, the theory goes, is because of chemotherapy. Her treatment involved drinking a lot of fruit juices and some other herbal supplements. After some ups and downs, she died last Christmas.According to some of her relatives, it’s because she "didn’t fully believe."I do have to say that the hostility to so-called western medicine seems to be really intense here in Slovenia. Marbit is probably the first Slovene I’ve met here who is contemptuous of alternative medicine. (Crni is part-American, so he doesn’t count.) Virtually everyone else I’ve met in my five-year stay here is either sympathetic to the idea, or at least tolerant. It’s interesting.

     by Michael M. on January 24, 2006 at 2:52 pm

There is no difference between alternatice and mainstream medicine.
Both are quacks (= ideologically challenged).Here
is some (a bit distorted) post-modernism in the service of ‘altenrative
treatments’. This is the familiar take on ‘all discourses being equal,
whether originating from a theoretical physicist or a shaman’.

     by Loxias on January 24, 2006 at 2:58 pm

Da Wife was having some skin condition problems that visits to
traditional dermatologists resulted with no percetable improvement. 
So, as a last ditch effort, she went to a homeopathic "doctor",
actually, a Jewish homeopathic "doctor".  I emphasize the "Jewish"
because this "doctor" did so.  No disrespect intended; I believe
her emphasis was based on the crowded field of homeopathy and her
desire to distinguish/seperate herself in it.  Personally, I think she just
should have stuck a few feathers in her head and gone with that as the
distinguishing feature of her practice.   Having a duck call around her neck would have helped as well.
The short of it, after much money being
dispensed (Money being dispensed being a feature common to both
homeopathic "doctors" and scientifically trained doctors), no
improvement was in sight.  LIterally.  It was at this point
that things got interesting.  The good "doctor" consulted and then
insisted that my wife was having a moral/religious crisis and this
condition was negating any improvement that her poppy-seed sized
medication was aiming for.  My wifew stopped the visits with the
"doctor"; I stoppped payment on any outstanding checks to her practice. Two
months later, my wife changed jobs.  Skin condition cleared up
within a week.  Her previous employer went out of business about a
month later.  Amazing how stress can affect all parts of our
body. 

     by DarkoV on January 24, 2006 at 2:59 pm

@Michael M.: maybe you’ve been hanging with the wrong crowd :)) just kidding. But I wouldn’t go as far as to say that Slovenes are hostile towards westerm medicine. Doctors are still considered a divinities clad in white and are one of the three most respected proffessions (the other two being lawyer and teacher). However, there is only so much medicine (western or otherwise) can do. If homeopathic medicine were really that great than - belive you me (to put in the words of Miss Piggy) - the pharmaceutical industry would be all over it making millions of billions of euros. Having said that, there are examples (more than a few) of alternative (not just homeopathic) medicinal approaches that have cured diseases deemed to be incurable. Saddly, however, for every person to have been cured (or at least gotten better) from cancer by alternative methods, there are scores of people who haven’t.  But if there’s even a slight possibility that one person will get better because of this provision in the law, then I’m all for it. Especially beause I don’t see the harm in selling homeopathic medicines over the counter to general population.

     by pengovsky on January 24, 2006 at 3:08 pm

I’m not the person for alternative medicine. I have a way too eurocentric-mechanicist "svetovni nazor" (Weltanschaung).However, I find the attitude shown in the mentioned article too arrogant. And it shows a lot of ignorance: WTF has homeopatic medicine to do with "supernatural powers"? I won’t endure in argumentation: but just think how many practices of the "official" medicine came from "obscurantist" (i.e. empiricly rather than rationally attested) practices. Acopuncture, chiropractice, hypnosis (as far as I know nobody has explained yet how it actually works). Not to mention that drugs (medicines) like aspirin, quinine, were used for decades (centuries) without anyone actually knowing WHY do they help. They just knew they DID.And to finish: does vaccination not come from traditional homeopatic medicine and had been used for two centuries untill they understood how it works?

     by Luka on January 24, 2006 at 3:16 pm

loxias: Here
is some (a bit distorted) post-modernism in the service of ‘altenrative
treatments’. This is the familiar take on ‘all discourses being equal,
whether originating from a theoretical physicist or a shaman’.You have distorted my words. I didn’t say that.
My point was that not only ‘alternative medicine’, but also
‘modern medicine’ (and also ‘modern science’ in general) is suffering
from the same illness. Scientists don’t quarrel about scientific facts,
they really hate each other because of their ideological believes
regarding that facts. This is very obvious, if you only open your eyes.
The move on occurs only when the older generation of scientists dies.
Medicine as a science is not very different from physics in this
regard, and there is plenty of  ideology intertwined in it. And if
you don’t see that, then you must be blind.

     by Nik on January 24, 2006 at 3:45 pm

  I think some people here are being really unfair and ignorant by just bundling all the various types of »alternative« medicine together and throwing them in a cesspool. Yes, there are crazy methods out there and plenty of swindlers. But can you imagine what western medicine would look like if the state didn’t control and regulate it? Not all of these healers will tell you to just quit taking your medication, you know, and not all of them will invoke supernatural powers, so stop generalizing. I have an enormous respect for the body of knowledge the western medicine has amassed. In fact, my foremost criterion when choosing a homeopath was that he have a medical degree. But I also feel that the western system has its head so far up its own ass it just can’t properly evaluate other possibilities. And Marbit, Vesna Godina survived cancer a few years ago. You may say that as a consequence she lacks critical distance on the subject, or that she knows what she’s talking about. The choice is yours.

     by boÅ¡tjan on January 24, 2006 at 4:19 pm

And besides I would emphasise that the apriori derogatory point of view for healers of traditional societies is idiotic and stupid.
As if they were some sort of dumb men, bent on fooling their people;
and not someone who consciously and intelligently worked for the
benefit of their people.
Not to mention the same approach toward civilizations that thrived for hundreds of years (few thousand as Carlitos says). I can’t tell a lot of about Indian Ayurvedic medicine (I can’t read Sanskrit yet). It has a lot
of different approaches, from usual stuff that ‘our medicine’ advises
too (healthy food, movement, etc…), ‘preko’ diagnostics based on
puls, preparations from plants and minerals, up to surgery, with
everthing involed with that. Of course it is based on completely
different world-view than is todays.
But I can point to some interesting stuff about Indian
linguistics (yeah I know, different science, but maybe some achievents
here can be illustrative of achievements in other sciences as well). I
actually first met this, studying computer science and formal methods for language definitions. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/P%C4%81%E1%B9%87ini
 I will put a quote here:PÄ?ṇini was an ancient Gandharan (approximately 5th century BC, but estimates range from the 7th to the 3rd centuries) who is most famous for formulating the 3,959 rules of Sanskrit morphology known as the AṣṭÄ?dhyÄ?yÄ«. 

PÄ?ṇini’s grammar of Sanskrit is highly systematised and technical. Inherent in its analytic approach are the concepts of the phoneme, the morpheme and the root,
only recognized by Western linguists some two millennia later. A
consequence of his grammar’s focus on brevity is its highly unintuitive
structure, reminiscent of contemporary "machine language" (as opposed to "human readable" programming languages).

PÄ?ṇini uses metarules, transformations, and recursions with such sophistication that his grammar has the computing power equivalent to a Turing machine. In this sense Panini may be considered the father of computing machines. The Backus-Naur Form or BNF grammars used to describe modern programming languages have significant similarities to PÄ?ṇini’s grammar rules.
Interesting is also the third external link on that page (
www-gap.dcs.st-and.ac.uk/~history/Mathematicians/Panini.html&nbsp;
- but at the moment the page doesn’t work it seems). They basically
say similar things, and they end with a quote by Cardona, a Sanskrit
linguist studying pANini’s work from some American university
(University of Pennsylvania?). I quote that Cardona’s saying here (from
his surveys: "pANini - A Survey of Research (1976)" and "Recent Research in pANinian Studies (1999)")
pANini’s grammar has been evaluated from various points of view.
After all these different evaluations, I think the grammar merits
asserting, with Bloomfield (1933), that it is "one of the greatest
monuments of
human intelligence".
Once I published few excerpts from Cardona’s survey in the link
below (a thread on hr.soc.religija, 5 messages, part are in Croatian,
well mine isn’t too good). It is a bit longer read, also a little
technical, but not too difficult. It starts with mithology, goes into
linguistics and returns to the meaning of mithology.

tinyurl.com/cg5jn
groups.google.com/group/hr.soc.religija/tree/browse_frm/thread/e3971e6a09e86928/1039f6350036b9c4?rnum=1&hl=en&q=cardona+group%3Ahr.soc.religija&_done=%2Fgroup%2Fhr.soc.religija%2Fbrowse_frm%2Fthread%2Fe3971e6a09e86928%2F8a5b2453f929e412%3Flnk%3Dst%26q%3Dcardona+group%3Ahr.soc.religija%26rnum%3D1%26hl%3Den%26#doc_1039f6350036b9c4&nbsp;

     by Nik on January 24, 2006 at 6:06 pm

I have a new "linguistic" term for you. It’s called red herring.

     by crne on January 24, 2006 at 6:57 pm

Does it really matter how you get cured?  Of course it matters if you pay a lot of money (whether in taxes or bribes to get higher up the queue, or payments for alternative medicine) and it doesn’t cure you. I have seen alternative medicine have great effects on some people, and not much on others (including myself).  I like to have the choice of treatment and I don’t like to pay for expensive drugs with side effects if there is a simpler treatment with acupuncture that will work more safely.  I do like to pay for quick keyhole surgery when that is what I need.  Surely both types of treatment can co-exist and be paid for by the health service, as is now quite common in Britain and for private insurance.  But patients need to know who can cure what, so that expectations are not raised wrongly.Only private "scientific" doctors will lose out that way, but they usually are not poor!.Again, does it really matter how you get cured? 

     by varske on January 24, 2006 at 7:11 pm

Hold on a moment: there is one thing enabling homeopathic medicines to
be legally registered - but an completely other thing to go to so
called ‘old village quack’ (a person without obvious & legitime
medical qualification).

Homeopathic medicine is legally registered here in Austria, it gets
prescribed by doctors and it’s a welcome alternative for patients with
allergy on some mainstream pharmaceutics. I have switched over to
homeopathic medicine when having an influenza a year ago, I’m
responding much better for example to Metavirulent & Gripp-Heel as
to Tamiflu & other common drugs. The only problem with homeopathy
is that the ‘Krankenkassa’ won’t pay for it, so it’s sorts of a luxury.

I think the discussion here went wrong way, all this medieval panic is
ridiculous. Having homeopathic medicine registered won’t bring any
Voodoo to Slovenija, far from it! Registration of the homeopathic drugs
will bring security & confidence for doctors & patients, it
will actually clarify the medieval myst.

     by Dragan on January 24, 2006 at 8:07 pm

I agree completely with Dragan. He couldn’t have put it better.

     by Luka on January 24, 2006 at 8:16 pm

“If homeopathic medicine were really that great than - believe you me (to put in the words of Miss Piggy) - the pharmaceutical industry would be all over it making millions of billions of euros.”I believe the only reason the pharmaceutical industry is not all over it is because many homeopathic “cures” involve completely natural ingredients – none of which one can patent (unless Monsanto tweaked the seeds somehow, which would certainly happen in a heartbeat if one suddenly discovered that a particular variety of barley was the cure for cancer or AIDS…)  In short, if there’s no chance that wads of money to be made off of it because sick people can essentially grow the cure in their backyard or gather it in the woods, the pharmaceutical companies will never bother with it.  They are far more interested in spending money to suppress such ideas.Speaking from personal experience, I think that you needn’t resort to labeling ALL homeopathic medicines and natural cures as trickery; herbal supplements have worked –and continue to work- for millions of people for thousands of years.  Many people turn to such treatments as last-ditch efforts after “traditional” cures have failed, or when treatments have side effects which are worse than the disease itself.  Over the past two years, much to the surprise of my doctor, I have had good results – medically verifiable results – using a combination of “alternative" practices such as acupuncture and herbs, plus common sense.By registering homeopathic medicines, I would hope this would result in the standardization of ingredients and their safety.  People will turn to them regardless, and they should have some assurance of safety when they do.  If alternative meds are treated as the stuff of "witch doctors" and charlatans, people will be ashamed to confide in their regular physician that they are even taking another remedy.  As such, this medicine which they are secretly taking may interfere with their doctor-prescribed, traditional medicine and reduce its effectiveness.

     by Susan on January 24, 2006 at 10:45 pm

Crni: I have a new "linguistic" term for you. It’s called red herring.Well,
I don’t think so. I said at once that the example comes from different
science and that is only serves as an illustration (and it is the only
example I can give;
for a medical comparisons someone who studied western and ayurvedic medicine would be needed).But
I hope you can pick up a sense of sofistication of scientific thought
in a civilization which around 700 BCE produced scientific works with
which our western science cought up with around 1950 or 1960.
The story in medicine is similar and I believe that in certain areas it still surpasses our medicine.
And there is no witchcraft in ayurveda or in similar non-western medical schools (nor
voodoo dools nor shamans - WTF is this a derogatory term to you? - nor
whichever belittling terms you used) and that makes your posts highly
ignorant and also shows your own arrogance and/or ideological
challengedness - similar to that of 20th century western linguists.

     by Anonymous on January 24, 2006 at 11:23 pm

The previous comment is mine. I’m sorry, but I was sending the comment from my home computer and forgot to sign it.

     by Nik on January 24, 2006 at 11:26 pm

Well, this homeopathy sure seems to stir up some comments. All I can
say, is that I’ve taken the homeopathic treatmentagainst flu instead of
a flu shot in October and I’m still fine while everyone around me has
been sneezing, coughing and lying about with terrible headaches and
such. I fell ill about four times a year prior to taking the
homeopathy. I’ve been taking it for other ailments too, and it’s always
come out fine. I don’t need to convince James Randi, professional
sceptic, or anyone else for that matter. What matters to me is that it
works for me. If the Slovene government would ‘legalize’ homeopathy, I
could only applaud this move…

     by Anonymous on January 24, 2006 at 11:27 pm

A lot of people use herbal medicines in the Balkans, that is different
from homeopathy. Herbal medicines in many cases work.  There are
double blind studies out on a lot of herbs. Homeopathy, I’m not so sure
I believe in it.

     by Katja on January 25, 2006 at 2:38 am

Nik: Here’s another "illustration". Slowly smuggling in all this
pseudoscientific crap into the state sponsored health system is very
similar to smuggling in some other pseudoscientific crap through
"Intelligent Design". Seems to me like the pussyfying of the school
system and ignorance of science are already showing results.

     by crni on January 25, 2006 at 5:13 am

crni:But what is ’science’ anyway, but just another system of
faith? Most of us can get science up to a point, and when the heavy
physics and chemistry and mathematics kick in, we’re left in the dark,
believing in what enlightened people discovered ages ago.Our
whole system of geometry (Euclides), for instance, is based on numbers
no computer in the world can explain, such as our friend PI. Both Maya
and Inca civilisation have explained key issues such as this, by
observing the stars. We can get several Cray supercomputers to get
millions of decimals out of PI, without ever finding an end.At the VERY the end, is all about Faith. Some believe in Science, with its paradigms and theorems and proof, choosing to ignore its obscurantist origins. Some
others believe only in organised Religion, with its dogma an repression
and emotional abuse, choosing to ignore their One origin with all other
religions. There’s one Hindu saying that sums all that I
wanted to say, in which I fervently believe (simbolised in the image of
Saraswati, Deity of Knowledge and Art): "Science without religion is nothing but speculation, Religion without Science is nothing but fanatism"

     by Carlitos Yoder on January 25, 2006 at 10:07 am

… of 20th century western linguists.Sorry, it should be "19th century western linguists"@crni: Here’s another "illustration".  …No,
it’s about ideology vs. science. You brand whatever doesn’t belong to
your ideology in derogatoy terms, without even looking for facts
(methods, intended fields of use, predicted results, …). You just
know everything non-scientifical is voodoo.
(I didn’t never talk about homeopaty and neither about intelligent design theory)

     by Nik on January 25, 2006 at 1:07 pm

Carlitos: Pi is not a very good example. The number is very easily explained - it is the ratio betweeen circle circumference and its diameter. The fact that its exact value is unknown simply stems from the fact that it is an irrational number. Quite a becoming name for a group of numbers, don’t you think? I suggest more reading up on what is the scientific method and the number theory and less mumbo jumbo, but somehow I hae a feeling my advice shall not be heeded.  Nik: I am not talking ideology. I am talking about very practical things, such as a concensus within the society that we will trust and finance only things which can be reasoned out and scientifically proven. Until these effects cannot be proven to work with the methods of science (double blind tests etc.), I will not trust them. If you can prove them, go to Randi and claim your million $. Until then, consider this my last response.

     by crni on January 25, 2006 at 4:05 pm

crni: Well in part I agree with you. I don’t want to finance organized religion, probably as much as you (how about a "scientific proof" in this field). Or better I want to be able to give my share to the religious/charity/philosophical organization of my choice. But
basically I don’t see any problem in stately regulated competition of
different medicines (or religions). Catholic church and ideologically
motivated doctors seem very close at this point - it is all about
maintaining their monopoly.
As for Randi: Maybe some Slovene doctor practicing acupuncture should go first? I am hundred percent sure that he will be labelled as a quack.

     by Nik on January 25, 2006 at 5:34 pm

More about Randi: I doubt he would be interested in my past
or possible future work (formal methods and how they were used in
ancent Indian linguistics).But I don’t need some prejudicial
quack (in my definition of the term = ideologically blinded person) for
verifying my beliefs in medicine. I am satisfied with conclusions of
WHO (world health organisation). A few links, if you might be
interested: http://www.who.int/mediacentre/factsheets/fs134/en/http://www.who.int/gb/ebwha/pdf_files/WHA56/ea5618.pdf  http://whqlibdoc.who.int/hq/2002/WHO_EDM_TRM_2002.1.pdf  

     by Nik on January 26, 2006 at 8:35 am

Sorry about another comment, but this is seriously the last one.

Some stuff I found in news, which are illustrative of the
things going on and which are also mentioned in the above WHO links and
which also connect to crni’s comment about pharmaceutical industry.
–
     by Nik on January 26, 2006 at 7:32 pm