View Single Post
  #8  
Old Mon Jan 16, 2012, 08:43 AM
Greg H Greg H is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: North Carolina
Posts: 660
Deb,

It's funny; I was talking about just this point with a friend the other day. It seems to me this is one reason that we in the US need to fund more NIH-style basic research and not just think "the market" is going to get us the answers we need.

Neither of the drugs that I've taken in NIH trials -- Campath (developed at a university lab in Great Britain) or Danazol (on the market since the 1970s) -- is going to make anyone any big money. So there's no profit in a drug company putting money into a trial that uses these drugs. We're only going to learn whether they are useful through research funded by governments, universities, and private foundations.

Here's another example. If you look through the ASH abstracts for MDS this year, there are probably a dozen or more studies that involve Exjade and none that involve wheatgrass. Why? Novartis stands to make money by broadening the market for Exjade and is trying to convince skeptical MDS docs that chelation is worth the expense. No one with substantial resources has a financial interest in the expansion of the wheatgrass trade.

Take care!

Greg
__________________
Greg, 59, dx MDS RCMD Int-1 03/10, 8+ & Dup1(q21q31). NIH Campath 11/2010. Non-responder. Tiny telomeres. TERT mutation. Danazol at NIH 12/11. TX independent 7/12. Pancreatitis 4/15. 15% blasts 4/16. DX RAEB-2. Beginning Vidaza to prep for MUD STC. Check out my blog at www.greghankins.com
Reply With Quote