My personal view is that with oral treatments with less risk and the same effectiveness on the horizon, and other tretments with much better effectiveness, they realise their long term money venture is limited, and a quick buck is all they might hope for.HarryZ wrote:... because if its huge cost vs potential benefit...
...That would have far more patients using the drug for many years, thus ensuring a huge, steady revenue...
Then again, maybe Biogen/Elan know something about Tysabri that has prevented them from following this logical route.
And hence the word possibly. Have yet to watch the presentation as yet.HarryZ wrote:One part of the presentation I found interesting....it referred to Campath possibly stopping the entire MS immune system mechanism ... Hmmm, I didn't realize that MS's mechanism was totally immune system driven and that was the entire answer to fighting the disease!!
CureOrBust wrote:I finally got to see all the vids. I found it VERY interesting that they found people would develop a new Auto-Immune coondition when they appeared to remove MS (with Cammmpath-1h). Although they took it seriously, they seemed fixed on reducing the risk/effects from developing them, and not so much as to WHY? Do non MS people who get Campath-1h increase their risk for an AA disease?
I had never previously knew of the risks associated with Campath-1h for a new AA.
"TonyJegs"Well, there is up to 2 percent of MS with rapid progress and brain detioration, very aggresive indeed. This group is the perfect target, this kind of drug can slower it down remarkably.
In usual R-R MS cases I affraid that increase of disabilty will eliminate the benefit of having less by third rate of relapses.
Note. All my posts are not a medical advice and reflects an independent opinion only which could contradict with current manistream theories and current guidelines of treatment in your country.
Users browsing this forum: SophieandElle