Re: New Drug? No! Same drug, higher dosage, different regimen.

On 7 Mar, 10:42, Alex <akfro...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Amanda wrote:
On 4 Mar, 07:24, Alex <akfro...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Shelley wrote:
Thanks Alex. I thought I seemed to remember talking about this drug with my
neuro, oh 7 years ago, as a possible treatment if I still seemed to be
progressing on Avonex. It's nothing new, just a bigger dose. Just finding
more ways to make money and screw the little guy (us). Oh, did I say that
out loud?? :))) Shelley
Yeah, I've been on it for close to three years now.

When I saw what they were talking about, I about fell out of my chair.
Hence my rant about the patent system.

Alex

I couldnt give a *** about patents or whom is applying for them. I
just dont want people to come out with the standard 'it wont work'
'doesnt work for ms' 'its just a con' stuff that I always read on this
ng.......(I also couldnt care if a lab polished dog *** into a
workable medicine - as long as it works)

Methinks you need to re-read the posts.

Nowhere do I recall anyone bashing the treatment itself. I don't recall
anyone saying that 'it wont work', 'doesnt work for ms' or 'its just a con'.

What was discussed was the company's attempt at patenting the dosing
regimen.

I did point out, initially, some things that raised questions in my
mind, regarding language used in the press release. But never did I, or
anyone else, as I recall, question the effectiveness of the treatment.

And by the way, the only time I recall comments to the effect that
something doesn't work or is a con, is in response to the spammers
attempting to sell us stuff that has no proven science behind it for MS,
or claims to do something contradictory to what we know about MS.

If you wish to put your money into Noni Juice, or Sooper Special Secret
Formula X, that's your choice. If you don't care for the criticism of
the product, then either don't read those threads, or stand up and
defend it. But no one is forcing you to read those threads, that is
*your* choice, just as it is *our* choice to comment on them, good or bad.

Regardless of what people think, the high doses seem to have fantastic
results and if its just 4 iv's over a 4 day period, then I dont care
too much about spiralling costs!!!

I don't recall *anyone* contesting/bashing the results. In fact, I just
went back over the thread, and unless I missed a post, *no one* said
anything *against* the results. Where anything was said, it was positive.

Um, you're in the UK, correct? You have a national health system. My
understanding is that if this gets approved, then your costs would be
negligible under your NHS, correct?.

That's great for you, but, as we here in US do *not* have such a system,
spiraling costs *are* an issue. And I clearly identified the *US*
patent system as the problem, here in the *US*.

Many folks who have to give up work due to MS, wind up in a sort of
health care limbo. They no longer have employer based insurance and the
cost of an individual policy can be prohibitively expensive.

What good is this treatment to someone who cannot afford it?

In my case, were I not a Veteran, and able to get my prescriptions
through the Veteran's Administration, I would be *unable* to pay for my
prescriptions. Even with Medicare Part D, it would be a joke. My
prescription bill in the second & third months would be more than I
could afford. I could never afford to get out of the so-called "donut
hole". The money is simply not there. End of story.

So, while spiraling costs may not be an issue to you, under *your*
system, it most definitely is under the *US* system.

Again, I'm not contesting the effectiveness, validity, or anything else
about the *treatment* itself. I do think it shows promise.

My only issue is with the attempt to patent the dosing regimen.

The *only* effect of denying the patent, would be the prevention of
increased costs associated with licensing/royalties associated with a
patented "method" of administration.

Denying the patent would *not* prevent the use of the treatment,
invalidate the research, or change the results of the treatment. It
would simply prevent that company from locking up the results of that
research, as a proprietary method.

There is absolutely nothing that requires a treatment or drug to be
patented in order to be effective. A patent simply *prevents* other
people from using that technology, method, compound, etc., without a
license from the company/individual owning the patent.

Doctors, hospitals, clinics, would all be free to administer the drug,
according to the methods outlined in the research, without paying
licensing/royalty fees and without fear of a patent lawsuit.

That's all that it would do. Nothing else.

We are talking about a drug that lost its patent protection long ago.
This is simply an end-run around the system to try to patent it again,
by claiming a "new method" of administration.

Alex- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Hows about you actually read what i posted? I didnt accuse you of
anything. I said that I didnt want people to be negative about
something that may well be positive. I also mentioned nothing about
the uk NHS (which by the way wont look at most MS drugs and I had to
go private for my ldn) and in no way was I comparing my free medical
support to your not free one....

You sit there and tell me that you havent ever seen one negative post
on this group??? Hows about the people that openly state that ldn does
nothing for people with rrms, when I can say that it 100% does?

.

Loading