Posted on 06/05/2019 7:08:59 PM PDT by bitt
It isn’t like it was advertised but there were a few news stories about it and I looked into it.
A statistical correlation in insurance data is not evidence of efficacy and is not a reason to invest 100’s of millions in research, when other research into biologic anti-inflammatories have been dead ends."
Something most in the country don't know. The press generally doesn't mention this because the drug companies are evil in their eyes. "Big Pharma" and all that.
"Drug Approvals - From Invention to Market ... A 12- Year Trip
In the United States, it takes an average of 12 years for an experimental drug to travel from the laboratory to your medicine cabinet. That is, if it makes it.
Only 5 in 5,000 drugs that enter preclinical testing progress to human testing. One of these 5 drugs that are tested in people is approved. The chance for a new drug to actually make it to market is thus only 1 in 5,000. Not very good odds."
https://www.medicinenet.com/script/main/art.asp?articlekey=9877
Point is, it takes boat loads of money in terms of paying the PhD./MD scientific researchers, the lab facilities, the super computers (in many cases), the lab equipment, etc. etc. to come up with just 1 pharmaceutical that makes it to market.
Imagine paying for everything needed to work on, investigate, trial just 1 drug. 12 years later you have a 1 in 5,000 chance to make money. Now, obviously, the drug companies have more than 1 idea/drug in the pipeline at any given time, but the point is...it takes a lot...a whole lot to be successful with medications.
Or you could just stop eating carbs.
There HAD to be a reason! They could have DOUBLED the price! MAYBE they just didn’t have ALL the research done yet! Geesh.
Isn’t this more a problem with the patent process? New use, patent extension, to recoup $ spent.
studying how inflammation contributes to Alzheimer’s.
*************
The best way to reduce inflammatory disease throughout your body is to greatly limit carbohydrate and sugar intake.
Maybe they’re having to relocate the plants in the States instead of China or India, so the pills actually contain what they’re supposed to, in the correct proportions...
They are not going to be given a new patent for a new use. That's not how it works.By the time any clinical trial might be completed, the patent for this would have run out, which would mean it would be hard to recover the costs of the clinical trials. This was a reasonable economic decision, but they should have published the results of their analysis of insurance claims.
“They are not going to be given a new patent for a new use. That’s not how it works.”
That’s EXACTLY how it works:
https://www.google.com/search?q=new+patent+for+old+drug
Pfizer might be able to extend their patient for a new use, but before they could do that, they would have to spend a very large chunk of money to drawn up and execute new clinical study protocols to test Enbrel against Alzheimer's patients.
Knowing that other pharma companies have invested billions in Alzheimer's research, only to come up empty, maybe Pfizer's decision is quite sound, despite these results. It's quite possible that knowing the makeup of the Enbrel drug, they might acknowledge the results, but know that scientifically, it doesn't make pharmacological sense that Enbrel could have any impact on Alzheimer's patients.
That said, any other company--maybe even the government--is free to make an out-licensed offer to Pfizer to conduct their own clinical trials. Perhaps Pfizer might even offer a really good deal on the medicine itself.
what i’m REALLY thinking is that the reason that Pfizer didn’t pursue this is that:
A. the implication that the drug was good for Alzheimer’s wasn’t well-supported, and/or
B. The article said the drug was good for PREVENTING Alzheimer’s, which meant the entire population would have to inject themselves weekly their whole lives for this drug to “work”, which of course is completely impractical, particularly since this drug pretty much shuts down the whole immune system
However, one would think if the study numbers were valid, that the fact that this drug had such an effect would be a great starting point for a new line of research into the cause of Alzheimer’s with potential for an effective curative drug that IS practical
I suppose that is possible... I am doubtful. If the FDA has ben doing their job, they have been strict on generic replacements of proprietary ℞ drugs.
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.