centenarian100 wrote:1eye wrote:Hard to believe you read the paper. This was not EAE, nor had it anything much in common with MS, progressive or not. The mice were immunodeficient probably to prove the effect had nothing to do with immunity!
Again, this has nothing to do with multiple sclerosis in humans. the sciatic nerve is part of the peripheral nervous system (in both mice and humans)
I wasn't the one who brought up EAE. I don't believe EAE has anything to do with MS either.
So why are you are you demanding...
I make no demands. My bed is made. fty-720 probably works better in the original 'nostrum' form.
You seem to have a thing about Central vs Peripheral. Why not try it? If you had been a quadriplegic for 40 years, you might want to.
The PASAT is certainly a legitimate outcome measure. I don't think it was included in this trial. I suppose you can only have so many outcome measures or else people won't want to participate. Standardization would be nice. The real reason that drug companies generally don't want to pursue progressive MS trials is because they know there it is a good chance that they won't be successful. It is easier to spend money on marketing to convince people to take/prescribe ineffective drugs than to gamble on new endeavors. It seems that this marketing has been wonderfully successful.
Gosh nobody has been prescribing me any drugs at all. They don't seem to want to treat my MS. No chance of any ineffective drugs. They wouldn't even prescribe ones that were effective, except the one that gave me the heart attack. Copaxone use was unilaterally withdrawn by the MS clinic even though it was still working, and specifically approved by the doctor in charge of my MS chemotherapy. The MS clinic decided it had priority. They told the pharmacist not to sell it to me. Later (too late for me) a paper came out that said that copaxone was synergistic with the chemo drug. I am still off copaxone (glatiramer acetate), not by my own choice.
There seems to be a general belief on the part of some MS neurologists that informed consent means "we informed the MS patient as much as they need to be informed. Any other information they may have is irrelevant, unnecessary, and they consent by default to anything we do for them or to them." Some even believe that since MS neurologists are all-knowing, they are the only ones who need to be informed or consent to anything. They believe that they are the final arbiters of what goes in a patient's mouth, or arm, or under their skin. That may or may not protect them from lawsuits, but it is not the case, nor should it be. But MS neurologists think they are gods, or at least gods where MS patients are concerned. I think that belief is what really matters to them, not whether drugs are effective. That, and how much money they make, through channels licit or not. MS patients are sub-human to them, nothing but puppets for their self-aggrandizement.
The MS population has been divided and conquered very successfully along actuarial lines. Effort is not spent on the generally older progressive patient. The trials on these patients have presumed conclusions because diagnose and adios is more lucrative for the ineffective specialist and costs the government less, while still keeping the presses rolling.
P.S. If the peripheral nervous system is so different in MS, perhaps it is because it has no Blood Brain Barrier, which is part of blood vessel walls, and will not prevent a drug from working in the PNS. Maybe fty-720 would work more effectively in the CNS if it were delivered across the BBB. As it is, its only known action is to sequester T Cells. Maybe it has other tricks up its sleeve.
This unit of entertainment not brought to you by FREMULON.
Not a doctor.
"I'm still here, how 'bout that? I may have lost my lunchbox, but I'm still here." John Cowan Hartford (December 30, 1937 – June 4, 2001)
