Funding for trials of non patent-able substances

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

Funding for trials of non patent-able substances

Postby CureOrBust » Mon Jun 29, 2015 2:11 am

Over the years, I have seen many many natural or other substances claimed to help or cure or reverse MS. A lot of these use the fact that formal studies have not been performed or published because of lack of funding as Pharma or such would not be able to make any money. For example, its not a substance a company could patent, and therefore hold/own the market on.

In my view, this situation has possibly been the provided as a reason for not being able/willing to put the claims up to the scrutiny of formal scientific tests and methods. However, I think the recent formal studies and the creation of the future MD100 (ie Biotin) marketable commercial product appears to fly in the face of these claims. If they can do it, why can't others?

For example, the first one that comes to mind is the Coimbra protocol, requiring mega-doses of Vit D3 would appear to be almost mirroring the pattern that Biotin came from (ie High dose of existing available common vitamin)

Does anyone understand what the Biotin team have done that cannot be done by others?
User avatar
CureOrBust
Family Elder
 
Posts: 3348
Joined: Wed Jul 27, 2005 2:00 pm
Location: Sydney, Australia

Advertisement

Re: Funding for trials of non patent-able substances

Postby EricDrake » Mon Jun 29, 2015 2:31 am

CureOrBust wrote:Over the years, I have seen many many natural or other substances claimed to help or cure or reverse MS. A lot of these use the fact that formal studies have not been performed or published because of lack of funding as Pharma or such would not be able to make any money. For example, its not a substance a company could patent, and therefore hold/own the market on.

In my view, this situation has possibly been the provided as a reason for not being able/willing to put the claims up to the scrutiny of formal scientific tests and methods. However, I think the recent formal studies and the creation of the future MD100 (ie Biotin) marketable commercial product appears to fly in the face of these claims. If they can do it, why can't others?

For example, the first one that comes to mind is the Coimbra protocol, requiring mega-doses of Vit D3 would appear to be almost mirroring the pattern that Biotin came from (ie High dose of existing available common vitamin)

Does anyone understand what the Biotin team have done that cannot be done by others?



Actually there are clinical trials for high dose of vitamin D in MS, I have just read about this two for example:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/2605 ... t=Abstract
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/2610 ... t=Abstract

And I think If you search around you can find many other clinical trials for suplements, I remember that i have seen some study about iron magnesium etc.
EricDrake
Family Member
 
Posts: 41
Joined: Sun May 10, 2015 3:04 am

Re: Funding for trials of non patent-able substances

Postby CureOrBust » Mon Jun 29, 2015 3:32 am

EricDrake wrote:Actually there are clinical trials for high dose of vitamin D in MS, I have just read about this two for example:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/2605 ... t=Abstract
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/2610 ... t=Abstract

And I think If you search around you can find many other clinical trials for suplements, I remember that i have seen some study about iron magnesium etc.

Hi-dose vit D was simply one example, however, both the studies you reference are actually approx 1/10th the amount used / recommended by the Coimbra protocol (NB the weekly dosing in the studies). The first one also includes the added complication / interference of pregnancy; and the second one did not find benefit.

Neither of the above two could be used as justification or to refute something like the dosing in the Coimbra protocol. I chose that as an example, as supporters and himself speak of reversal of symptoms and I have heard no mention of people who do not respond to it. But again, Vit D that was simply an example of one. Although I understand the format of the forum, I did not mean to have this thread focus on any single protocol. But I also understand, it is easier to talk of real life examples. I really did mean my QUESTION in a generic manner.
User avatar
CureOrBust
Family Elder
 
Posts: 3348
Joined: Wed Jul 27, 2005 2:00 pm
Location: Sydney, Australia

Re: Funding for trials of non patent-able substances

Postby EricDrake » Mon Jun 29, 2015 4:23 am

Well I think the first step should be done by Coimbra himself he is so sure of his method, I mean if other researches could fund small clinical trials like the ones I linked, he also could manage it with his current patients ( guess he also has atleast 15-30 patient if he is so succesful ), or did he already published something? I also take vitamin d3 because I also beleive that it has many benefits on the long run but this whole Coimbra stuff seems too be too weird for me. Until he does not create any scientific paper that can prove that he is right why should anybody follow him, because of some youtube videos? But if he has already any scientific paper released with results of his patients then excuse me I havent found it but I would like to see it.
EricDrake
Family Member
 
Posts: 41
Joined: Sun May 10, 2015 3:04 am

Re: Funding for trials of non patent-able substances

Postby CureOrBust » Mon Jun 29, 2015 2:36 pm

That's exactly what I mean!

Its people / teams such as this, claiming such good and effective results, not documenting/publishing their results when the biotin team somehow managed to take it to the next step.

How did they do it, while others claiming better results can not?
User avatar
CureOrBust
Family Elder
 
Posts: 3348
Joined: Wed Jul 27, 2005 2:00 pm
Location: Sydney, Australia

Re: Funding for trials of non patent-able substances

Postby EricDrake » Tue Jun 30, 2015 9:36 am

Good question.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hOfO29rL-gI

In this video he says some stuff but seems to be really strange for me, it seems that he simply does not want to do a clinical trial. But atleast he mentioned something about a scientific paper that one day might be released but he doesnt seem to be really excited about that.
EricDrake
Family Member
 
Posts: 41
Joined: Sun May 10, 2015 3:04 am

Re: Funding for trials of non patent-able substances

Postby DrGeoff » Thu Jul 02, 2015 4:03 am

There are two separate issues here.

i may believe that my treatment for progressive MS is effective, but lurking at the back of my mind is the thought that just maybe it is not really that effective and my results have a bit of placebo effect in them somewhere. A clinical trial might produce results that I do not want, so I keep away from a trial.

A small drug company get the idea (does not matter from where) that large doses of a relatively common substance may be an effective treatment for progressive MS so they get a sequence of trials going and find that the treatment works. They cannot patent the substance. What they can patent is the treatment - and more importantly the packaging of the substance. So my wonder treatment "FRED" is patented as 100mg of substance X in a slow release capsule - take 3 per day.

To see how repackaging works, just consider how Teva put twice the daily dose of Copaxone into a syringe and stated that the new product only had to be injected every second day. The product is unchanged, but it can be called "NEW". And, NEW usually means a price increase.

In the context of Biotin, note that MedDay have already appointed a European distributor - Medical Need Europe who specialize in marketing niche pharmaceuticals. Both company's web-sites are worth a look.

G
DrGeoff
Family Elder
 
Posts: 194
Joined: Mon Aug 05, 2013 2:44 am


Return to General Discussion

 


  • Related topics
    Replies
    Views
    Last post

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: tt1


Contact us | Terms of Service