1. Guest, the 'News in Brief' for the week beginning 27th June 2022 is here.
    Dismiss Notice
  2. Welcome! To read the Core Purpose and Values of our forum, click here.
    Dismiss Notice

Pfizer had clues its blockbuster drug could prevent Alzheimer’s. Why didn’t it tell the world?

Discussion in 'Other health news and research' started by Jaybee00, Jun 5, 2019.

Tags:
  1. Jaybee00

    Jaybee00 Senior Member (Voting Rights)

    Messages:
    1,063
  2. Jaybee00

    Jaybee00 Senior Member (Voting Rights)

    Messages:
    1,063
    Well not totally not ME/CFS. Enbrel (etanercept) is one part of the two drug combo proposed by Nancy Klimas to treat ME/CFS.
     
    Last edited: Jun 5, 2019
    MEMarge likes this.
  3. Alvin

    Alvin Senior Member (Voting Rights)

    Messages:
    3,309
    None of this makes any real sense. They could have extended the patent if it worked, 80 million is a lot to us but not them, the patent system is far more broken then the article would have us believe and is not the best way to to make this work.
    Why they did it is an unanswered question, their statements are unrealistic.
     
  4. Jonathan Edwards

    Jonathan Edwards Senior Member (Voting Rights)

    Messages:
    11,346
    Location:
    London, UK
    I am not surprised that they did not tell the world. Enbrel is hugely expensive, causes serious side effects including disseminated tuberculosis and death and a high proportion of people become resistant to it over a fairly short period. It sounds like one of the more sensible decisions from a drug company.
     
  5. BurnA

    BurnA Senior Member (Voting Rights)

    Messages:
    403
    I don't follow...

    Hugely expensive means more profits, hardly a valid reason for them not to tell anyone?

    Also, while the side effects you list are indeed serious, if it is approved for arthritis, then these should not be more of an issue for alzheimers?

    I would wager that the main reason is they just didn't think it was a profitable venture.
    That is the single biggest driver for most (all?) big pharma decisions.
     
  6. Diluted-biscuit

    Diluted-biscuit Senior Member (Voting Rights)

    Messages:
    513
    Not if it’s too expensive for anyone to afford
     
    arewenearlythereyet likes this.
  7. BurnA

    BurnA Senior Member (Voting Rights)

    Messages:
    403
    It's a blockbuster for arthritis. I doubt many pay for it out of their own pocket.

    Drug companies set the price based on what they think they can charge, to make them the most profit, not on what it costs to manufacture.
     
    arewenearlythereyet likes this.
  8. Jonathan Edwards

    Jonathan Edwards Senior Member (Voting Rights)

    Messages:
    11,346
    Location:
    London, UK
    It does not mean more profits if it causes an epidemic of fatal disseminated TB while waiting the fifteen years for there to be any effect on reducing the rate of Alzheimer's.

    Roche was very wary of developing rituximab for RA because they had a nice earner in lymphoma, where the odd death did not matter too much, and they did not want people with non-fatal illnesses getting lethal side effects and spoiling the cancer market.

    In fact the first people to make an anti-TNF like Enbrel did not even want to develop it for RA, it had so many red flags. It was only because Ravinder Maini and Mark Feldman decided to try it that the drug companies had to take interest.
     

Share This Page