99 percent of Alzheimer’s drug trials in past decade have failed
http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2014/07/06/99-percent-of-alzheimers-drug-trials-in-past-decade-have-failed/Alzheimer's research hasn't progressed much in the past decade: a new report shows that 99 percent of drug trials did not end up being effective.
99 percent of Alzheimer’s drug trials in past decade have failed
July 5, 2014
Lecia Bushak
Posted with permission from Medical Daily
In a new study published in Alzheimer’s Research & Therapy, scientists report that only one new Alzheimer’s medicine has been approved since 2004. Over 99 percent of drug trials for the disease have failed over the past decade, leaving scientists concerned that there are virtually no new therapies to treat the disease — despite the fact that the Obama administration has poured funding into fighting it.
The researchers note that the drug failure rate for Alzheimer’s is much higher than for other diseases like cancer. It’s especially alarming since Alzheimer’s is growing and will continue to rise significantly as Baby Boomers age. By 2050, the number of people aged 65 and older with Alzheimer’s disease might triple from 5 million to up to 16 million, according to the Alzheimer’s Association.
The study was led by Dr. Jeffrey Cummings of the Cleveland Clinic Lou Ruvo Center for Brain Health in Las Vegas, and it found that between 2002 and 2012, 99.6 percent of drug trials that aimed to prevent, cure, or treat Alzheimer’s symptoms had either failed or been discontinued. In cancer research, meanwhile, there was an 81 percent rate of failure.
“The authors of the study highlight a worrying decline in the number of clinical trials for Alzheimer’s treatments in more recent years,” Dr. Simon Ridley of Alzheimer’s Research UK told the BBC. “There is a danger that the high failure rates of trials in the past will discourage pharmaceutical companies from investing in dementia research. The only way we will successfully defeat dementia is to continue with high quality, innovative research, improve links with industry and increase investment in clinical trials.”
= new reply since forum marked as read
I am for anything natural that kills BigPharma's profits on the backs of people that cannot afford it.
Last edited Mon Jul 7, 2014, 09:17 PM - Edit history (1)
that's where most of the 2nd (alkaloid) wave of cancer drugs came from: what gets me is not solely the resistance to anything that looks herbalist--most doctors and lab techs aren't in fact really "ideologues," they're hands-on pragmatists, and don't much care where the drug comes from or how much of the effect is placebo
what gets me is the Orwellian flip the "publicists" (and Internet "fans"
do--first it's "you foul hippies! you'll kill us all with your creationist hatred of progress!" they do this for Semmelweiss (to be fair he did actually go crazy--like, Nietzsche-crazy), the tobacco/cancer link, reactors' dangers, GMOs, Lyme disease, etc.--and then once the rank and file let it in they purr "we were just waiting for the proof to come in--that's just how science works, my dove"
it's like they see science as a bad boyfriend--he's always right, ESPECIALLY when he totally reverses his decision; it's a very disarticulated view
