Skepticism or corporate bias?
I pass along the response I received from the CEO of the NYC-based Alz support group.
"I pass along the following from our research partners, an A+ team of research experts without any corporate bias (i.e.; working in a variety of university and clinical settings including Harvard)."
[Response from Research Partners]: "The general consensus is that there is nothing here to raise legitimate hope. I don't have specifics for you, but the science behind the compound and the trials, in spite of the apparent positive results, is just not supported by other data from the field. That's a wishy-washy answer that is not going to be very satisfying for someone in the throws of this who is willing to try anything--we understand that. But even more cruel, I believe, is allowing false hope to grow."
[My response to CEO}: "With all due respect to your advisory group, and conceding that I am by no means an expert, but I don't understand the advice you've been given. What is the possible relevance of "other data from the field" when your advisors concede that the data from the test of this specific compound is "apparent[ly] positive"? Moreover, Anavex has received grants from the Michael J. Fox Foundation and the Rhett's Foundations to study A2-73 efficacy in the treatment of Parkinson's and Rhett's syndrome--other neurodegenerative diseases. Also, Biogen is studying A2-73 for MS. Finally, if you look at the Scientific Advisory Board for Anavex, you will see some the leading names join Alz, Parkinson's and MS research."
It appears that even an "A+ team of research experts" is motivated by corporate bias and won't be persuaded until they read about it on the front page.
