National MS Society's "wholy owned subidiary"

A forum to discuss Chronic Cerebrospinal Venous Insufficiency and its relationship to Multiple Sclerosis.

National MS Society's "wholy owned subidiary"

Postby ThisIsMA » Sun Jun 13, 2010 9:27 am

Does anyone else see a potential for conflict of interest here?

According to articles found on the web, the National MS Society (based in the United States) owns a subsidiary that appears to function as a venture capital company, investing in drug start up companies and receiving royalties from drugs that make it to market.

Here's one article: ... 687-1.html

Here's the website for the MS Society subsidiary, which is called "Fast Forward". ... index.aspx

Here's one of several articles on the MS Society's Fast Forward website:

"MS Society teams with Merck KGaA on $19M R&D pact" ... 2009-03-18

And here's a quote from an article about NMSS's Fast Forward (linked to below) that I found on the web:

"Fast Forward takes a venture capital-like approach to research collaborations" ... x?id=19232
DX 6-09 RRMS, now SPMS
Still work, still walk, but not very far.
User avatar
Family Elder
Posts: 203
Joined: Sat Feb 13, 2010 4:00 pm
Location: USA


conflict of interest

Postby hwebb » Sun Jun 13, 2010 3:02 pm

even "Blind Freddie" could see there's a conflict of interest there.
User avatar
Family Elder
Posts: 361
Joined: Thu Nov 26, 2009 4:00 pm
Location: Melbourne, Australia

Postby nicknewf » Sun Jun 13, 2010 3:46 pm


I'm as suspicious as the next bloke, but this is not uncommon practice. The societies take an interest in the drugs so that they can fund more research - otherwise the drug companies would see no money going back into competing research. If pro-CCSVIers get board control someday, these profits will help fund ccsvi randomized trials.
User avatar
Family Member
Posts: 84
Joined: Mon May 17, 2010 3:00 pm
Location: St. John's, NL

Postby LauraV » Fri Jun 18, 2010 4:59 pm

Wow! I shouldn't be surprised by this but I am. I always felt that the NMSS and the pharmaceutical companies were in bed with each other, but now it's out in the open. Investing in new drug "treatments"? Aren't there enough drug "treatments" out there that don't guarantee anything except profits for the companies that make them? Another treatment? What will this next one do? I'm tired of neurologists and their "treatments".

How about a wholly owned subsidiary that does something really worthwhile, like researching a cure ? But that wouldn't be in their best interest, would it?
User avatar
Family Member
Posts: 65
Joined: Mon Jun 14, 2010 3:00 pm
Location: NY

Return to Chronic Cerebrospinal Venous Insufficiency (CCSVI)


  • Related topics
    Last post

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users

Contact us | Terms of Service