Treatment protocols based on the findings in animal EAE unconditionally used for creating treatment protocols for human MS, despite great differences known and disputed for many decades.
Furthermore, because research into MS has, for many years, been based on these misleading animal experiments, vital research into the human condition has actually been delayed.
It is extremely sad that all disease-modifying drugs for MS were developed using this model.
So, take your guess, why it is still around?
With that in mind the question which begs asking is...what would have been/what is a better alternative?
Rhetorical or not, I appreciate your question.TonyJegs wrote:My last sentence is not rhetoric, I know the answer, but I would like to hear your opinion.
I believe in this case we share the same opinion. EAE is a lousy model for MS because it is based so much on inflammation. IMO, that feature alone has made it possible to use it for developing "disease modifying" drugs. Immunomodulators have been around for long, and finding new analogues that work well enough in EAE seems to have been quite easy (and profitable) for drug companies and individual researchers.TonyJegs wrote:It is extremely sad that all disease-modifying drugs for MS were developed using this model. So, take your guess, why it is still around?
I'm sorry, but I'm not sure if I got it right. Are you saying that drugs that work on EAE would work better on very progressive forms of MS? If so, I'm slightly confused.TonyJegs wrote:All new developed drugs for human MS are drugs designed to treat mouse/rat EAE. They will work partially on MS, esp. on very progressive form, but this form is pretty rare.
Absolutely, but like Rita wrote earlier, it might be even impossible to create a good animal model for mimicing a human neurological disease with unknown pathogenesis.TonyJegs wrote:To discuss about better drug alternative you need to come up with new model of MS which will be analogous to human MS, and if you will have this model it is really not so difficult to see how you can alter/treat it.
Well, as long as the major source for funding MS research will be drug companies, I'd say the situation won't change. MS is big business, a couple of years ago the global annual sales of ABCR-drugs alone was almost 4 billion dollars.TonyJegs wrote:This is a great mix of greed (billions, by the way), ambitions, politics, and growing incompetence together with rising commercialization in modern science.
As Ludvig Mies van der Rohe once said, "God is in the details". Of course putting all existing pieces together for a "global MS concept" would be important, but creating a valid outcome might need a lot of resources and a multidisciplinary group of researchers. Otherwise it might be concidered as just another hypothesis by an ambiguous researcher who wants to get something published.TonyJegs wrote:Growing incompetence sounds weird but there is a lack of total view or global conceptuality compare to enormous amount of pinpointing of tiny details, or search for single agent of influence (among thousands participants) which attracts more efforts then ever. If two will try to get a grant for concept development or for ‘promising’ agent/compound search, take your guess which one will be approved.
Users browsing this forum: Scott1