As you say Harry, "interestingly" enough, Dr. Steinman has possible conflicts of interest because Bayhill has a drug approaching later stage clinical trials in the MS pipeline, Multiple Sclerosis (MS) BHT-3009: Plasmid encoding the MS-specific autoantigen myelin basic protein. Phase I/II clinical studies are underway in MS patients.
Harry, I've already made my well-informed choice and also conclude that I'm willing to take the very small unknown risk of developing PML while CURRENTLY on Tysabri monotherapy. I was previously at 100% risk of MS progression having failed 2 of the older and inefficacious ABCR interferons for 10 years. By the way, the side effect profile of Tysabri was very close to the side effect profile of placebo in the monotherapy AFFIRM clinical trial.
I think most people who have followed Tysabri know that Dr. Steinman works for another, competitive company. Most "expert" opinions given on behalf of a particular drug by a doctor have the drug company employing the doc or paying him for his opinion. That's the way it is in the pharmaceutical industry. Even the NMSS follows this practice and hires Dr. Bowling to write expert opinions on their behalf....perhaps you can remember the original scathing article he wrote about LDN on their behalf.
But Steinman has a lot of credibility in the field of MS medications and when he speaks, people have a tendency to listen. .
Harry, you said it yourself, "most people who have followed Tysabri know that Dr. Steinman works for another, competitive company." How can you utter such a shallow statement, especially since you are the most flagrant pontificator about business conflicts of interest on this MS message board?
How do YOU know what most people in his very small group or circle of friends know about Dr. Steinman's conflicts of interest?
It cracked me up when some of the conflicted NMSS research advisors and so called experts said we have "more information" than the entire community but, we can't tell you what it is. That's hypocrisy, especially if they are supposed to be ethical medical experts supporting the entire MS community.
Now that Tysabri has been re-approved under TOUCH in the US, I guess some of those multi-conflicted NMSS expert consultants to the FDA must NOT have known as much as they claimed to have known BEFORE the drug was eventually re-approved by the FDA! There was an ominous and obfuscating undertow from conflicted MS experts and competitors that did not want to see Tysabri come back at all, regardless of any revised risk map and label for commercial re-launch of this highly efficacious and novel monotherapy for safely treating any form of active MS!
But don't forget, Harry, the other drugs don't have to put you through the ringer to get it like Ty.
Users browsing this forum: No registered users