Science/Environment Possible cure for MS.

[Ruanaidh]

Anyone who is a sufferer should read this article. If you know a sufferer pass it on:

http://tickerforum.org/cgi-ticker/akcs-www?post=118758

 

[bit_pattern]

Hrm. Interesting, no doubt, but the old adage that if it sounds too good to be true it usually is springs to mind.

 

[Rustin Cohle]

Yes! Hopefully this will save Susan Kennedy on Neighbours!

 

[BomberGal]

Anyone who is a sufferer should read this article. If you know a sufferer pass it on:

http://tickerforum.org/cgi-ticker/akcs-www?post=118758

Hmm.

No.

 

[mantis]

Hmm.

No.

This is a first, I agree with you.

 

[campbell]

Whats the harm in an ultrasound of blood vessels in your neck, if they are found to be narrow, then get em fixed. the ultrasound is non inivaasive, so I cant see aporblem with this testing to be honest.

 

[BomberGal]

Whats the harm in an ultrasound of blood vessels in your neck, if they are found to be narrow, then get em fixed. the ultrasound is non inivaasive, so I cant see aporblem with this testing to be honest.

They should probably all get mammograms or prostate checks while they're at it. Maybe get their glucose or cholesterol levels checked too.

You can't see a problem with the testing? What about all the waste of 'taxpayer money' and the time of doctors to do this?

It kind of alarms me that you are a nurse or clinician (depending on what you want to argue on a given day) and yet you don't seem to have picked up on the fact that multiple sclerosis is not defined by problems with 'blood vessels in your neck' nor that the symptoms listed by the woman in the link are actually not the "classic symptoms of MS" (even if they are some). If she had MS you'd start to wonder about her muscles, would you not? If you're suffering from vertigo, numbness or vision problems, there are millions of things it could be. Insist on getting your veins checked if you must, but relating this to MS is like saying if you have diabetes, you should go get checked for dry skin.

Why people think drug companies prevent diseases from being cured I have no idea (which is really what the article is trying to push). It is incredible naivety on the part of people who have no idea what is involved in research. We'll wait to see credible publications, shall we? It's possible that this could be a contributing cause to the disease but it's no bloody miracle cure. There is an overwhelming amount of evidence for many other causes.

 

[cancat]

Why people think drug companies prevent diseases from being cured I have no idea (which is really what the article is trying to push). It is incredible naivety on the part of people who have no idea what is involved in research. We'll wait to see credible publications, shall we? It's possible that this could be a contributing cause to the disease but it's no bloody miracle cure. There is an overwhelming amount of evidence for many other causes.

I don't know if there is anything in this proposed MS cure but there is a precedent for drug companies not being too keen on diseases being cured.

http://www.yourhealthbase.com/ulcer_drugs.htm

H. pylori was discovered in April 1982 by two Australian physicians, Dr. Barry Marshall and Dr. Robbin Warren. In 1983 the two doctors proposed that the bacterium is the cause of peptic (duodenal and gastric) ulcers. Dr. Marshall even went so far as to innoculate himself with the bacterium to prove his point(1). The discovery was met by deafening silence from the medical community and created great anxiety within the pharmaceutical industry. At the time, highly profitable antacids such as cimetidine (Tagamet) and ranitidine (Zantac) were used to treat about 90 per cent of all ulcer patients and generated sales income of over $8 billion per year(1,2). Cimetidine and ranitidine do not cure ulcers, but merely mask the symptoms. The relapse rate after cessation of treatment is 50 per cent after six months and as high as 95 per cent after one year(1,3).

 

[BomberGal]

I don't know if there is anything in this proposed MS cure but there is a precedent for drug companies not being too keen on diseases being cured.

http://www.yourhealthbase.com/ulcer_drugs.htm

Most research is not funded by drug companies. People seem to think that the reason cures are not found is because the drug companies prevent it. It's simply not true. As someone who works in biomedical research, I can tell you it's because of the amount of time required to do the research.

Drug companies can of course play their cards to prevent public access to the right cures, but that's a pretty basic view of it. Drug companies can also make a lot of money from cures.

They don't prevent the research, and it's not the reason there's no cure for MS.

 

[cancat]

Drug companies can also make a lot of money from cures.

But how would that compare to continued symptom relief?

 

[BomberGal]

But how would that compare to continued symptom relief?

Depends how they play their cards, doesn't it?

There are a couple of things to consider. One, what good is symptom relief if patients die as the disease is not properly cured?

Secondly, many 'cures' are likely to be lifelong treatments, as is the case for diabetes, various cancers, heart disease, etc etc.

Hey, where's campbell gone?

 

[cancat]

So whether symptom relief or cure the maximum profit will be obtained by keeping the patient alive for as long as possible and on the drugs/cure all their lives?

Big bucks we are talking about here too.

 

[BomberGal]

So whether symptom relief or cure the maximum profit will be obtained by keeping the patient alive for as long as possible and on the drugs/cure all their lives?

Big bucks we are talking about here too.

Well, with cures where they are at the moment, most diseases don't really have a simple once-off cure. And it's not really the way drug-based research is oriented.

At any rate, believe me, if you don't suggest possible relation, however tenuous, to curing a disease with drugs these days in a grant application, the government is far less likely to give you any money. Either that or work in cancer research. Otherwise, don't do science in Australia

 

[cancat]

Thanks for the input Bombergal.

What proportion of research is funded by government and how much is funded by drugs companies?

 

[BomberGal]

Thanks for the input Bombergal.

What proportion of research is funded by government and how much is funded by drugs companies?

In my lab, all government.

In the neighbouring labs, as far as I can tell, it's also the government, perhaps a tiny bit by drug companies - certainly you wouldn't be relying on the drug company money. The money you wait for is from the government. I think the ones partially funded by drug companies are a couple that are involved in a theme relating to infection and immunity - so, you know, completely up that alley. Such groups work on stuff like malaria and third world diseases. Other research that will get you money from those companies is basically cancer or other 'big' diseases. Stuff to do with hormones.

It could be naive because I haven't been working in science that long, but certainly that money isn't defining the projects these people work on, anyway. Government money is still very important and one of the main factors that determines whether your lab can even stay afloat.

Anyway, all the money in Australia is in cancer research. The government and any drug company will throw money at you to research it. It's important, but a pity. Of course, most research is a long, long way off getting to a drug development stage - I don't think the public actually realise how long it takes to do research, leading to people getting quite upset with 'why are scientists wasting their time on X when we could be curing cancer!'. Research is baby steps.

(If you can't tell, nothing I'm doing in the lab this week is working. )

 

[Docker Clint]

None of the MS sufferers have been noted to have a hologram in the back of their watch. Perhaps they should try it.

 

[dr nick]

Most recearch into pharmaceuticals ($ wise) is funded by the pharmaceutical companies. Government subsidised research tends to be on a far smaller scale, smaller labs, and studies with far less study participants, which creates problems whichever way you look into it.

If a government funded lab discovers an alternate way to (for instance) lower blood pressure, they form the initial base of the research. Subsequent to that, the funding is overwhelmingly sourced from the private sector.

There is probably more money in anti-ageing cream research than in T-cell mediated immune mechanism research.

 

[BomberGal]

Most recearch into pharmaceuticals ($ wise) is funded by the pharmaceutical companies. Government subsidised research tends to be on a far smaller scale, smaller labs, and studies with far less study participants, which creates problems whichever way you look into it.

If a government funded lab discovers an alternate way to (for instance) lower blood pressure, they form the initial base of the research. Subsequent to that, the funding is overwhelmingly sourced from the private sector.

There is probably more money in anti-ageing cream research than in T-cell mediated immune mechanism research.

However, this 'small scale research' you mention is really the bulk of science. You need that to even get to the drug development stage. At any rate, much research isn't even oriented toward drug targets and never will be, directly - you need the basic science to have any kind of medical or biotechnological discipline.

It depends what you define as smaller scale - the medical community, in my experience, seem largely ignorant of all the research that goes on that has nothing to do with a drug target. The same applies to the general public, in fact, who are often so indignant as to why scientists would do anything other than research a drug target RIGHT NOW.

I'm not sure what you mean about 'far less study participants' or why you think that causes a problem, but it may be a symptom of being a part of a medical community that isn't aware of how much research is done (and funded by the government*) that has nothing to do with development of a drug. Smaller labs must still achieve statistically significant results in order to get credibility. I guess my point is - while drug-oriented research may be funded largely by pharmaceutical companies, most biomedical or biological research is not drug-oriented.

*Having said that, funding for scientific research in Australia is absolutely appalling...

 

[dr nick]

I think i'm fairly well aware there are a lot of areas of science not even directed at medicine, let alone pharmacology, let alone pharmaceuticals. Thats why I clarified that I was talking about pharmaceutical research.

Your statement about the medical community being largely ignorant of all the research goes on is akin to saying those in the plumbing trade are largely ignorant of what goes on in the manufacture of PVC pipes. Reeks of self-importance IMO.

 

[BomberGal]

I think i'm fairly well aware there are a lot of areas of science not even directed at medicine, let alone pharmacology, let alone pharmaceuticals. Thats why I clarified that I was talking about pharmaceutical research.

Your statement about the medical community being largely ignorant of all the research goes on is akin to saying those in the plumbing trade are largely ignorant of what goes on in the manufacture of PVC pipes. Reeks of self-importance IMO.

Actually it comes from a couple of things: the fact that my lab is based in a hospital, and have to deal with doctors who regularly make ignorant statements about what work is carried out or refuse to sit in research seminars but demand we listen to theirs, and also that doctors from time to time come and work in labs, and ALL of them say "hey, I didn't realise what goes on". And given the amount of interplay that must go on between the medical and scientific communities, it is kind of alarming how little some of these people seem be aware of. Of course it works both ways, but that's the problem with a funding system that these days only cares about drugs.

Your example of T cell-mediated immune mechanisms didn't necessarily highlight a pharmaceutical-based post from you, given how much work would go into that that has nothing to do with a drug, that's all.