A treatment for multiple sclerosis that upsets Big Pharma

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

Postby BooBear » Wed Aug 11, 2010 6:04 am

I think what people are losing sight of is that pharmaceuticals are an industry- and like all industries, they will respond to the markets.

There are good drugs out there- I personally do not believe CRABS are good drugs, and no- they did not work for me. Before anyone types a response to that statement, let me reiterate: the CRABS did not work for ME. That is my experience and not up for debate.

That said, a simple perusal of the publicly available financial reports of any of these companies highlight a clear dependence on the profit margins and continued sales of the particular drugs. That is not something you need to infer from those reports- it is in black and white and in their own words. That, too, is not up for debate.

If someone discovered the cure for cancer, do you not believe that that individual would come under as much, if not more, scrutiny than Zamboni and his team have? Of course. Not only because of the interests of a large medical community that are tied to the maintenance and care of terminal patients, but also from (what I believe to be) a bit of professional jealousy. And believe me, if such a scenario would play out, the financial reports of every pharma that manufacturers chemo or related cancer maintenance drugs would forecast a downturn in revenue associated with the drop in market demand.

What people need to understand is that the pharmas cannot do otherwise- they are public companies and are required- by SEC regulations- to accurately report financial performance and risks in the quarterly and annual reports. Without those updates, investors would be taking a blind risk investing in the company, which is not allowed.

So how can we discount the blatant dependence on future revenue from this captive patient community when the pharmas state that they are dependent upon that revenue themselves?

How can we deny that studies have been funded and participated in by various neuros for additional drug options when the financials show that continued "education" and "trials" are critical to sales strategies?

How can we even speculate that pharmas are not concerned with CCSVI and liberation when their own reports (see Biogen's report for a nice example) that ANYTHING in the market that is cheaper or provides a better efficacy rate will prove to be detrimental to the company's financial performance?

I wish that the pharmas would work with us on this theory- I do believe that the right type of research and development may come up with a pharma solution to help get the excess iron out of our brain, prevent restenosis, etc. But we can't have those discussions when we are threatening a very big slice of profit for these companies- again, just look at the financials and see for yourself.
Three veins angioplastied.  One renewed life.  
User avatar
BooBear
Family Elder
 
Posts: 339
Joined: Mon Mar 01, 2010 4:00 pm
Location: Chicagoland

Advertisement

Postby Lyon » Wed Aug 11, 2010 6:15 am

.
Last edited by Lyon on Sun Nov 20, 2011 6:58 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Lyon
Family Elder
 
Posts: 6063
Joined: Wed May 03, 2006 3:00 pm

Postby BadCopy » Wed Aug 11, 2010 6:41 am

I dont think they need to see proof by your definition to be concerned at thr number of people having this done and dropping their drugs. If the drug companies wait for whatever your definition of proof is it would most likely be to late for them to recover from the impact the information that had already been spread by patients would have had on the drug sales. I am not saying that drug companies are already seeing this as a major treatment thats proven, but I am sure they see it as a threat to their sales of CRABS.

It does also depend as what they deem PROOF. If they see it as double blind studies then no they do not have proof YET. But waiting for those, in my opinion, would not be brite. If they wait until then to adapt it might be too late for them to keep from losing a large market share
User avatar
BadCopy
Family Elder
 
Posts: 141
Joined: Sun May 23, 2010 3:00 pm
Location: 10,000 Lakes

Postby sbr487 » Wed Aug 11, 2010 7:04 am

Lyon wrote:
BooBear wrote:How can we even speculate that pharmas are not concerned with CCSVI and liberation when their own reports (see Biogen's report for a nice example) that ANYTHING in the market that is cheaper or provides a better efficacy rate will prove to be detrimental to the company's financial performance?
I agree with pretty much everything you've said here EXCEPT for wondering what proofs of the effectiveness of "liberation" do you suppose have the drug companies so concerned?


What good a company is if its going to wait for proof to come out.
I am sure the trend is what they would be concerned about. I am sure they use Neuros to get a pulse of MS patients. And going by their stance, it is not difficult to see the kind of feedback they would be getting ...
A new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it
- Max Planck
User avatar
sbr487
Family Elder
 
Posts: 860
Joined: Tue Nov 24, 2009 4:00 pm
Location: India

Previous

Return to Chronic Cerebrospinal Venous Insufficiency (CCSVI)

 


  • Related topics
    Replies
    Views
    Last post

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users


Contact us | Terms of Service