and so it goes

Lemtrada is a new trade name - the same drug, Alemtuzumab, is sold as Campath for treatment of lymphomas and lymphocytic leukemia. Campath was pulled from markets in the US and Europe in 2012 to prepare for the higher-priced relaunch as Lemtrada aimed at MS. We're looking at something around $95,000 total for eight treatments over the course of two years. No treatment required after that. Nice price point. 

Conflict of interest, come on down!

Canadians with MS want choices. The Canadian Institutes of Health Research, by not funding studies into CCSVI, has effectively offered none. Zip. Zero.

It's no shock to anyone that many of the doctors on the CIHR's panel of experts found themselves smack dab in the middle of conflicts of interest that they chose to ignore. Let's see some highlights, shall we? Don't worry, no slander here - this is all public knowledge and sourced.

Now, the first doc on the list isn't on the panel of experts, but it would be a vast oversight to skip him.

Introducing Dr. Alain Beaudet, President of Canadian Institutes of Health Research. Dr. Beaudet served as CEO of Fonds de La Recherche en Santé du Québec (FRSQ) from 2004-2008 [1]. FRSQ is a research funding agency whose largest parter is Pfizer [2]. Beaudeat appointed the vice-president of Pfizer Canada to the CIHR's governing council. Okay, call me crazy, but isn't that just...bizarre? Interestingly, there's a nice little snippet in an article called "Governance of conflicts of interest in postmarking surveillance research and the Canadian Drug Safety and Effectiveness Network" [3] on this point:

The appointment of Dr. Bernard Prigent, vice-president of Pfizer Canada, to CIHR’s governing Council—the first pharmaceutical representative to be so appointed (25–29 article's citations, ignore)—and statements by CIHR president Dr. Alain Beaudet in the context of this appointment, emphasizing the need to intensify collaboration and even to align CIHR’s “agenda” and “vision” with the pharmaceutical industry,(30) do raise the question whether CIHR remains sufficiently independent from industry to operate the DSEN.

[I started bolding the important parts there, but it became illegible]

Let's connect a few dots here. This report suggests that CIHR may not be sufficiently independent from the pharmaceutical industry to operate the national Drug Safety and Effectiveness Network. So, whose interests are being served by a board so closely linked with one of the largest drug companies in the world? Is there a shot in hell of Canada even looking at an alternative to drugs? Profitability for treating this disease remains sky high while profitability for stopping it is not.

Dr. Prigent, the Pfizer man who was appointed to CIHR's governing council…well, it turns out he's a registered lobbyist for Pfizer [4]. His position is to sway CIHR and other research spending programs. So, now he can lobby himself! Brilliant. [see also, 5]

Who's up next?

Maybe Dr. V. Wee Yong. Ooookay. Shotgun. Barrel o'fish. Coming soon...

1. http://www.cihr-irsc.gc.ca/e/10308.html

2. http://www.frsq.gouv.qc.ca/en/financement/Programmes_2009_2010/s17_fiche.shtml

3. http://www.openmedicine.ca/article/download/371/337 [PDF format]

4. https://ocl-cal.gc.ca/app/secure/orl/lrrs/do/_ls70_ls75_ls62_ls6c_ls69_ls63_ls53_ls75_ls6d_ls6d_ls61_ls72_ls79?_ls72_ls65_ls67_ls44_ls65_ls63=600939&_ls73_ls4d_ls64_ls4b_ls79=1265035844584&_ls6c_ls61_ls6e_ls67_ls75_ls61_ls67_ls65=_ls65_ls6e_ls5f_ls43_ls41&_STRTG3=tr

5. http://www.thecoast.ca/halifax/bernard-prijent-pfizers-inside-man/Content?oid=1503474

Oh, ffs.

Of course.

An expert group has recommended that our nation not fund clinical trials for CCSVI treatment.

We are the "wait and see" country, after all...why would I expect anything else? Rather than put our own studies into place, we'll just sit back and analyze everyone else's studies. Makes sense, right? Clearly, if we consider those studies suspect, the best thing to do is sit on our asses and inspect them rather than perform our own. That's my general policy too. I suspect my supper hasn't been made to my liking. I'm not sure how it will taste and I didn't see it being made. So, I'll sit, starve and poke it with my fork rather than go make myself an effing sandwich.

All of this despite Canadians clearly indicating in an Angus Reid opinion poll* (Dec 7 & Dec 10, 2009) involving a random survey of adult Canadians, that they...that we want more money spent on medical research.

Here's the gist on trial rejection from the CBC:

Experts urge rejection of MS therapy trial

Canada should not fund a clinical trial of the so-called liberation therapy for multiple sclerosis, an expert group has recommended.

The Canadian Institutes of Health Research and the MS Society of Canada said Tuesday in Ottawa that their group of international experts met last week to discuss the latest findings on the theory proposed by Italian doctor Paolo Zamboni.

The working group unanimously recommended against supporting a clinical trial in Canada at this type, CIHR President Dr. Alain Beaudet said.

Beaudet informed Health Minister Leona Aglukkaq about the group's recommendations. She plans to address reporters on Wednesday.

Chronic cerebrospinal venous insufficiency, or CCSVI, is a chronic problem in which blood from the brain has difficulty returning to the heart.

Zamboni believes multiple sclerosis is caused by a narrowing or "stenosis" in the veins that drain the brain that can be corrected by using balloons to open up veins.

Some Canadians have gone overseas to seek the experimental treatment.

Full article here:

http://www.cbc.ca/health/story/2010/08/31/ms-ccsvi-clinical-trial.html

*http://www.ctv.ca/CTVNews/TopStories/20100118/research_survey_100118/ Canadians want more money spent on medical research