As a consumer advocate devoted to informing people with cancer on complementary and alternative cancer issues (CAM), I read many papers and reviews. Most reviews of CAM end with a statement that more evidence is needed. How are we to understand this? Who will pay to develop the evidence? In the United States, this is a real problem. Pharmaceutical companies have stated they will not examine anything they cannot patent. Studies of nutrients are different from drugs - can they be tested in the model for drug vs drug free (nutrient versus NO nutrient). It seems unlikely. Nutrients will probably need to be examined as a group; yet our research likes to "tease" out each active ingredient or element alone. Are we missing the synergistic or even additive effects? What if natural therapies need to be examined against a background of better nutrition, will we ever find out? How can we examine Traditional Chinese Medicine, a complete health system by looking at the parts separately? We need studies that let practitioners treat as they would normally; that may include many aspects, a variety of herbs along with acupuncture, or other methods. This will be true for homeopathy as well as Ayurvedic medicine. The review "Wholegrain cereals for coronary heart disease" - Under Main Results, stated "However, there is a lack of studies on other wholegrains or wholegrain diets". And "However, the results should be interpreted with caution because the trials found are small, of short duration and many were commercially funded". How do I interpret this? Pharmaceutical companies fund the studies of their products and we do not complain that they were "commercially funded". (Although I am aware of papers stating that better results are usually obtained when company funded studies are done). "Aromatherapy and massage for symptom relief in patients with cancer" found "there was insufficient evidence to draw firm conclusions", and "Further trials with longer follow-up periods are needed". Even more frightening was the paper "Laetrile treatment for cancer" whose MAIN RESULTS stated: "No RCTs or non-RCTs were found, so no abstraction of outcome data could be performed in this systematic review". How was this treatment shown NOT to work? As an advocate for people with cancer NOW (and in the future), I wonder how we can move forward with better, more appropriate, and meaningful trials? Advocates are ready to have this happen. What needs to be done?