Grrrrrrrrr! This makes me SOOO MAD!!!
LabRat529
Posts: 1,323 Member
So I'm reading the news on this great forum that I frequent about Alzheimer's and I come to this:
http://www.alzforum.org/new/detail.asp?id=2950
And at first I'm like, "that's too bad... it didn't work... things happen" But then I get to the part where it says "Pfizer scientists, declined to explain what prompted the company to halt development" and now I'm angry. We're trying to save people's lives and they can't share info with us to tell us why they halted development?!! What if, hypothetically, I was working on something similar? How do I know whether to go forward? How do I decide whether to stop? Whether to tweak my approach? I don't! Pfizer had a good reason to stop the clinical trial, but only Pfizer knows what it is.... and the rest of us, including those actually suffering from Alzheimer's, are out of luck.
I understand that pharmaceutical companies need to make money. I get it. But for heaven's sake... would it kill you to tell us what went wrong so we don't make the same mistakes?
/end rant
http://www.alzforum.org/new/detail.asp?id=2950
And at first I'm like, "that's too bad... it didn't work... things happen" But then I get to the part where it says "Pfizer scientists, declined to explain what prompted the company to halt development" and now I'm angry. We're trying to save people's lives and they can't share info with us to tell us why they halted development?!! What if, hypothetically, I was working on something similar? How do I know whether to go forward? How do I decide whether to stop? Whether to tweak my approach? I don't! Pfizer had a good reason to stop the clinical trial, but only Pfizer knows what it is.... and the rest of us, including those actually suffering from Alzheimer's, are out of luck.
I understand that pharmaceutical companies need to make money. I get it. But for heaven's sake... would it kill you to tell us what went wrong so we don't make the same mistakes?
/end rant
0
Replies
-
This happens all the time in big pharma. I learned recently that basically all the big pharmas are working on the same targets and not sharing their results. Eh, think about how much money and time is wasted!!!! Clinical trials cost gazillions and take years if not decades!!0
-
My step dad was recently diagnosed. His mother and ALL of her fourteen brothers and sisters died of the disease, yet everyone I contact has no interest in studying this family. I mean, that is unheard of to have basically an entire family die from it. The companies don't always have our best interest in mind. Its all about profits- that's what the medical field has boiled down to, a business. Its no longer about saving lives. They should be forced to disclose things like why they halted research. Sorry for your frustration, i totally feel you!0
-
This certainly looks like a family to study. At what age did they develop, or get diagnosed with Alzheimer's disease? There are several diseases that look very similar, did any of them have a definitive post-mortem diagnosis?My step dad was recently diagnosed. His mother and ALL of her fourteen brothers and sisters died of the disease, yet everyone I contact has no interest in studying this family. I mean, that is unheard of to have basically an entire family die from it. The companies don't always have our best interest in mind. Its all about profits- that's what the medical field has boiled down to, a business. Its no longer about saving lives. They should be forced to disclose things like why they halted research. Sorry for your frustration, i totally feel you!
Back on topic, the big pharma have shareholders to worry about. We seem to have left behind the triple bottom line profit thinking (shareholders, environment, community) and now it's just the money, always more money. Ugh.0 -
My step dad was recently diagnosed. His mother and ALL of her fourteen brothers and sisters died of the disease, yet everyone I contact has no interest in studying this family. I mean, that is unheard of to have basically an entire family die from it. The companies don't always have our best interest in mind. Its all about profits- that's what the medical field has boiled down to, a business. Its no longer about saving lives. They should be forced to disclose things like why they halted research. Sorry for your frustration, i totally feel you!
Have you been contacting just businesses, or looked into contacting academic institutions as well?0 -
Just for healthy discussion -- Large biotech companies ultimately are in business for the profit. By not having full disclosure, the degree of competition remains high. Competition is a large motivator to find a "cure" due to the large profit to be made if you are the company that does this. So while it may benefit to share everything with everyone, it removes that degree of competition, and companies may be less motivated in the long run to find treatments.0
-
Just for healthy discussion -- Large biotech companies ultimately are in business for the profit. By not having full disclosure, the degree of competition remains high. Competition is a large motivator to find a "cure" due to the large profit to be made if you are the company that does this. So while it may benefit to share everything with everyone, it removes that degree of competition, and companies may be less motivated in the long run to find treatments.
That's another thing that irritates me. Biotech companies do not work in a vacuums. Much of their work is built on the backs of academics. A vaccine against Amyloid Beta was NOT Pfizer's idea. I'd guess they're one of many who are working on something like this. So what gives them the right to hide this knowledge? And how would it hurt them to disclose why something did not work? I can understand not disclosing info on something that's working until it gets to market. That makes sense... but when it didn't work? They're not moving this particular treatment forward. They're not going to make money on this particular treatment. Unless they think they can make some minor changes and go forward again?
I understand that large profits are motivators... but I also understand that science is a cooperative effort.
I'm not in science for the money (I just found out my roommate, a high-school teacher, make more money than I do. That's rather depressing considering how much time I've put into my education... but that's another story). I'm in science because I want to do some good for the world, even if the 'good' I do is miniscule.0 -
I should probably add to my rant so I don't sound like an irrational, emotional, idealistic loon
I am currently collaborating with a drug company on my project. We've got a non-disclosure agreement too. It irks me, but I consider it a necessary evil. That's just how the game is played. I want the drugs they're giving me more than I want to stand up for my ideals.
Large biotech companies can do things that academics simply can't. We (meaning academia) don't have the resources to actually get a drug to market. It takes millions of dollars and thousands of man hours. We need big pharma, which means we have to play the game to one extent or the other.
So really, I'm just whining, 'cause I can.0 -
Actually, I know quite a few academics with the resources to get a drug to market. This is my field.I work with pharma companies all day long. And, i work in Alzheimer's. Pfizer (and a lot of other companies) are working very hard to find a treatment or cure. Look at the ADNI for some inspiration.0
-
Not related to the topic but this is something that makes me SOOO MAD!!!
In the debate group (Debatable Debating) we're discussing evolution. Well we WERE discussing evolution. Now all we're talking about is the bible and God.
:explode:0 -
Not related to the topic but this is something that makes me SOOO MAD!!!
In the debate group (Debatable Debating) we're discussing evolution. Well we WERE discussing evolution. Now all we're talking about is the bible and God.
:explode:
I'm sorry
It's so hard to talk about evolution without it evolving into a religious discussion. I don't know why it has to be an either/or thing anyway.0 -
So I'm reading the news on this great forum that I frequent about Alzheimer's and I come to this:
http://www.alzforum.org/new/detail.asp?id=2950
And at first I'm like, "that's too bad... it didn't work... things happen" But then I get to the part where it says "Pfizer scientists, declined to explain what prompted the company to halt development" and now I'm angry. We're trying to save people's lives and they can't share info with us to tell us why they halted development?!! What if, hypothetically, I was working on something similar? How do I know whether to go forward? How do I decide whether to stop? Whether to tweak my approach? I don't! Pfizer had a good reason to stop the clinical trial, but only Pfizer knows what it is.... and the rest of us, including those actually suffering from Alzheimer's, are out of luck.
I understand that pharmaceutical companies need to make money. I get it. But for heaven's sake... would it kill you to tell us what went wrong so we don't make the same mistakes?
/end rant
Nope it wouldn't kill anyone. BUT another drug company might take that information, produce a drug product that actually doesn't end in clinical trials and make big money off of it. And Pfizer is out of luck because the first company to come out with the product because they will make the most money if they do. The second company to come out with a similar drug or second line therapy will make substantially less.0 -
Not related to the topic but this is something that makes me SOOO MAD!!!
In the debate group (Debatable Debating) we're discussing evolution. Well we WERE discussing evolution. Now all we're talking about is the bible and God.
:explode:
I'm sorry
It's so hard to talk about evolution without it evolving into a religious discussion. I don't know why it has to be an either/or thing anyway.
I agree. No one knows how the universe was made or how man came into existance. It's all theory. I personally believe that there is a God. Who's to say that His plan didn't include evolution?0 -
In order to develop a drug, it has to be economically feasible to do so. Specifically, the cost of development must be far less than what the company can expect to make until their patent expires. There are other reasons a project might be cut. Sometimes, it's cut because the investors want to see change, and certain programs are axed as part of a restructuring.
This is why we have organizations like the Leukemia and Lymphoma society, MS Society, etc...they can provide grants to academia or to big pharma for the development of a therapy that would otherwise not make good economic sense.0 -
It's not really right to make "money" the evil thing here. You need money to do all the good stuff after all. It costs money to try a thousand times and fail, which is what scientists do for years on end - hoping that one time they will succeed.0
This discussion has been closed.