I'm just waiting to see if these "particular" safety precautions are identified. The CRABs DO inform people of the safety precautions for their drugs, and there is research you can find that investigated those side effects.
You can't find a thing where the full side effects have been fully "investigated" yet regarding Antegren, when there is indication (very much like the liver toxicity issue with the CRABs) that it should be.
That's the difference. I can find where liver toxicity has been researched with the CRABs and you can locate what the safety precautions may be before taking the CRABs, so you can be fully informed if you want to take the risk.
If I could find the same research having been done regarding the integrins (which I found enough, though, to indicate it SHOULD be done, but hasn't yet), then I wouldn't be concerned that this particular issue would be missed or that people may go on uninformed.
Where's the research that they have looked into it in depth....the same way the CRAB side effects were looked into? See the difference? That's the exact same circumstance that happened to Vioxx. IF they had simply UP FRONT told people that chronic use of Vioxx MAY cause cardio problems, and provided the research that indicated same, they wouldn't be in the spot they are in now. It was a simple issue made huge because they just plain either didn't want to believe it might cause a real problem or they didn't want to take the time to inform people up front.
Like I said, we'll see what the FDA thinks.
I'm in law..........I become "passionate" about the "rights" of people to know. I'm not as "passionate" about whether Antegren is harmful or not. It's the "right" of people to be fully informed that I'm "beating a drum about". If it doesn't cause any harm to block VLA-4, then simply show where and/or how they came to that conclusion.
That's all my question is. Will blocking VLA-4 be harmful long-term? And if the answer is "no", then show me how they reached that conclusion. Where is the research? If YOU can point me to it or give me data that shows the risk level(s), then great!! This subject would then be closed. But........hmmmmmmmmm.....nobody can, it seems.
Why is asking a simple question so difficult or referred to as trying to create a conspiracy? And believe me, I didn't charge them with RICO charges, nor any of the other unlawful allegations against them. They apparently have caused their own problems in the past. That's simply
relaying fact, not conspiracy at all.
And I wasn't the one who published research data that shows unequivocally the possible issues regarding VLA-4 blocking. If someone else hadn't found the possible problem, and/or I had seen where Biogen addressed that very issue, also, and provided reassurance and data about it, then hey! No problemo!
But.......they can't.........or won't. (Yet.) Why not?
I could see if they didn't provide any reassurance if there wasn't any research that clearly indicated there COULD be a problem, but there is. Plain and simple.
P.S. You buying the coffee? ROFL By the way, who are YOU? Or no, what I mean is WHERE are you? Fess up! You must be somewhere in between Boston and Philly?
EDIT: Oh, by the way........my feeling, also, based solely on the personalities of the neuros around here whom I know.........if a neuro or doctor is worth his salt, as they say, when being "sold" Antegren (either for MS or for Crohn's) he'll ask those same two questions also. Right away. If you were a sales rep for Biogen and Antegren, what would your answer be? Oh...there's no need to look into that possible side effect because of its remoteness? Then their next question would be "show me the data where YOU came to the conclusion that it IS that "remote". It all boils down to providing the data or substantive evidence upon which you came to your conclusion.
(Sorry, I'm editing for typos, not substance.)
Last edited by OddDuck
on Thu Nov 11, 2004 5:49 am, edited 3 times in total.