Posted on 05/24/2005 5:56:39 PM PDT by neverdem
A drug developed by Genentech significantly improved the eyesight of people with a condition that is the leading cause of blindness in the elderly, the company said yesterday.
The results represent the first time that a drug for the disease - age-related macular degeneration - has been able to improve vision, not just preserve it, in a large clinical trial. It thus represents a potentially big advance.
"If this pans out, it would be a significant advantage," said Dr. Julia A. Haller, a professor of ophthalmology at Johns Hopkins University who was involved in the trial and has occasionally consulted for Genentech. "People want to be able to read and drive; they don't want to just hold on to moderate vision loss."
There are two drugs already approved to treat macular degeneration, Visudyne, from QLT and Novartis; and Macugen, from Eyetech Pharmaceuticals and Pfizer. Both drugs slow the deterioration of eyesight but do not generally improve it.
Shares of Eyetech fell 30 percent after hours, after Genentech's announcement at the close of regular trading. Shares of Genentech rose to $79.02 in after-hours trading after closing the regular session at $76.60, up 70 cents.
The results continue a hot streak for Genentech, which has...
(Excerpt) Read more at nytimes.com ...
Yes.
FWIW, I *think* anything that can be done with fetal stem cells now will eventually be able to be done without them.
Eventually.
Some day.
This is great news. I hope that the same progress can be made for the dry form. IIRC, the dry form of MD is way more prevalent than the wet form.
Wow, 28 is young. Maybe some of these treatments will help your son and you.
Best of luck to you.
Thank you for a great post. This is most encouraging to several of my family members.
Damn those evil pharmaceutical companies ! (sarc)
Two wrongs never make a right. And with science there is not only ONE WAY or the highway. Other approaches can and shou;d be be considered besides dismembering little humans for so called research!
I gather you are neither a blood donor, nor an organ donor.
Now THAT's funny!
That rules! The elderly could be more independent.
By the way, when did the NYT start insisting on excerpts only?
What does that have to do with opposition to embryonic stem cell research?
It used to be a sin to defile your body. Just trying to see where on the spectrum of changing absolute truth you're stuck.
I think you've made it through the middle ages. So I assume you bathe? Good Christians didn't for the longest time. (Those pagan Romans bathed, and they were eeeeevil).
So, do you insist that your body be buried whole? No cremation? No parting out?
The questions were a followup based on what I thought was her response.
Feel free to answer them if you wish...
I don't know if the NYT started insisting on excerpts only. I asked an admin moderator, and later Jim Robinson, after he made a comment on a thread, what happened. I received no reply.
I think you've made it through the middle ages. So I assume you bathe? Good Christians didn't for the longest time. (Those pagan Romans bathed, and they were eeeeevil).
So, do you insist that your body be buried whole? No cremation? No parting out?"
"Feel free to answer them if you wish."
I Wish...
I have a problem comparing a Christian’s sincere belief in the sanctity of life to the church’s evolved teaching re. bathing, cremation, and blood and organ donation… I agree with eleni121 and am not stuck anywhere on the "spectrum of changing absolute truth;" I doubt that she is either. Absolute truth can be found only in our personal relationship with God; not through any one church’s adaptive doctrine.
BTW, of course it is still a sin to defile one’s Spirit-occupied body. Does that include blood and organ donation? Altho the Church may have changed its position here, the Ancient of Days long ago declared that greater love has no one than this, that he lay down his life for his friends. Surely that is inclusive of these “gifts” to others. Donating the body of a diminutive being with unlimited life potential? Different story.
Agreeing to Disagree, my friend.
OK. So if the donor is deceased, fine. If the donor is an alive viable child, no.
I said ok to transplants, no to embryonic cell via live "baby to be" manipulation.
Good answer. Her little heart is still beating, else it wouldn't be viable for transplant.
Now what?
we have an acquaitance who is a drug rep for Genentech......very cushy job, with "golf" days with docs and his wife never worked.....everytime he would get a bonus they would buy something...new house, motor home, 4 wheelers....
Nice gig!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.