Not at all accurate. Personally, Novantrone, Tysabri, and Zenepax - all of which are immune suppressants of one type or another not only stopped my downhill slide, the were responsible for major improvements.costumenastional wrote:marcstck wrote:I do think that the CRAB drugs are nothing more than a sophisticated form of symptom management, and do nothing to address the root causes of the disease. In that respect, they've taken the eyes of researchers off the real target, and focused them on the "autoimmune theory" for far too long.
I couldnt agree more of course. And this raises the question: Is MS autoimmune?
No it is not. If it was, immunosupression would stop progression. Please believe me. It does not.
As for immunomodulation...well, lets say that if it was working there would be no need for Tysabri, Campath, Rituximab etc...
All immunosupression does (sometimes) is reducing relapses and lesion numbers. All in all, it puts the brakes on inflammation by leaving the body unprotected from everything else.
scorpion wrote:How surprising that this article comes from Ashton Embry.
Is that statement something you can actually substantiate or are you "just sayin'" again?cheerleader wrote: looking outside the pharma box, while helping thousands of pwMS find remission and relief from MS symptoms through diet, supplements and lifestyle. For free.
FlashHack wrote:marcstck wrote:I've read and reread the piece in the BMJ. It's major focus is that an agreement reached between the NHS and the drug companies to revisit the price paid for the CRAB drugs once efficacy data was available was never put into action. It concludes that the price paid for the drugs is not worth the efficacy that they display. It does not state that the drugs themselves are worthless.
The article presents some contradictory evidence, stating that the control group (which were 5000 untreated Canadian patients, not their British counterparts) showed less progression than the group on the DMD's. Later in the piece, though, it states that after one year on the drugs, 38% of those using the drugs showed an improvement in their EDSS.
Mark, as usual a very balanced and thought-out response. The fact that EDSS is "notoriously hard to measure" should not play into anything here as the measurement difficulties would exist in both cohorts (besides it could easily be argued that relapse rates are equally hard to measure and perhaps even more subjective). The size of these cohorts, as noted in the article, is unprecedented, making any systematic measurement bias highly unlikely. On top of that the EDSS scores were not just equal to the untreated population, THEY WERE SIGNIFICANTLY WORSE. I would invoke the ghost of the old lady in the Wendy's commercials of the 80's and say, "WHERE'S THE PLACEBO EFFECT!!"
Despite the million/billions spent developing, testing and promoting them in another current thread people are showing that the real efficacy of the crabs isnt beyond question. You're saying that a higher level of documentation can be shown against the MS disease process through diet and nutrition?jimmylegs wrote:i can definitely say that i personally have benefited from nutritional treatment and that in some cases there are decades of scientific literature to back up the nutritional assertions.
AMcG wrote:Lack of double-blinding and placebo controls is one criticism that cannot be raised in this instance.
AMcG wrote:Both blinding and placebo controls are ways of controlling the effect of the patient and doctors expectations. This effect is always to inflate the results, to make the drug seem more effective than it really is. No patient or doctor ever hopes the patient will get worse.
AMcG wrote:If you applied some statistical technique to remove such effects from these results you would make the drugs appear even more ineffective.
AMcG wrote:Before this publication I would have been willing to believe that there was a real positive effect buried in the results but that it was very small and not noticed by the patients. Which I think is similar to dreddk’s POV.
It is inescapable that all previous smaller scale trials are now in doubt. I might say this is not a new POV. For an unbiased account I would recommend the summary of previous research by the Northern and Yorkshire Regional Drug and Therapeutics Centre here:
http://www.nice.org.uk/nicemedia/pdf/Or ... il2000.pdf
NHS Health Technology wrote:
- Beta interferons and glatiramer reduce relapse frequency in a dose-related manner compared to placebo, the reduction being approximately 30% with the licensed doses. This effect is seen in relapsing remitting MS and secondary progressive MS.
- Interferon beta -1a and -1b and glatiramer produce modest reductions in progression of disability. The data suggest a dose-response relationship for interferon beta -1b and -1a. Studies in secondary progressive MS indicates that patients with a relapsing pattern of disease and/or EDSS scores ≤ 5.5 are more likely to benefit from treatment.
- Beta interferons produce reductions in MRI measures of burden of disease and disease activity and there is evidence of dose-response. Unpublished data also indicate a beneficial effect for glatiramer, although this may be less marked.
AMcG wrote:The implications of this research cannot be overstated.
AMcG wrote:It casts real doubt on the conduct of Drug Companies in reporting previous trials and destroys the basis for prescribing these drugs at all in the UK. And this is not just for one dmd but the four biggest!
Users browsing this forum: Robnl