• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Pfizer had clues its blockbuster drug could prevent Alzheimer’s

justabubba

justabubba

long standing member
DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 22, 2005
Messages
66,431
Reaction score
47,469
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
https://www.washingtonpost.com/busi...fc796cf2ec0_story.html?utm_term=.ef971f10d648

A team of researchers inside Pfizer made a startling find in 2015: The company’s blockbuster rheumatoid arthritis therapy Enbrel, a powerful anti-inflammatory drug, appeared to reduce the risk of Alzheimer’s disease by 64 percent. ...
Click to expand...

individuals within the organization sought to perform more rigorous clinical trials to verify what the preliminary data indicated
but the corporate hierarchy said 'no'
possibly because enbrel will soon be open to the market for manufacturers of generics

such a stance may indicate that in the ethical dilemma between money and the public's health, money won out

if the data is legitimate, pfizer could have brought a cheap generic to market and garnered worldwide respect during an era when big pharma is not well held in public esteem

did the poobahs make the right choice?
what would have been a better action for pfizer - if any?
 
justabubba said:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/busi...fc796cf2ec0_story.html?utm_term=.ef971f10d648



individuals within the organization sought to perform more rigorous clinical trials to verify what the preliminary data indicated
but the corporate hierarchy said 'no'
possibly because enbrel will soon be open to the market for manufacturers of generics

such a stance may indicate that in the ethical dilemma between money and the public's health, money won out

if the data is legitimate, pfizer could have brought a cheap generic to market and garnered worldwide respect during an era when big pharma is not well held in public esteem

did the poobahs make the right choice?
what would have been a better action for pfizer - if any?
Click to expand...

Now pfizer lost money and respect so it was clearly the wrong choice, and they gained absolutely nothing by keeping the possible uses a secret
 
My sister has early onset Alzheimer's and was diagnosed in late 2017. In answer to your question it's quite obvious what the better action would be.
 
Horrible.

I watched my Nana slowly degrade over years from a warm, smart, loving woman to a vegetable that could barely express emotion, completely robbed of her memories, intelligence and personality; everything that made her the person I knew.

Few diseases are crueler than Alzheimer's and Pfizer's decision was at best foolish, and at worst evil, disgusting and reprehensible.
 
justabubba said:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/busi...fc796cf2ec0_story.html?utm_term=.ef971f10d648



individuals within the organization sought to perform more rigorous clinical trials to verify what the preliminary data indicated
but the corporate hierarchy said 'no'
possibly because enbrel will soon be open to the market for manufacturers of generics

such a stance may indicate that in the ethical dilemma between money and the public's health, money won out

if the data is legitimate, pfizer could have brought a cheap generic to market and garnered worldwide respect during an era when big pharma is not well held in public esteem

did the poobahs make the right choice?
what would have been a better action for pfizer - if any?
Click to expand...

The article provides information that renders as rational Pfizer’s choice not to engage in clinical trials to assess what impact, if any, Enbrel had in treating Alzheimer’s.

The issue of what responsibility, if any, Pfizer had to disclose to the wider public the existence of some “positive effects” seems to be the prevailing issue. The article doesn’t make a compelling case Pfizer had a responsibility to disclose the existence of some positive findings.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
Bad move. The findings could have given researchers a much needed direction, as well as given many a glimmer of hope, if not more.
Makes me sick.
 
Lovebug said:
Bad move. The findings could have given researchers a much needed direction, as well as given many a glimmer of hope, if not more.
Makes me sick.
Click to expand...

Which was the “bad move”? Choosing not to proceed with clinical trials? Not making public some of its possible positive effects? Both?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
NotreDame said:
Which was the “bad move”? Choosing not to proceed with clinical trials? Not making public some of its possible positive effects? Both?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

Making the findings available to researchers for starters.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom