...and we clearly have a minimal number of such sources in the US.
Don't be so hard on the US. They really do provide a lot of funding compared to many countries. Sure it is distributed in perhaps not the best way (few very large grants), but its pretty substantial. For example my PhD was 100% funded under a NSF grant despite the fact that i was not in the US. We also had the requirement that we had to make all findings and contributions reasonable public.
That has nothing to do with patents per-se though, it has to do with the perverse incentives in a profit-driven medical research.
I can't quite see how non profit driven medical research would need patents?
Patents in pharmacuticals work well.
I have worked for pharmaceutical companies. They work well if you want these companies to make a lot of money. If general health of your population is the goal, then they are a total disaster. You don't work on cures, you work on treatments, for example. Why sell someone a week of pills, when you could sell them pills for a lifetime? Even worse is that a lot of money for these treatments is not invested by the company that holds the patent. But often heavily supported by the state through universities and grants.
The free market, capitalism, fails with health care at every level.
The paper itself describes, quite credibly, exactly why they did not do that. Did you read it?
No it doesn't, and you can absolutely blame them for that. If you are not even allowed to measure the very thing that its claimed to do, you tell the guy to stick it where the sun don't shine.
It is pretty clear you have no idea about a really simple experiment i would expect anyone in high school science to manage.
I think its pretty clear. These scientists are either very senile, or in on the scam. I suspect the later.
It isn't as though Rossi had one bolted to a table and wouldn't let anyone under the table to look.
Eh yes it is. Really.