POLITICS, EGOS AND RESEARCH (Bad Bedfellows)

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

Postby OddDuck » Sun Feb 20, 2005 10:36 am

Cash may be king, but "power" is supreme.

Is it possible? Oh, you bet it is!

But I'd have to welcome you to my world for you to ever believe it. I realize that.

So, it's no use. Let's just say you'd probably never survive the shock.

Good luck and all the best,

Deb

EDIT: Besides, if someone DID find a cure (which I personally think is highly unlikely that there even is one), where is the money in that? Is this all actually a moot point, though? Yes, because in my opinion, there is no real "cure", only effective management via therapies. (Like diabetes and epilepsy) Hence why MS as a disease is such a ripe area for those "nicer" people in life to take advantage of.

Are there things that probably already exist that are not so expensive and could effectively treat MS patients much better? Yes. I firmly believe so. But if there is no "money" in it, it won't be allowed to be known. And that's coming from my personal direct experience, not an "opinion" of mine.
User avatar
OddDuck
Contributing Author
 
Posts: 1040
Joined: Sat Jun 19, 2004 3:00 pm
Location: Tennessee

Advertisement

Postby BioDocFL » Sun Feb 20, 2005 11:01 am

DenverCO,

I'm in research and I'm still waiting for my hush money! Haven't seen a cent of it yet. I made twice the salary when I was doing computer software development in business so perhaps I took a wrong turn by getting into research, but I don't think so.

Bromley,

Thanks for trying to see my side. (Didn't really think I was on a side though.) I was at a cancer symposium all day yesterday and something hit me as I listened to the talks. Of 12 talks, only one and partially in a second was there discussion of the epigenetics, the gene packaging. The other talks: 4 were on immunotherapy and the problems of immuno tolerance in fighting cancer; and the others were basically on cancer genetics. What hit me was that the speakers for the most part had gotten their graduate degrees (MD or PhD) about 20 years ago when PCR protocols were first coming into vogue and the human genome project was just kicking off. It was a genetics-based, DNA sequencing-based world in science. They were learning about DNA sequencing, not much on the epigenetics.

Now in the past 10 years, we have people going thru graduate programs where they are learning about the 'Histone Code' which is one aspect of epigenetics. The human genome project is old hat now. So we need these newer people to move into positions where they can run their own projects on new ideas and at least make sure research directions are balanced. The older guys still talk about genetics, but they have moved on to multi-gene based disease theories as their approach, or with regards to immunology, they talk about layers of suppression and regulation that we need to decipher to understand the diseases. Possibly valid directions, but it shouldn't be the only directions.

Certainly researchers would like to see diseases cured. That is why they are in the research field. They just want to be a part of the solution because they have vested a lot of their lives in working towards the solutions and they want to feel their lives and ideas were of value.

If a disease gets cured, then there are other diseases to work on. When all diseases are cured, then there is quality of life to improve. Researchers can find something to do once MS is solved, so no one should feel that all research revolves around just their one disease.

OddDuck,

I certainly did not mean for my post to be demeaning, just the opposite. I would certainly like to hear from MSers if they thought that my post was demeaning to them. I don't see anywhere in it where I was saying anything against MSers.

I do not have MS as I have said before. If my thoughts appear to be naive, then I probably represent the naive thoughts of most non-MSers, and perhaps the thoughts and indifference of many MSers before they found out they had MS. In which case, my statements to make MS awareness month count are all the more pertinent.

You describe a very difficult day-to-day life that I imagine many MSers can relate to. All the more reason to make MS awareness month count. It would seem that a reporter tagging along with an MSer for a day, seeing each obstacle and having it described by the MSer, that would be a powerful news report to give non-MSers a little idea of the problems MSers encounter. Is that a demeaning suggestion on my part?
For the life of me, I can't see anything demeaning in that. If an MSer wants to remain anonymous or if they are too disabled, then they should not follow through on the suggestion.

And OddDuck, you make statements about 'you can't do it all alone', or something to that effect. As much as you post you have done a lot of good on this forum, but sometimes I get the feeling that you expect this forum to revolve on your opinions or moods. You currently seem to be 180 degrees from your usual self. That might just be my impression. You seem to have had some recent encounter that didn't go the way you wanted in your quest to get your ideas heard. Hopefully things wil turn around for you.

You talk about important or influential people lurking around this forum. What would be their purpose? I'm curious why they would be tuning in and why they would only lurk. Sometimes I get the feeling that a new poster has some hidden agenda when they start a thread on a particular topic, that perhaps they are trying to sell a book or perhaps they are baiting us for an argument just because they get some weird ego boost. But I don't sense there are conspirators dissecting our every post.

Anyway, I would like to hear from others if they were offended by anything I said in my previous post or this one. And I would like to hear a discussion of ideas for MS awareness month. If I represent naive, non-MSers, then enlighten me.

Wesley
User avatar
BioDocFL
Family Elder
 
Posts: 251
Joined: Wed Aug 11, 2004 3:00 pm
Location: Florida

Postby OddDuck » Sun Feb 20, 2005 11:19 am

Not conspirators lurking, Wesley. Important people who can do some "good" for us are reading our posts. THAT'S what I meant!

They aren't going to "post" back, though. But I know for a fact that quite a few MS neurologists, MDs and of course, the NMSS keep abreast of our conversations on this website. This is a highly regarded site, and they can learn about things from reading our posts. They are stuck in big buildings behind desks or microscopes, and this site is one way for them to get a "feel" for what is happening in the "field", as it is termed.

And I believe I described very completely and clearly and factually, with no embellishment whatsoever, with my original post, what has been happening lately in my world.

I'm not joking or kidding or exaggerating about the things I've said. I live and work and I agree, am probably extremely burnt out with the fight, in the "not so pretty" side of the world. It's like a police officer (I just used this description to some friends of mine), after living, working, seeing, addressing, and wallowing in the dirtier side of things (that most people don't even want to believe exists), you eventually end up suffering from burn-out.

Later.

Deb

EDIT: So bottom line? Yes, my attitude right now sucks. I'm "tired".

SECOND EDIT: And you're right, Wesley. Perhaps the time has come for me to leave the site myself. I have done so before - just retreated quietly - but then I'm asked to come back. No, I don't expect anything to "revolve" around me. Just the opposite. Maybe if you look closer from a different perspective, what you are seeing is just the fact that I am attempting to "do" more about things, get "in" there myself, and to get others involved. That takes intense "involvement" on my part, also. Trust me, posting alone won't do it.

How do you know what all I have been doing or not doing in other parts of my life in other places? And how do you really know for certain just who I am, even? Or who anybody here really is?

But..........you know what? You're right. 100% correct.
Last edited by OddDuck on Sun Feb 27, 2005 5:51 pm, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
OddDuck
Contributing Author
 
Posts: 1040
Joined: Sat Jun 19, 2004 3:00 pm
Location: Tennessee

Postby OddDuck » Sun Feb 20, 2005 11:43 am

And Wesley, you are incorrect about one thing. My "ideas" have been heard allright. And totally believed AND supported. And then immediately suppressed.

In other words......."Yes, you definitely are onto something here. The biological correlations are well supported. This definitely needs to be researched". But, we aren't going to do it, and on top of that, we've decided we aren't going to continue discussing this with you, we don't want you to continue to gather more information than you already have (that would be too dangerous, because we all know I have a big mouth and heaven forbid, the connections I have), and to make SURE that happens, I think we'll not allow you to be treated at our facility anymore, either.

Get it????????

Deb

EDIT: But as I said before, the only people who have NOT said that has been the NMSS. They have said the good things, also, and have stood by me the best they can, while I'm fighting the rest. No, wait....correction......while I WAS fighting the rest.

I can't fight them all alone. So, whatever. Que sera, sera........

Have a good one!

SECOND EDIT: Ok, now it's pouring out......and you know what I was personally taken into a room ALONE and told about spreading "MS awareness" not long ago? And this is the absolute truth. I was actually told that "nobody wanted to hear it" and that I should "keep my mouth shut". Honest to God's truth!!! I don't think I'll ever get over that "gall", either!

So, am I angry? I think maybe I am just a tad.

I gotta go, because I'm just going to keep adding to all this. Suffice it to say, once more, you would never believe it.
User avatar
OddDuck
Contributing Author
 
Posts: 1040
Joined: Sat Jun 19, 2004 3:00 pm
Location: Tennessee

Postby OddDuck » Sun Feb 20, 2005 4:24 pm

Hey, Wesley?

I know. Maybe this will help with some understanding.

I helped you quite a bit with your research AND in getting it reviewed, etc. How about helping me now? Mine already has LOTS of supportive scientific biological substantiation, has already been reviewed by panels and found to be worthy of further study. So, it's halfway there already.

Anybody want to assist by helping me take it the rest of the way? i.e. so it can actually get studied and prescribed for people with MS? Maybe back me a little bit? Pass the word on to others in the research field? Maybe write a few letters of support to the NMSS and/or some researchers? (I think I helped get some people's views right to the top at the NMSS in New York, who were thinking they would never be "heard".)

Because you know what? It's an oral drug, can be used in combination therapy, and should be good for progressive MS. And it's cheap! I think it's less than $100 a month!

Any takers to help me out? Which in return will help out others? "Encouragement" from people for me to "keep on going, Deb" is good, but supportive "action" is better.

Deb

EDIT: Oh, yeah...........and we already have the support of the NMSS on it! All we need now is somebody to ask for the grant money. That's it.

And guess what the most supportive evidence of efficacy is in? Axonal regeneration and protection, and neuroprotection. (In other words, the distinct possibility of return of lost function - at least in some cases.) The very area where people say they would like more research concentrated on. Well, we've got it right in hand, folks. The best probability we have available right at this very moment. And that's not just "me" claiming that as anecdotal. It has already been reviewed. As I said, I did get it that far - alone.
User avatar
OddDuck
Contributing Author
 
Posts: 1040
Joined: Sat Jun 19, 2004 3:00 pm
Location: Tennessee

Postby VladFT » Sun Feb 20, 2005 4:48 pm

Dear OddDuck ,

in your research are you talking about some particular medicine ?
Could you provide some references to your research ?

Thank you.
User avatar
VladFT
Getting to Know You...
 
Posts: 20
Joined: Thu Jan 27, 2005 4:00 pm
Location: NYC

Postby OddDuck » Sun Feb 20, 2005 5:29 pm

Sure.

Thisisms was gracious enough to post a narrative I did some time ago (last year), and since then, I have continued to research it, and uncovered more and more correlations (which if you search around, you can find my posts about additional things I found as we went along). All of which the NMSS also has in their possession.

The original narrative is at <shortened url>. Believe it or not, it is regarding desipramine. (Who would have figured?)

As I said, though, other postings of mine showing additional substantiation of the unusual and promising MOA's of desipramine can be found here on this website at various locations.

The most recent and compelling (for possible axonal regeneration and protection) being located at http://www.thisisms.com/modules.php?nam ... opic&t=754.

Please allow me to also copy here a portion of a recent synopsis/proposal that I sent (at a prominent researcher's request) via email to him.

....The studies I would like see happen first; based on lack of current progress in that particular area of research in MS, the greatest "need" for MS patients, the largest initiative for grant funding, and the easiest to proceed on and document results of; is as I mentioned yesterday. To put it bluntly, "axonal regeneration and protection in the adult CNS".

Combining the already tested results of desipramine under one theory or hypothesis applicable to multiple sclerosis, it is highly likely that desipramine will exhibit efficacy in multiple sclerosis (due to its unique combination of MOAs), via "activating" the adult CNS in vivo to regenerate axons, retain or increase plasticity, and in the process, also show protection (or at least delaying the process enormously) of the axons from being deteriorated in the first place. The best possible evidence of this that could be measured adequately would be in "progressive" multiple sclerosis, not relapsing-remitting.

I myself do not believe full blown clinical trials with actual patients at this time would likely yield the type of efficacy that we want to be able to substantially provide evidence of.

Since there are no adequate mouse models of progressive MS at this time (of any pattern), that leaves us with lab research. That is feasible, measurable, documentable, and fairly cost effective (if there is such a thing in medical research, as we all realize).

If something positive arises from in vitro research for MS specifically, then moving it forward in vivo would then make more sense, and provide more substantive groundwork to build off of. There is no sense in jumping into something which only results in building something on "sand". A good foundation needs to be laid first, in my humble opinion. Anecdotal claims of efficacy more often than not lead nowhere, and can be basically and fairly easily dissected back down to nothing again. The same principles that apply in the legal world also apply in the medical one.

Dosage of desipramine is crucial. That fact needs to be remembered at all times. CA2+ influx is affected by desipramine (which as we know can do damage to axons), and paradoxically the dose of desipramine can cause that to go either way. It can either increase CA2+ influx or DECREASE it. Decreasing it is the way we want to go in MS. That requires careful dose of desipramine. Too much, and you tend to cancel out any probable benefits you are receiving in other areas from desipramine. (Levetiracetam, though, in combination with desipramine is another story altogether, though! Levetiracetam is HIGHLY neuroprotective because of it's EXTREME MOA for decreasing CA2+ influx, and is very synergistic with desipramine. AGAIN, not anecdotal, but shockingly coincidental! But levetiracetam does not show indications of providing disease modifying benefits, whereas desipramine does. And levetiracetam is GREAT for cognitive problems, but that drug is under patent still, and somebody will find that symptomatic efficacy eventually.) Sorry, I digress.........

Anyway, it is the "chronic low dose" application of desipramine that tells the tale.

Am I able to provide substantive material for all of the above? Yes. It's easy. Any web search on any of this will pull up lots of substantive research, but it's dissected. Each individual piece of the puzzle has to be compiled separately. Has desipramine shown that it enhances GAP43? Yes..........in connection with nothing in particular, it just showed that by itself. Has research on desipramine shown that it decreases CA2+ influx - yes, via research on that specific action by itself. Does it increase cAMP at the spinal level? Yes. And on and on. It is once you pull all the individual results together that you can see how if it TRULY does do what all of these individual conclusions have proven it does, and then compare those results to what you want to see affected in multiple sclerosis, you have a "match". An uncanny match.

Here is another example of correlations I find "off the cuff" (although this may not DIRECTLY pertain to axons, per se, but is a handy type of reference) - I don't have with me here which research publication I got this from, but......, ...

"The stimulation of immediate early gene expression in brain and neuronal cell culture systems has been reported after various experimental paradigms such as chemiconvulsant-provoked seizures or specific drug applications. In particular, the induction of immediate early genes by adrenergic model substances has been demonstrated by several investigators. This report demonstrates that a single dose of desipramine (10 or 25 mg/kg), a classical tricyclic antidepressant drug acting on the adrenergic system, induced c-fos and zif268 expression in rat hippocampus without affecting c-jun. ...."

I was intrigued, so I went farther:

"Prog Neurobiol. 2004 Nov;74(4):183-211. Related Articles, Links

A gene for neuronal plasticity in the mammalian brain: Zif268/Egr-1/NGFI-A/Krox-24/TIS8/ZENK?

Knapska E, Kaczmarek L.

Department of Neurophysiology, Nencki Institute, Pasteura 3, 02-093 Warsaw, Poland.

Zif268 is a transcription regulatory protein, the product of an immediate early gene. Zif268 was originally described as inducible in cell cultures; however, it was later shown to be activated by a variety of stimuli, including ongoing synaptic activity in the adult brain. Recently, mice with experimentally mutated zif268 gene have been obtained and employed in neurobiological research. In this review we present a critical overview of Zif268 expression patterns in the naive brain and following neuronal stimulation as well as functional data with Zif268 mutants. In conclusion, we suggest that Zif268 expression and function should be considered in a context of neuronal activity that is tightly linked to neuronal plasticity.

PMID: 15556287 [PubMed - in process]"

I hope this continues to assist with explanations for why I am pushing for testing specifically in MS for desipramine.

As a last thought, though. To make it REALLY easy, the NMSS recently granted funding to someone who claimed that keeping the immune system predominantly TH2 and raising IL10 had not yet been proven. I beg to differ completely. If we want to simply provide evidence of a drug agent that DOES to do those two things simultaneously WITHOUT even spending a DIME, we can do that. Desipramine has YEARS worth of research conclusions all showing the same thing over and over again.

Desipramine keeps the immune system response predominantly TH2 AND raises IL10 dramatically. Done deal. Proven. There went THAT good money down the drain.

Oh, well..........onward and upward. I apologize for the length of this email, but my impression is that I needed to begin presenting my case, as it were, instead of my "passion".


Thank you for your interest VladFT.

Best regards to you,

Deb

EDIT: P.S. As I mentioned, my original narrative was last year. Since that time, I have established a good relationship with the NMSS Research Department in New York, and have found more substantive scientific and biological supportive background for desipramine. To date, those M.D's and PhD's who have reviewed my correlations and additions (since writing that first narrative, which was really just a quick synopsis for a neurologist friend who asked me to do the research in the first place) have not been able to find any flaws.
User avatar
OddDuck
Contributing Author
 
Posts: 1040
Joined: Sat Jun 19, 2004 3:00 pm
Location: Tennessee

Postby VladFT » Sun Feb 20, 2005 6:05 pm

Dear OddDuck ,
thank you so much , looks like I have a big homework to do.

Vlad
User avatar
VladFT
Getting to Know You...
 
Posts: 20
Joined: Thu Jan 27, 2005 4:00 pm
Location: NYC

Postby BioDocFL » Sun Feb 20, 2005 6:47 pm

OddDuck,

Well, no one else has said that my other posts were demeaning to MSers so I don't know what to make of your criticisms. I certainly did not intend my posts to be taken negatively.

One thing I don't understand is when you say you were demanding to be a part of the further studies on desperamine when you presented your ideas to neurologists. What position or capacity did you expect to have in any further trials or development? Without a publication track record, an advanced degree, a faculty position, or a track record of grants, it is difficult to see any position. How and why would they include you on the staff or as a consultant of a grant to do further studies on desperamine and MS? Just an honest, straightforward question.

I know you have posted your information on this and perhaps other forums but have you published it in any journals? As a hypothesis article, a review article, a comment letter regarding someone else's article, or a letter to the editor? That might be a more accepted and broader means of getting your ideas out there to catch someone's interest.

What are you proposing be done? Clinical trials on desperamine and MS to determine dosage and side-effects? I know from being around immunologists working on autoimmune diseases that it is difficult getting the cohort of patients needed to do valid trials because so many are already committed to other trials or are on medicines or have other complications that eliminate them as potential participants. Are you saying that doctors should simply start prescribing it for MS? I know in the distant past doctors on their own initiative might try prescribing a legal drug for one ailment to try to treat another but those days are probably long gone with the insurance companies, tighter FDA controls, and the lawyers. What are the FDA's, NMSS's, and AMA's official positions on desperamine for MS?

To me it is difficult following the progression of events you are describing (I'll borrow from a Seinfeld episode) where you meet with neurologists to present your ideas, yadda, yadda, yadda, you will take legal action if they don't include you, yadda, yadda, yadda, cement shoes. You seem to leave out a lot of details of how things got off track. I am wondering how patient/tactful you are when you meet with them. Again, just an honest, straightforward question. It can be very difficult being patient on something you feel very passionate about. You seem to have a sense of ownership on the idea of using desperamine for MS. Maybe they don't see that and that rubs you wrong.

If you have faith in the NMSS, could they help you find someone that they could fund to do further testing?

Well, I am just trying to analyze all this and understand.

Wesley
User avatar
BioDocFL
Family Elder
 
Posts: 251
Joined: Wed Aug 11, 2004 3:00 pm
Location: Florida

Postby OddDuck » Sun Feb 20, 2005 10:39 pm

Wesley,

Number one, as I have explained many times (and so has the NMSS), they do not and cannot "go find the researcher themselves". That is not part of what they do.

I have to find the researcher to apply for the funding. My proposal (which the NMSS gave its stamp of approval on how it was worded) is posted above. Please read it. It is very clear what is being proposed to be done and why. No, not clinical trials. That costs millions, Wesley. The NMSS cannot fund clinical trials. They explained all that to you, also. Again, please just read above. It clearly outlines everything very distinctly. Again, the proposal is not a problem.

I was also told by the NMSS that it would have to be me who took the lead and made the proposal of what research is to be done, etc., which is what I did (again posted above). Please forgive me, but I wonder greatly if my posts are ever even being read. It is the researcher himself/herself who must apply for the grant funding.

This is an existing drug that has been researched for many years, Wesley. Not a new "hypothesis". The situation is drastically different. There are many publications already done on it. That part is over and can simply be given to the researcher. This is nothing "new", it just has not been studied for application in MS specifically. That's all. There is no need trying to prove whether or not there is any biological significance for justification for studying it for use in MS. Again, that has already been proven and accepted.

As I said above, all that needs to be done is for a researcher to apply to the NMSS. I also explained why it is that I need to be involved. See my very first post in this thread. And why it is that they (not the NMSS) are pushing me out.

Wesley, that's another thing that you must understand here. You can't get any official government department's "opinions" on this drug for MS UNTIL you have some results from bench trials done SPECIFICALLY for MS. You are putting the cart before the horse. And again, I posted what the NMSS's opinion on it is. They found my correlations and biological supportive material sound, with no flaws, and are encouraging me to continue to locate a researcher to apply to them for funding of some initial studies of it specifically for MS. Of course, again, they cannot SAY that they guarantee that funding will be granted (again politics), but there is encouragement for someone to apply.

Please understand how this whole process works. Please read again what I posted above for VladFT.

Neither the NMSS nor the researchers nor myself have any trouble understanding any of this (as you are having). And there is no "misunderstanding" between any of us, either. That is not the problem and none of what you are saying here has a thing to do with anything at all, nor does it apply to this situation at all.

I very clearly explained what the problem is.

Wesley, I have been TOLD by them that this is the first time that all of the biological findings regarding desipramine's MOAs has EVER been compiled together. I don't take "ownership" of it. I am just the person who stumbled on it and compiled the information together. And as is obvious, I am the ONLY person pushing the issue. That's another point I was making.

Again, you are not reading what I write. I never said I was going to take "legal action" if they didn't include me. I said the word "media". I explained the "politics" of what is going on here, Wesley. I realize it's a pretty complex world (no offense, but I get the feeling you are somewhat "young"?)

Here is how things get off track, Wesley. The researcher (who likes to make money, Wesley) reviews my compilations. They find that I AM onto something and they SAY so. BUT............the next thought by them is whether or not there can be "money" to be made with this. And for the most part, no, there cannot be. Hence the problem. Plus, IF this works as well as is indicated it just might from the many previous research publications over the past 25 years, this might set a lot of things on its ears!

To keep things "honest", Wesley, and since in the NMSS's eyes and from what they have indicated to me, they feel that it is me who needs to continue to take the lead with this research; that doesn't mesh well with a researcher's preference. Not at all. For many reasons. Because, as we all know, the politics, practices and "control" of research, etc., is pretty questionable in MS research and it's a pretty tight world to puncture. There is going to be a power struggle. That's the bottom line. And I get "caught" in the middle of it.

And why? Part of the difficulty, Wesley, is the great involvement of organized crime. Again, I point that out clearly by referring people to the other thread wherein it lists a few of the lawsuits currently ongoing. You don't have to believe me in this. That is what "RICO" is, Wesley.

And is the mob still alive and well in the corporate world? Oh, yes. Don't kid yourself that Bobby Kennedy was able to weed them all out.

Stop blaming me, Wesley. I have never been accused of organized crime. Just the opposite. I have simply had the wonderful occasion many times to have to deal with them. And usually in an adversarial position. And look again. Who all ARE being accused of it? And remember, I have worked in the medical industry (deep behind the scenes) in the past. I'm the one who wants to keep anything "shady" OUT of any testing with desipramine. That's due to my existing experience of how all this works. My goal is altruistic and is simply for the potential benefit of patients.

It's a pretty ugly world underneath a lot of things. And unfortunately, I have had to deal with a lot of it over the years. I get tired of it constantly being an issue. So, I'm frustrated with that fact and tired of the intense "politics". And as I am verbal, and frustrated right now, I say so.

Never mind, Wesley.

Deb

EDIT: Do this. Ask yourself just why it is that they have a problem with my involvement? The NMSS does not have a problem with my involvement. Why do the researchers not want me to be involved? (I know why.) Just think about that for a second. Why would anybody have a problem with me remaining involved?? And tell me I should NOT fight that? If I find a researcher who is not afraid of being open, honest and who is investigating this for the exact same reasons I want to, there will be no problem with us working together, Wesley. There would be none. Obviously, I haven't found that person yet, have I?
Last edited by OddDuck on Sun Feb 27, 2005 5:48 pm, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
OddDuck
Contributing Author
 
Posts: 1040
Joined: Sat Jun 19, 2004 3:00 pm
Location: Tennessee

Postby BioDocFL » Mon Feb 21, 2005 8:19 am

OddDuck,

My posting on this thread seems to be a continual irritation to you. Since you started this thread and since I don't have anything vested in it, I'll leave it to you to continue on without me. I haven't heard from anyone else that my suggestions or questions are demeaning or off-base, but I'll leave it to someone else to ask you the questions.

Wesley
User avatar
BioDocFL
Family Elder
 
Posts: 251
Joined: Wed Aug 11, 2004 3:00 pm
Location: Florida

Postby OddDuck » Mon Feb 21, 2005 8:57 am

:?:

I'm not "irritated" with you personally, Wesley. I posted that fact earlier. I was only trying to answer your questions, is all. Ok. Hey, best of luck with your research, too.

As a side note, I found the following that echoes my stance (taken from an article written by Michael Moore. He and I come from the same hometown and grew up under the same conditions - he graduated a year earlier than I did. I remember running into him around town quite often.) This is regarding governmental politics, but the principle comes from domestic abuse situations (again, something I can relate to) and applies with my feelings and what I am doing in this situation, also. How utterly coincidental:

....In the meantime, while we reflect on what went wrong, I would like to pass on to you an essay that a friend who works with abuse victims sent to me. It was written by a woman who has spent years working as an advocate for victims of domestic abuse and she sees many parallels between her work and the reaction of many Democrats to last month’s election. Her name is Mel Giles and here is what she had to say…

.... First, you must admit you are a victim. Then, you must declare the state of affairs unacceptable. Next, you must promise to protect yourself and everyone around you that is being victimized. You don't do this by responding to their demands, or becoming more like them, or engaging in logical conversation, or trying to persuade them that you are right. You also don't do this by going catatonic and resigned, by closing up your ears and eyes and covering your head and submitting to the blows, figuring its over faster and hurts less if you don't resist and fight back.

Instead, you walk away. You find other folks like yourself, 57 million of them, who are hurting, broken, and beating themselves up. You tell them what you've learned, and that you aren't going to take it anymore. You stand tall, with 57 million people at your side and behind you, and you look right into the eyes of the abuser and you tell him to go to hell. Then you walk out the door, taking the kids and gays and minorities with you, and you start a new life. The new life is hard. But it's better than the abuse. ....


hmmmmmmmmmm............... my old "neighbor", Michael Moore. Now that brings some interesting ideas to mind.

Deb
User avatar
OddDuck
Contributing Author
 
Posts: 1040
Joined: Sat Jun 19, 2004 3:00 pm
Location: Tennessee

Postby HarryZ » Mon Feb 21, 2005 9:24 am

Bromley,

I must look like a pessimistic character, but I'd be happy if someone could prove me wrong


I think that I agree with most of what you said when it comes how the pharmaceutical companies operate. I'm not sure that I would go as far as stating that they are in a conspiracy to prevent finding a cure for a disease (the financial rewards for this kind of "magic bullet" would be immense) but they are in it solely for the money.

Now there is absolutely nothing wrong with trying to make as much profit as possible in any business that you are operating but how some of the pharma companies go about doing this can be considered disgusting.

Look at Warner-Lampert and how they handled the promotion of Neurontin. So bad that they are under criminal charges!!!

And Merck with Vioxx.....deliberately withheld critical info about the damage that it could do to one's heart. And the FDA was right up there trying to keep the info quiet by muzzling one of their own employees who saw the danger signs of Vioxx months earlier!

Promoting a product with vigor is one thing but when it is a drug that can effect the health of the population, that, in my opinion, places accountability into a whole new level.

That's why I'm so critical about how Biogen has handled the entire Tysabri affair. The $$$ at the end of the rainbow have made them do things that I feel are not right when it comes to promoting a drug. But I won't dwell on that any further here.

When reading a number of your comments, I could have substituted Marg in your place and the words wouldn't have changed one bit! I guess it takes someone who lives with MS to fully understand what the MS patient is going through every day.

Harry
User avatar
HarryZ
Family Elder
 
Posts: 2320
Joined: Tue May 25, 2004 3:00 pm
Location: London, ON, Canada

Previous

Return to General Discussion

 


  • Related topics
    Replies
    Views
    Last post

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users