In article ,
You Ask wrote:

David Wright wrote in message
. com...

Whoopee.

ignorance is bliss

Then you must be a very happy person.

enjoy your life

I do. Correcting the misapprehensions of people like you is one of
the small pleasures. I suspect you've confused patenting something
with getting FDA approval for it (which *does* require proof of
efficacy, unlike a patent).

medical patents require that
that has been done years ago
negativity is no substitute for ignorance

Let's be a bit more precise here. The degree of proof of efficacy is
up to the whims of the Patent and Trademark Office, which often does a
rather poor job (that's why several perpetual motion machine patents
managed to slide by). In vitro studies might sometimes be accepted.

FDA approval generally has far more stringent criteria.

So, as I was saying, a medical patent is not proof that something
works.

-- David Wright :: alphabeta at prodigy.net
These are my opinions only, but they're almost always correct.
"If I have not seen as far as others, it is because giants
were standing on my shoulders." (Hal Abelson, MIT)