finn wrote:EAE is a poor way to prove if a drug is safe and effective in treating MS.
EAE is used by the drug companies mainly to find out if it would be a safe investment to test the drug in a clinical trial. Other way would be to treat few individuals with an experimental therapy, and hope that there will be enough hype about its effectiveness to justify (and finance) a proper clinical trial. That is how Daval International dealt with the "Goat Serum".
Even the man behind the "Goat Serum" doesn't exactly seem to know how the drug works in MS. As an unsuccessful HIV drug it probably modifies the immune system, but it doesn't necessary have to have anti-inflammatory properties.
Boston Cure Project has developed the "Cure Map", which seems to be a rational - and an innovative - way to collect and use the data gained from different MS-research projects. They are also preparing a tissue and blood bank to be used by MS-researchers. It seems to me that they are not even trying to compete with NMSS.
So maybe it would be better to compare NMSS with the Canadian MS society. From an European point of view it looks like Canadians are more innovative and less industry dependent than Americans what comes to funding interesting MS-research. It was the Canadian MS society that made it possible to test minocycline in a small clinical trial, and now it is one of the sponsors of the promising MBP8298 trial.
Anonymous wrote:finn wrote:EAE is a poor way to prove if a drug is safe and effective in treating MS.
That's not how they use EAE.EAE is used by the drug companies mainly to find out if it would be a safe investment to test the drug in a clinical trial. Other way would be to treat few individuals with an experimental therapy, and hope that there will be enough hype about its effectiveness to justify (and finance) a proper clinical trial. That is how Daval International dealt with the "Goat Serum".
I could easily be corrected on this, but I'd be surprised if a drug company could simply begin human trials on an unknown substance without first trying it out on animals. I am thinking that the "goat serum" must have previously been shown safe, perhaps in some other application unrelated to a proposed MS treatment?Even the man behind the "Goat Serum" doesn't exactly seem to know how the drug works in MS. As an unsuccessful HIV drug it probably modifies the immune system, but it doesn't necessary have to have anti-inflammatory properties.
I'm not sure that anyone actually has to know how a drug works for it to be approved, although I would suspect it helps!Boston Cure Project has developed the "Cure Map", which seems to be a rational - and an innovative - way to collect and use the data gained from different MS-research projects. They are also preparing a tissue and blood bank to be used by MS-researchers. It seems to me that they are not even trying to compete with NMSS.
I'm not sure either. I suppose the question would be whether MS funding is a zero-sum game, i.e., whether money going to Boston Cure or Montel Williams or whoever else has a foundation would otherwise go to the NMSS. That's impossible to say. My point was that fundraising and administration expenses add up, so when I look at all these new entities I want to see how they justify themselves. Maybe Boston Cure has such a justification, but I also note that they only spend 38% on programs. Perhaps it's a function of the group being very small, but the 38% number is very low by charity standards.So maybe it would be better to compare NMSS with the Canadian MS society. From an European point of view it looks like Canadians are more innovative and less industry dependent than Americans what comes to funding interesting MS-research. It was the Canadian MS society that made it possible to test minocycline in a small clinical trial, and now it is one of the sponsors of the promising MBP8298 trial.
Let's see whether these things bear any fruit. In any case, it would be interesting to read a disciplined and objective critical analysis of the NMSS's priorities and research funding, as opposed to expressions of sentiment and unsubstantiated allegations about their supposed motives.
HarryZ wrote:not one treatment that has ever worked in that poor mouse has ever worked in a human.
I think the problem of MS research goes way beyond the mouse. It is a fixation that researchers have had for decades that MS is solely an auto-immune disease and pretty much all research until a couple of years ago has been "locked" into this area. Even dare to suggest that this theory is wrong and other drugs have a more beneficial result will bring down the wrath on you by most MS docs and certainly the NMSS.
Drs. Barnett and Prineas published their work in the Annals of Neurology regarding their findings in autopsies done on brain lesions of MS patients. They found no evidence of the immune system causing the damage. So far, the silence within the MS research world has been incredible. The boat is being rocked and I guess it will be a mater of time to see whether it tips over or continues along the same course.
It these companies were producing drugs for another disease and had this kind of efficacy rate, they would likely have been out of business a long time ago.
But they are producing them for MS and the CRABs are the only FDA approved drugs on the market. There is a $4 billion world wide market so you only need to do the math and figure out just how much money they are making. And Betaseron and Avonex enjoyed orphan drug status along the way so that helped their profits as well.
So, as long as the money continues to role in and the docs continue to prescribe the CRABs, everyone continues to follow the course.
A few years ago a large MS clinic on the west cost of the US got $400.00 for every Betaseron prescription that they issued! Add the support from the docs and you can see how this "money machine" continues to stay in power.
Users browsing this forum: No registered users