Yes
Why would a drug company hide a poten market
Agreed - they would have another Viagra (which was originally for heart conditions) on their hands if this is true. I suspect that they might be investigating this but it’s under the correlation is not causation category.
Exactly. There's more going on here.
If they could get the drug labeled for use in treating Alzheimer's (in addition to RA), their sales would increase. Why would a drug company hold back on that is that was the only issue in play?
I think I agree with Pfizer here.
Any company would jump at a chance to make billions off of a working Alzheimer’s drug.
There’ve been several widely publicized drugs that hit the market for testing that promptly failed (and hurt the company financially in the process) that Pfizer taking a conservative approach may have been prudent.
Note the date...
!UW.yye1fxo
>>> 7 Feb 2018 - 10:06:12 PM <<<
What if cures already exist?
What about the billions (public/private/govt) provided to fund cure dev?
It is very simple.
If they would have said anything, the FDA would have forbidden them to make such claims.
Remember, the media love salacious headlines - EVIL DRUG COMPANY DOES XXX
The US FDA would come down on Pfizer ike a ton of bricks if they claimed their drug treated an “unrelated” disease. Liability potential would be outrageous also. They certainly would NOT be allowed to market the drug for Alzheimers unless years of studies were conducted.
Probably just an indicator that they are working with the government to contaminate the water supply with inflammatories thereby causing Alzheimer’s in selected populations. Apparently dumbing down the education system is not doing enough for the central planners’ taste.
More likely there was some indication but test trials would have been so expensive they wouldn’t recover the cost.
At Intel, we abandoned many designs as analysis said little return on investment.
We had several designs in the works which were trending so badly, we just said “no more”
Doing absolutely nothing until the patent for Embrel ran out means they've given up whatever advantage they would have had to develop a new drug first.
Doesn't make sense.
Well, if the formulation is the PEDIATRIC vial package shown, I can think of one reason why patients who take PEDIATRIC Embrel might be 65% less likely to get alzheimer’s than the general population... ;-)
I know pharmas are about $$$$$$$.
I’ve also read of cases, as with Lyme’s Disease, where medical/insurance boards block effective treatments with available regimens (long-term doxy), because a vaccine is on the way (providing $$$$$ pharma income),
What does "buried the data" mean? Does the fact they chose not to publicize certain data mean they "buried" it? They could easily have made the business decision that the data wasn't solid enough to justify spending millions and millions to research the drug for this new purpose. Especially if there are already other, more promising, drugs for this undergoing clinical trials.
Just taking a wild guess here:
They feared that if word got out off-label use of their drug for this purpose would skyrocket. Then later, if some horrible risk was discovered, they’d be on the hook for untold billions in liabilities.
Cancer would probably be cured by now, if we didn't have an FDA.
Actually what they found is that people who remembered to take their Enbrel daily were 64% less likely to have alzheimer’s
;)
If the two groups (Alzheimer's and non-Alzheimers) were not controlled for all other variables (for instance, age) then the results are meaningless.
This is the problem called "hidden variables" or "confounding factors".
Evidence the drug might work was found in 2015. Patent was going to run out in 2018. Thanks to big government, the cost would be too great in time and money to do clinical trials.The low ratio of benefits to costs to the company would have made the decision to do the trials irrational.