Biostockclub, as you point out, the AAIC 2018 process was a kind of humbling learning experience. Those of us who were certain the AAIC staff would intervene and take a bullet on the BIIB show were wrong. I hope we now see that no one is going to call the establishment system out. It is broken, unable to fulfill even the most basic legitimate science forum goals. Many wait and expect to experience the best, state of the art credible science on a disease that takes no prisoners. AAIC's judgement was questioned and they folded like a wet noodle.
I have learned I think that the Dr.Fleming antibiotic cycle will repeat itself unless there is a science process AD+ intervention. AVXL has much stronger AD science than any other PII/III biotec. What we heard was a muffled attaway-so what. We need some way of getting our story out and some way of becoming credible quickly at the highest level. That will take money, connections, political strength and a machine to make it move when we need it to. Non of this is consistent with the current AVXL culture.
Multiple simultaneous trials will help a lot but that involves basically following the same ole established path. We do not own that process path and we are not configured to pull it off quickly. I am as big an AVXL fan/supporter as any and will not change but I also see a flaw. We owe it to ourselves to call it like it is. We cannot rely on the rest of the world to value the AVXL science until they see it work which is going to take a long time. We do not have a long time. We need an intervention like a partnership, FDA open technical recognition, political boost, maybe even recognition by another country as an expedited trial. If only Fleming were here we could ask him about a do-over process.
