Aimspro - not looking so good

A forum to discuss Aimspro (Goat Serum) as a possible therapy for MS
Post Reply
User avatar
Family Elder
Posts: 1888
Joined: Fri Sep 10, 2004 2:00 pm

Aimspro - not looking so good

Post by bromley » Wed Apr 06, 2005 8:13 am

Dear all,

The UK MS Society has posted the following on its website:

Further evidence needed after disappointing Aimspro trial results, say neurologists

The results from the recently completed small study of Aimspro (goat serum) in optic neuritis (a common symptom or model for MS) were presented at a scientific meeting last week. They make it clear that the main measures used to evaluate its effect were negative. Tertiary outcomes, while not showing a benefit when compared to placebo, showed some interesting results.

A spokesman for the MS Society said, "We note that this is the first time clinical trial data involving Aimspro has been formally presented to the medical community. In the light of this new information, we want to highlight how important it is that research findings are responsibly disseminated and the need for peer-reviewed, published research information. Reports in the media can sometimes be limited or exaggerated and may lead to disappointment. The Society awaits publication of the results of this clinical trial."

By coincidence, I met someone yesterday who has been given Aimspro for a nerve condition. She said that she had seen no improvement in her condition.

I think we all need to be very wary of the likely effectiveness of this product. How many people have experienced improvements? / how long did they last? / how many saw no improvement? The data to date has been patchy to say the least.

No proper trails have been completed and all we have is claims of dramatic recoveries but with no / little evidence.


User avatar
Family Elder
Posts: 271
Joined: Sun May 30, 2004 2:00 pm
Location: University Town, USA

Re: Aimspro - not looking so good

Post by Daunted » Wed Apr 06, 2005 8:37 am

I agree that we need more data.

The UK MS society post is in conflict with the Daval press release, which claimed statistical significance between Aimspro and placebo on tertiary measures. Which is correct I wonder?

No drug works for everyone, especially in complicated conditions like neurological disease.

The pilot trial was very small. There was a high statistical likelihood of a Type II error (meaning, the treatment works, but they can't show it statistically). Such pilot studies are largely fishing expeditions to see what happens. Finding statistical significance in some measures is encouraging.

Now they need larger trials!

Post Reply
  • Similar Topics
    Last post

Return to “Aimspro”