All fair points, but medicine is highly cautious, and most would prefer to go with the larger entities opinions/research. So Merck (https://en.wikipedia.org/wik

All fair points, but medicine is highly cautious, and most would prefer to go with the larger entities opinions/research. So Merck (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Merck_Veterinary_Manual https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Merck_Veterinary_Manual) have a massive influence which introduces lag, although some do read pubmed to access more up to date studies, but (google) scholar can be a better search engine to use over pubmed. I'm also aware of the Eli Pariser Filter Bubble which will affect what the vets see and what I see. I also have to do repeated searches sometimes over a few weeks, months or years to see what the search results are throwing up which it didnt previously. > Have you actually looked to see how the medical field tackles this problem? Yeah and they dont tackle the problem to my satisfaction instead using older technology/medicine. No one wants to put their neck on the line because they dont want to look at human studies where biological similarities exist, or different species are used, like the good old rat. So some in-vitro studies exist because its impossible to study in-vivo, the tech just doesnt exist for in-vivo and that is an area where they are highly cautious and there does seem to be a general dislike for using non patentable chemicals!