Unconventional Medicine and Institutional Resistance: A Case History About the Uphill Battles Facing an Innovative...

This analysis revisits the controversial 1990 Office of Technology Assessment (OTA) report commissioned by the U.S. Congress to evaluate unconventional cancer treatments, comparing the political pressures on the medical establishments then to the present-day National Institutes of Health initiatives. The article argues that when political pressure forces the medical establishment to investigate therapies, the bias will be toward refuting them, applying burdensome standards, and overlooking potentially substantive data. While the OTA report discussed multiple unconventional cancer treatments, this article refutes their critique of the methods of William Donald Kelley, D.D.S., and of the investigation of his work by Nicholas J. Gonzalez, M.D. Notably, the OTA initially omitted Gonzalez's most compelling data, later subjecting it to review by both unconventional and mainstream physicians. The outcome revealed a polarization: physicians sympathetic to alternative medicine recognized unexpected remissions deserving scientific attention, while mainstream oncologists dismissed the results, mainly due to reliance on survival rather than tumor regression. This narrative underscores the likelihood of methodological nitpicking when evaluating unconventional scientific evidence. It can serve as guidance and a warning for researchers in this area.