national

Eisai sees potential of new Alzheimer's drug but costs remain concern

12 Comments

The requested article has expired, and is no longer available. Any related articles, and user comments are shown below.

© KYODO

©2021 GPlusMedia Inc.

12 Comments
Login to comment

I fail to see virusrex's point that this article disproves the idea that "regulating bodies in medicine are deeply in the pocket of pharmaceutical companies"

Yes, because that is how you imagine how it works right? scientists and experts are all paid to ignore dangerous things so they can be approved, so when something is not even dangerous, just barely hints at being useful... the experts quit and make public their discontent? that is some weird logic there. Are not they moved by money instead of public benefit? how come they quit then? almost as if the conspiracy was not real from the beginning. It is again the same as the example of dexamethasone, it so completely proves the conspiracy as false that people that defend it have to make huge efforts to not recognize even its existence.

Exactly. It’s a recurring cognitive issue coupled with claims of better data that can never be revealed.

It is telling when a person that say it is not one of a group ends up using the same false arguments, in the same topics and supporting each other to defend the same conspiracies. Yes, that is how someone proves it is not part of a group.

2 ( +2 / -0 )

I fail to see virusrex's point that this article disproves the idea that "regulating bodies in medicine are deeply in the pocket of pharmaceutical companies".

Exactly. It’s a recurring cognitive issue coupled with claims of better data that can never be revealed.

-3 ( +1 / -4 )

Aduhelm reduces amyloid beta proteins in the brain, which are believed to play a key role in causing Alzheimer's disease.

Do the amyloid beta proteins actually cause the disease, or are they just associated with it? Just like firetrucks are associated with house fires, but do not cause them...

-4 ( +0 / -4 )

The bigger story is that three scientists on the FDA panel reviewing this product resigned over the decision to approve this when not one person on the panel voted to approve it since there is no data or evidence that it offers any benefit to patients with Alzheimer's disease.

Not one person on the panel voted to approve it, and yet it was approved!

I fail to see virusrex's point that this article disproves the idea that "regulating bodies in medicine are deeply in the pocket of pharmaceutical companies". Despite big pharmas being fined several billions over the years for falsifying data and bribing. If anything, the above article reinforces pharma's influence.

-3 ( +1 / -4 )

What part of the Conspiracy Theory is Theory.

The part where this precise situation is supposed to be impossible to see, because everybody in in "it" so nobody can ever say this is not justified, much less quit in protests. One thing is to suspect influence (that the same experts consider problematic and say so) another completely different is to say everybody is included in the conspiracy and hides anything that does not fit economic interests.

It is the same with the nonsense conspiracy about experts puporsefully hiding good drugs to make COVID look more deadly and "push" vaccines and expensive drugs. The humble, dirt cheap dexamethasone easily and quickly proved to be hugely effective at reducing complications and death from the disease, demonstrating the supposed conspiracy as fake.

If a conspiracy theory has not proof there is no real weight on it, but if there is easily found evidence that should not be present that is enough to prove it as false.

2 ( +3 / -1 )

A silver lining is that this controversy helps dispelling the multiple conspiracy theories that say all regulating bodies in medicine are deeply in the pocket of pharmaceutical companies, so these kind of discussions and resignations are supposedly impossible to see, because everybody is paid to hide all negative information. This at least helps proving what actually happens when approval is based on faint evidence. (and this doesn't even have safety problems, only insufficient proof of efficacy).

Sure....

https://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2017/01/17/510226214/from-twitter-to-treatment-guidelines-industry-influence-permeates-medicine

What part of the Conspiracy Theory is Theory.

Lol

-4 ( +1 / -5 )

Health should not be a market.

4 ( +4 / -0 )

Used to work for a pharmaceutical company. They're in a tough place: R&D costs for drugs are huge, and sometimes you get a hit but also many misses - money down the drain. I wish this were not left up entirely to the free market. The government could subsidize research on condition that "hit" drugs would be provided at a set profit margin.

4 ( +5 / -1 )

The bigger story is that three scientists on the FDA panel reviewing this product resigned over the decision to approve this when not one person on the panel voted to approve it since there is no data or evidence that it offers any benefit to patients with Alzheimer's disease.

This has been a huge thing in scientific and medical circles since the results were published and it was clear that the drug offered tiny benefits (if any) to the patients so the approval came in heated discussions and as a consequence of heavy pressure from the part of patients that want any hope, even if it is false.

A silver lining is that this controversy helps dispelling the multiple conspiracy theories that say all regulating bodies in medicine are deeply in the pocket of pharmaceutical companies, so these kind of discussions and resignations are supposedly impossible to see, because everybody is paid to hide all negative information. This at least helps proving what actually happens when approval is based on faint evidence. (and this doesn't even have safety problems, only insufficient proof of efficacy)

2 ( +7 / -5 )

The only benefit is to the company charging a ridiculous $56,000 per year for nothing.

Per person.

That must have slipped your mind.

Not theirs.

3 ( +4 / -1 )

The bigger story is that three scientists on the FDA panel reviewing this product resigned over the decision to approve this when not one person on the panel voted to approve it since there is no data or evidence that it offers any benefit to patients with Alzheimer's disease.

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/members-fda-drug-panel-resign-controversial-alzheimers-drug

The only benefit is to the company charging a ridiculous $56,000 per year for nothing.

11 ( +11 / -0 )

Japanese Clinical trials begin on members of LDP

6 ( +7 / -1 )

Login to leave a comment

Facebook users

Use your Facebook account to login or register with JapanToday. By doing so, you will also receive an email inviting you to receive our news alerts.

Facebook Connect

Login with your JapanToday account

User registration

Articles, Offers & Useful Resources

A mix of what's trending on our other sites