This Is MS Multiple Sclerosis Knowledge & Support Community

L wrote:

scorpion wrote:I am curious if people truly think the "pharmas" sit around all day worrying about CCSVI? I mean the way it sounds on here it is like there the big "pharmas" have developed a secret commission to try and figure out ways to discredit CCSVI. MS is a rare disease and although there is money to be made from us it certainly pales in comparison to other diseases such as diabetes and heart disease. I have a friend who works for Pfizer and he has never even heard of CCSVI. This is not a post to discredit CCSVI but I really do not think the "pharmas" are overly interested in discrediting CCSVI.

I don't personally believe that big pharma is attempting to discredit CCSVI (I am a very trusting person who believes that everyone has my best interests at heart), but the people who do believe so aren't talking about Glaxo, for example, they are talking about the likes of Biogen and Teva who rely on MS drugs for their income. I would imagine that they are concerned. They would be crazy to be looking for a cure and something that could possibly turn out to be a cure must worry them somewhat. Imagine, for a start, what will happen to their shares if it proves to be the case that people do not require expensive weekly injections. Imagine what will happen to their income. They would be foolish not to be imagining these things themselves. We are their bread and butter..

I see what you are saying L but I do not see how that would slow down CCSVI research. If anyone of the pharma haters care to quote a statement by any pharma discrediting CCSVI please post it.

scorpion wrote:I am curious if people truly think the "pharmas" sit around all day worrying about CCSVI? I mean the way it sounds on here it is like there the big "pharmas" have developed a secret commission to try and figure out ways to discredit CCSVI. MS is a rare disease and although there is money to be made from us it certainly pales in comparison to other diseases such as diabetes and heart disease. I have a friend who works for Pfizer and he has never even heard of CCSVI. This is not a post to discredit CCSVI but I really do not think the "pharmas" are overly interested in discrediting CCSVI.

Hence my earlier comment, that got lost in the revelation that Lyon is really Brad Paisley:

patientx wrote:"A treatment for multiple sclerosis that upsets Big Pharma," yet article doesn't contain one example of a drug company's position on CCSVI, nor any drug company efforts to undermine research into it.

Unfortunately, this editorial is another in what seems to be a growing trend: that neurologists who run trials, or accept grants and honoraria from drug companies must be beholden to them. Therefore, they will speak out against CCSVI. This also seems to be a favorite theme of Ashton Embry. Though somewhat logical, this is still just speculation. And no one has presented anything that shows that pharmaceutical companies are trying to quash the CCSVI theory.
I guess it really doesn't matter too much, but as people continue to promote these types of editorials, it will just strengthen the argument that CCSVI fringe theory.

L wrote:I don't personally believe that big pharma is attempting to discredit CCSVI (I am a very trusting person who believes that everyone has my best interests at heart), but the people who do believe so aren't talking about Glaxo, for example, they are talking about the likes of Biogen and Teva who rely on MS drugs for their income. I would imagine that they are concerned. They would be crazy to be looking for a cure and something that could possibly turn out to be a cure must worry them somewhat. Imagine, for a start, what will happen to their shares if it proves to be the case that people do not require expensive weekly injections. Imagine what will happen to their income. They would be foolish not to be imagining these things themselves. We are their bread and butter..

L,

Your argument makes perfect sense, but that doesn't make it reality. Look at Genzyme's development of Campath for MS. What they are proposing is 2 annual infusions (and possibly a third, if warranted). This is not a lifetime of treatment. Same with Revimmune. The makers of the CRABS are not just under assault from CCSVI; they have competitors, just like any other company. It's quite possible that Teva and Biogen are trying to develop something similar; but, if not, they could stand to lose substantial market share. And the first company to develop a true cure will have customers lining up at the door.

.

Lyon - but your comparison is not a fair one. You are talking about total worldwide drug costs. The discussion is revenues derived from MS medications. Specifically, whether it's plausible that pharma companies who make MS medications have an interest in discrediting an idea which could potentially cost them a considerable amount of money (Billions each). For example, I could be wrong but I believe that Biogen makes well over 50% of its revenue from MS medication. Your statement is the equivalent of saying that the financial situation of the "food industry" would not be affected if it were discovered that oranges cause cancer. The orange farmers would, of course, definitely pick up that quarter on the sidewalk, and maybe even consider committing a little assault and battery along the way.

Of course - the big assumption here is that MS patients won't benefit from MS medications after the liberation procedure. And even Dr. Zamboni suggests the continued use of DMDs. Unless the MS pharams know something we don't. But we'll leave that for another day, another forum.

.

Scorpion is just jealous that he didn't get to go to that meeting... she's married, Scorp.

Plus you have to be at least in the same ballpark, let alone league.

Patientx et Al must have to come to each other's defence a lot. That's OK, they have every right to be ignored. I may agree with what you have to say, but I'll defend to the death my right not to listen to a word.

You guys are posting so close together in time, I don't know what to make of it, except it's sort of like talking on the phone when you've had too much to drink. I always think back to our pugilistic little guy about proven proofs.

And I'd also like to say don't worry about big pharma. "...from little pharmas"

These are not like the remissions of old. They last. If there is no more stenosis, or reflux, the patients will be the ones saying "adios".

"I feel like a number." Bob Seger

.

Lyon wrote:Good point and at face value that makes it seem to be a fair assumption (50% profit from MS drugs) unless some huge conglomerate owns Biogen which might again make the Tysabri/Avonex profits see like a drop in a bucket.

Biogen is not owned by a big conglomerate. I think it's traded on the stock exchange, which would make it liable to its shareholders to maximize profits.

Even if the seemingly obvious is true I guess the other way of looking at this situation is whether or not Biogen idec, Teva, Serono Pfizer and Bayer separately are capable of epitomizing the BIG, BAD PHARMA so many here are paranoid of or conversely that these long arch rivals have gotten together to circle the wagons in fear of what CCSVI might do to their profit margins.

Corporations/businesses conspiring to stifle competition has a long history. In fact, that's why we have antitrust laws. While certainly not an easy task, it happens. For example, price fixing is where competitors collude to fix a certain market price. Here's an article regarding Pfizer and a charge of "price fixing" which was recently reinstated in California, as an example: http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2010-07-1 ... court.html

Truth is, MUCH more would have to be proven of CCSVI to even be considered a worry to the few pharmas who produce the CRABs. Even then, it's hard to imagine any of those pharmas separately spending the money to fight the idea of CCSVI at this point and even harder to imagine those long rivals being concerned enough to join together against something that is so far from showing to be a concern to them.

I agree. CCSVI is still in the early stages, but you can't deny that a company would (or should) be worried about the possibility of losing significant revenue.

Moreover, it's not so hard to imagine that an industry of MS drug manufacturers would join forces to ensure their respective market share. This also happens frequently. Every big industry in the US (Automakers, oil, meat industry, dairy, tobacco) spends millions (maybe even billions) each year to ensure their interests are represented by hiring industry groups (lobbyists) whose job is to protect companies from the even remote possibility of legislation adversely impacting their bottom line.

So it's not so far fetched that these MS companies would do the same to protect their interest from a treatment that could potentially have a devastating impact on their share price. In fact, it's probable. If you were a shareholder, would you want them to spend money to fight this now, or when it has too much momentum to be stopped? If it were my money, I'd vote for the former.

Remember - Noah built the ark before the flood, not after.

I am not alarmed, and I suspect, more to the point, neither are they. If you know your enemy, you are a good long way towards victory.

.

1eye wrote:Scorpion is just jealous that he didn't get to go to that meeting... she's married, Scorp.

Plus you have to be at least in the same ballpark, let alone league.

Patientx et Al must have to come to each other's defence a lot. That's OK, they have every right to be ignored. I may agree with what you have to say, but I'll defend to the death my right not to listen to a word.

You guys are posting so close together in time, I don't know what to make of it, except it's sort of like talking on the phone when you've had too much to drink. I always think back to our pugilistic little guy about proven proofs.

And I'd also like to say don't worry about big pharma. "...from little pharmas"

These are not like the remissions of old. They last. If there is no more stenosis, or reflux, the patients will be the ones saying "adios".

"I feel like a number." Bob Seger

Thanks for insightful info. 1 eye. If you are looking for a pep rally for CCSVI go find one on of the facebook pages that scream the accolades of CCSVI. Thisisms is an open forum and there is as much room for critical thinking as for emotional banter. As far as your comment about Cheer I happen to think, although I don't see eye to eye with her, that she is a very thoughtful and intelligent person. What is next.. scorp and cheer sitting in a treee..... Geeeze grow up.

.

scorpion wrote:

1eye wrote:Scorpion is just jealous that he didn't get to go to that meeting... she's married, Scorp.

Plus you have to be at least in the same ballpark, let alone league.

Patientx et Al must have to come to each other's defence a lot. That's OK, they have every right to be ignored. I may agree with what you have to say, but I'll defend to the death my right not to listen to a word.

You guys are posting so close together in time, I don't know what to make of it, except it's sort of like talking on the phone when you've had too much to drink. I always think back to our pugilistic little guy about proven proofs.

And I'd also like to say don't worry about big pharma. "...from little pharmas"

These are not like the remissions of old. They last. If there is no more stenosis, or reflux, the patients will be the ones saying "adios".

"I feel like a number." Bob Seger

Thanks for insightful info. 1 eye. If you are looking for a pep rally for CCSVI go find one on of the facebook pages that scream the accolades of CCSVI. Thisisms is an open forum and there is as much room for critical thinking as for emotional banter. As far as your comment about Cheer I happen to think, although I don't see eye to eye with her, that she is a very thoughtful and intelligent person. What is next.. scorp and cheer sitting in a treee..... Geeeze grow up.

That's right, question CCSVI here because you can do so in anonymity. Don't go on Facebook though where we could see who you really are.

You can read all about CCSVIhusband here and by his real name (Rick) on Facebook.

But you can only read about scorpion, Lyon, PatientX, concerned (and few others here but mainly those) ... yet do we know who they "really" are nor what their agenda is?

So you tell me, who's more "Brad Paisley" ... CCSVIhusband/Rick ... or Lyon/??? who wouldn't dare post on Facebook so we can see a real profile or window into his life?

Personally, I'm not going to respond to their posts anymore, because everyone here knows what they're all about ... and they add no value to the discussion, just the same old questions they THINK add value, and further the discussion, but really just drag down threads and eventually turn into personal attacks (see ChrisHasMS, HP, and a few others who have been attacked numerously).

Why don't you all tell us who you "really" are?

I've seen CCSVI and its benefits in person ... they never have (and my guess is ... don't want to).

I mean how often can the same 4 people post online in succession, until the picture gets through to everyone? What ... is it the most coincidental thing in the history of man they just all ALMOST ALWAYS happen to be online at the same time every day? OR ... do they call each other up and get on this bandwagon and attack threads with their, do you really think nonsense?

I don't know them and don't care, because my wife has been liberated and I could never post here again, but I will to remind everyone that CCSVI is real, even when you think you don't have it (and to incite them) ... because that makes me smile.

.