Greed? I don't think that MS drugs, or any drug for that matter, is flawed due to drug company greed. Drug treatments are flawed because of an ethical delima of the capitalistic system.
Because drug companies are publically owned, they have an ethical obligation to their shareholders to be profitable. But, drug companies also have an ethical obligation to provide patients with the best possible treatments. Which obligation deserves more? Who do you think?
Right, and/but the other-side deserves it more.
A cure coming from a drug or a single pill, injection, et. al. doesn't seem like a logical goal. Since none of the CRAB drugs are 100% effective in reducing exaserbations, it can be safely assumed that finding any one drug that "cures" this disease is not 100% probable.
There have been studies that suggest that the findings about antegren and lesion reduction are misleading, or misdirected. In the fall of 2003, I had an MRI (six years post diagnosis) that showed a reduction in lesions. I quit taking Avonex soon after because my research showed that I was stupid for taking it at all. It ain't a cure, it's not 100% effective, clinical research shows that it can have physiological damaging effects, and for the six-and-a-half years I was on Biogen's cash-cow, my blood profile was always out-of-wack, my blood pressure was boderline high, and it made me feel sick or depressed.
I started LDN soon after quitting "the most natural" of the approved MS drugs. Does LDN work? Maybe, probably not according to the experts. however, I have a healthy blood profile now, blood pressure is low again; thus, I am overall a healthier person. Is one of the CRAB drugs a best-bet treatment option? Yep, because my doctor says so: right?
As far as the new stuff, those on the Antegren trial who showed a reduction in lesions may have shown a reduction without the drug. Last month I had another MRI that showed a further reduction in lesions. Unlike my former neuro who said that "you show something we don't usually see," my current neuro was prepared with an explanation. She tells me that there have been other cases where lesions go away. Somehow, that defies the logic of MS being a progressive disease. Wouldn't it make sense to find those others like me who have shown a reduction in lesions to see if there are any commonalities? Logical thinking should lead to this conclusion.
Therein lies the doctors delima. In the Hippocratic oath, one thing that doctors swear to abide by is to support the findings and efforts of their predecessors. No room for "what ifs" or anecdote when one owes to his/her predecessors.
So much for logic in the medical industry. Want a "cure" for this disease in our lifetime? Start by throwing away the updated Hippocratic oath of the 20th Century, and go back to the original and rework it the right way; an oath that focuses on providing the right elements to the make the patient well today, not tomorrow.