Falconer66a, thanks for your insightful response. You explain how decades of Lemming Like AD trial executions went on for decades and produced nothing of medical value. BTW, it seems the FDA also suffered from the same kind of risk averse style you described. While contradictory facts (it had to be clear) are pesky things they never seemed to get in the way of medical science on it's paid path to yet another failed variation of fundamentally the same wrong thesis. No one had the guts to say it was just obviously wrong.
When Dr.G. recently shot the Amyloid thesis between the eyes w/a .45 he was pushing down the right path. But, as you point out, he also isolated himself both technically and politically. He should get a profiles in courage award. Similarly Dr.M. had the nerve to flip off the FDA and find other countries/regulatory bodies who would work w/him. Thankfully he was able to get things started down the right path at last. A lot of the time and money spent in U.S. to pay for the FDA organized functional/regulatory integrity has been misspent. We recognize the process expertise and structured approach is critical to properly done science of course and the FDA is good at that. Sad to say it has been the wrong science though. American taxpayers have payed a lot of money over a long period of time and have very little to show, IMO.
The big losers in all this have been the investing public and the CNS disease patients w/families. It looks like the good/bad news is the right stuff is now percolating out of the CNS homeostasis body of knowledge thesis. The Precision science initiative will eventually present the correct-effective solutions. Looks like patients will finally get some effective treatments thanks to ROW efforts.
News 
Market Data 
Discover 
AI
