I have learned that many times logic has nothing to do with decisions made by governments and major corporations or large organizations. Here I will use a state government as an example. I live in a State that has a budget problem such that it may mean cuts in education, health and other areas that are beneficial to society. An issue has come up about releasing prisioners from serving their terms because the State does not have funds to house or maintain the number of prisioners it has jailed.
One question I asked is why we in this State insist on mandatory 2 year sentences for a person that merely uses or possesses marijuana when these people do not otherwise have criminal records, are artists, students, or the like that do nothing more than occasionally use marijuana. Could the State cut the budget by changing the law that results in the mandatory prision sententeces of these people? The State jails thousands of these people when many states have decriminalized the use of this substance and when we may face the possibility that real criminals in the larger State prisons may be released because of budget problems.
The answer I received is are you crazy. The Sheriffs do not want that to happen because the Sheriffs house many of these marijuana users in local prisons and receive per diem from the State for doing so. The Sheriffs do not want to give up receipt and control of these funds. Besides, it is easier to maintain these prisioners that probably do not belong in prison in the first place.
Put simply, because of the way money flows, it gets complicated. The Sheriffs, whose job it is to apprehend criminals, simply does not want to give up its local revenue source, and these "law enforcement" officers may prefer that hardened prisioners from the larger State prisons be released instead.
Now using this example, does anyone know where the AAIC receives its major contributions? My word, could it be that major contributions come from big pharma? Could it be that the AAIC and its staff whose salaries depend on funding from major corporations might be of the same mind as the Sheriffs I use in the example above? Could it be that the AAIC people and the doctors that attend the convention may hear the Anavex presentation as outlined in your good post, but chose to side with this other drug presentation instead even though:
The other drug had
1. inconvenience and cost of IV delivery
2. some brain swelling concerns at the higher most effective doses
3. took some months to show benefit, and
4. the benefit was generally to slow decline
