If it's on your mind and it has to do with multiple sclerosis in any way, post it here.


Postby bromley » Sun Apr 16, 2006 7:50 am

The Canadian MS Society has organised presentations in late April and in May about MS Research. Not sure if the venues are near to any users of this website but it would be good if someone could report back.

HarryZ - don't you live in London?

Ian ... ndHope.htm
User avatar
Family Elder
Posts: 1888
Joined: Fri Sep 10, 2004 3:00 pm


Postby carolew » Sun Apr 16, 2006 9:58 am

None close to me , sorry, Carole
User avatar
Family Elder
Posts: 553
Joined: Fri Nov 05, 2004 4:00 pm
Location: Ottawa, Ont. Canada

Postby ljm » Sun Apr 16, 2006 1:04 pm

If anyone going to Dr. Wee Yong presentation, and there is a Q&A, could you please ask how exactly researchers of a promising phase I trial involving a safe, inexpensive and effective neuro protective agent minocycline got bought out by Teva to ensure that phase II trials used minocycline with Copaxone. It incensed me that the original trial, funded by MS Society and carried out by a publicly funded university, got hi jacked, we'll never know how effective minocycline is on its own.
User avatar
Family Elder
Posts: 153
Joined: Wed Mar 30, 2005 3:00 pm

Postby Jaded » Sun Apr 16, 2006 2:20 pm

Maybe this will explain it...sad if it is true.

Family Elder
Posts: 284
Joined: Tue Jul 26, 2005 3:00 pm

nice one

Postby jimmylegs » Sun Apr 16, 2006 2:57 pm

my goodness what a good read.
User avatar
Volunteer Moderator
Posts: 11118
Joined: Sat Mar 11, 2006 4:00 pm

Postby mrhodes40 » Sun Apr 16, 2006 4:48 pm

Well. This reads like a "who done it" novel of scientists thwarting promising stem cell therapies in various ways to protect patent rights on other things they personally benefit from. Names and dates are mentioned. I have always felt it was more of an accident of the nature of our system that commercial things were more researched than noncommercial, but the notion of someone actually ON PURPOSE not developing a promising drug made me feel physically ill.

I know a few researchers. yes they devote their life to their chosen research path but they develop bias and personal interest along the way and that influences positions, later research, and support or denial of later findings by others. These are HUMAN beings not nerdy geeks who live to learn what is wrong with you and I. The ones I know can be dogmatic and very closed minded. And they can also profit well from a good find that is interesting to pharm industry. I know one who has made this leap and is very wealthy now.

It is english, don't worry about the characters question. it loaded for me in a minute and was fine
User avatar
Family Elder
Posts: 2067
Joined: Thu Sep 23, 2004 3:00 pm
Location: USA


Postby lyndacarol » Sun Apr 16, 2006 4:54 pm

I agree with jimmylegs' evaluation of this article.

It goes well with NHE's Reading Nook book recommendation, Selling Sickness.

A little skepticism is needed by all of us! Like this author Kelly, we want to believe that these "lucrative industries" and scientists always have our best interests at heart. Not so!!!
User avatar
Family Elder
Posts: 3383
Joined: Thu Dec 22, 2005 4:00 pm

Postby Shayk » Sun Apr 16, 2006 6:51 pm

I thought I was already skeptical enough, but perhaps not. :roll: I had at least held out some hope for academics.

There was an article in the Washington Post last week that underscores a lot of these issues. Comparison of Schizophrenia Drugs Often Favors Firm Funding Study (I think you have to register to read the article but it's free.) I thought it closely paralleled many of the issues in MS drug development. Here are a lot of excerpts (right up your alley Harry :wink: ):
Such studies make up the bulk of the evidence that American doctors rely on to prescribe $10 billion worth of antipsychotic medications each year....

the federal government recently compared a broader range of drugs in typical schizophrenia patients in a lengthy trial, two medications that stood out were cheaper drugs not under patent....
Reliance on industry-sponsored studies is not limited to psychiatry, but experts say the problem is exacerbated in areas of medicine where the goal of trials is not to demonstrate cures but to measure symptomatic relief, which allows more latitude in how the results are interpreted and marketed.

Now a growing chorus of experts is asking whether the research establishment needs to be reoriented toward publicly funded studies that might better guide clinical decisions and the billions of tax dollars the government itself spends on treatment....

He and Rennie also questioned academic researchers' role in these studies...."The only reason that the company wants a non-company person as an author is to give credence to an advertisement. . . . The whole entire paper from start to finish is an advertisement. It is a much more subtle and telling ad than anything they can publish as an ad."

By focusing on the horse race -- which drug is marginally better -- industry studies obscure the reality that better drugs are needed overall, agreed Rennie, who is a professor of medicine at the University of California at San Francisco.

"Finding the 100th similar antipsychotic drug is not where the research should be," he said. "It should be to develop new drugs, not 'me, too' drugs."

But Uwe Reinhardt, a political economist at Princeton,....."I have come to believe a lot of inefficiency is quite deliberate and supported by Congress," he said. "One person's inefficiency is another person's income."

I guess the good news is that at least the need to reorient the research in the US is getting some attention.

Take care everyone.

User avatar
Family Elder
Posts: 785
Joined: Fri Feb 06, 2004 4:00 pm

Postby mrhodes40 » Sun Apr 16, 2006 7:15 pm

If you are interested, this series done by the seattle times is good on the subject of pharmceutical companies manipulating what is the defining parameters for 'disease' in order to expand markets. It is not directly related to MS but it is good to be informed and aware of how it really works. There are several to click and read ... denlysick/

And second one specifically talking about physicians and the market forces directly impacting them. It's not at all hard to see that if a pharmaceutical company has a lot of money to make then the physician is the right person to woo with a lot of money... <shortened url>

Can you folks with money backgrounds tell by reading reports how much of marketing money goes to this kind of thing? just wondered if it's obvious. It's creepy though, esp the physican one. I had no idea so much money could be made It kind of reminds me of celebrity endorsements like Shaq using Nike shoes or something I read that this is the easiest money a celeb can make and consititues a huge portion of the income, sounds like this may be true for the physician also
User avatar
Family Elder
Posts: 2067
Joined: Thu Sep 23, 2004 3:00 pm
Location: USA

Postby mrhodes40 » Sun Apr 16, 2006 7:23 pm

Oh gosh Sharon great find I was writing mine while you did yours ! The secnd link in mine is also quoting Rennie, he speaks out a lot on this it seems
The picture get more clear all the time. Skeptical might be protective. We certainly have important diecisions to make on this flawed information
it's best to know how it comes to us eh? 8O
User avatar
Family Elder
Posts: 2067
Joined: Thu Sep 23, 2004 3:00 pm
Location: USA

Re: Canadians

Postby HarryZ » Mon Apr 17, 2006 5:43 am


bromley wrote:The Canadian MS Society has organised presentations in late April and in May about MS Research. Not sure if the venues are near to any users of this website but it would be good if someone could report back.

HarryZ - don't you live in London?

Yes, I live in London and will look into the May 28 date here. Thanks.

User avatar
Family Elder
Posts: 2570
Joined: Tue May 25, 2004 3:00 pm
Location: London, ON, Canada

Postby Rita » Mon Apr 17, 2006 11:05 am

So interesting those links Marie.
The problem is not only the “money” that goes to the physicians but the health information comes exclusively from big Pharmas, national health do nothing about that. In addition they are bombing them day by day (by a lovely girls, that’s basic!) telling the great results about this or that drug showing excellent rapports from the “best” professionals in the field; inviting to a congress with all paid, showing some interesting place where they manufacture theirs products (expending 4 or 5 extra days in a nice place to rest) and so on…
National Health from all the countries must do something about this. It is impossible to continue in this way.
User avatar
Family Member
Posts: 58
Joined: Sat Nov 27, 2004 4:00 pm

Return to General Discussion


  • Related topics
    Last post

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users

Contact us | Terms of Service