The two small studies provide only an indication, which anecdotaly is good and the real data which can be (peer reviewed) can only come from a formal clinical trial which is yet to be done.
I hope that this helps
Steamer wrote:Argyll are for both commercial and legal reasons being very quiet about SF1019 ...
Steamer wrote:He also said that when he was on “Aimspro” it was quite effective and that he only stopped taking it when Daval advised him that they could no longer supply him.
Steamer wrote:I note that today on the Proventus web site it is reported that Hillary Price, who was the lady who delivered the petition to 10 Downing Street in the UK asking that Aimspro be made available on the National Health Service has sadly passed on. All very sad, since had Daval managed to complete their clinical trials she might well as with others still be alive today.
The trial in Oxford did finish and it showed no significant outcome for either of its first two objectives (MS) and limited on its third (ON). The London, St Georges trial was pulled by Daval alledging a breach of protocol. Hmm a respected teaching hosiptal knows how to do a trial and a pharma co knows that no result is better than a negative one!Nemotoday wrote:As to why Daval did not flog it as you put to Alan O. or finish trials who Knows
Well put the science in the open! There is no commercial disadvantage in doing so. And if it is good science then let other researchers see it and improve on it for our benefit!Nemotoday wrote:Argyll do not want to obtain a “Specials Licence” or hype SF1019 at this stage and are concentrating their efforts on getting proper clinical trials completed which are capable of withstanding peer review before making any solid claims.
Users browsing this forum: No registered users