Biotech Values

[IanFromSI]

Dew,

Your answer succinctly states why they're not pursuing the obvious.

Do you sincerely think the entire drug/biotech industry is ignoring the primary mechanism underlying a disease where a safe and effective treatment would almost certainly become the biggest-selling drug of all time?

To design, run a phase 3 trial proving that an existing drug such as acyclovir (Zovirax), famciclovir (Famvir), or valacyclovir (Valtrex) prevents AD for 90% of the eligible population is not going to produce any return let alone a satisfactory return on investment. Other than MNTA, I don't know of companies that would do this once, let alone repeatedly.

To prove that other pathogens(bacterial, fungal, Prions, ..., cause a subset of the AD cases and that most can be prevented with existing off patent drugs is not going to be a high priority in most organizations.

Unless Bill and Melinda Gates' foundation takes an interest in proving that AD could be prevented with existing off patent drugs, I doubt that anyone will try to "remove this opportunity".

Every single properly double blinded PhIII trial to eliminate plaques has failed. If it only takes 2 successful PHIIIs or less to believe that tx is effective and safe , how many failures are required before these very smart people accept that they're barking up the wrong tree.

If you look at Vinman's response, he starts with, "You are wrong.:", a personal attack on me. He could have said "I believe you... or I think you ..." Instead he just attacked me in a fashion that didn't merit any response.

To answer your question in the quote above. YES! There's compelling evidence that pathogens cause AD, not plaques.

Diagnosing and Treating a specific pathogen is unlikely to become a solution where only a patented drug will be effective.