My point is that the people at Johns Hopkins aren't saying that Revimmune won't stop the disease process in PPMS (or SPMS) because I think it's already proven that it will work stop the disease progression.
I don't like Accentia announcing a primary endpoint with Revimmune as a decrease in symptoms because that is a little bit more than borderline dishonesty.
Bob, there is an article from 2004 you posted in the Revimmune section here. "Interesting read form 2004". It's about ASCT and HiCy. It says that the ASCT does not work thet well when to much damage is done, or when the patient has PPMS. I tought that before ASCT the people undergo a HiCy treatment.
So if HiCy+ASCT=less effective in PPMS, why should HiCy alone be more effective?
I agree with you that if Accentia wants to get a piece of the cake they have to prove that their protocol is better than the soon coming new therapies and that it is even capable to reverse some/all disability. But this is what Campath and for some people even Tysabri already do...
I can imagine, that if the new therapies will in the trials prove to be save a possible treatment-path might be:
For "mild" RRMS: 1.FTY720
For "normal" RRMS, one or two relapses/year: 1.FTY720 or Tysabri, 2. Campath
For "agressive" RRMS: 1.Campath
For "very agressive" RRMS + SPMS: 1.HiCy
Meanwhile PPMS will ensure the jobs of the wheelchair-producers and their employees. Ha ha... I am cynical now.