The REAL story of Gleevic and the drug companies

[Guest guest]

It should be noted that Gleevic was blocked for years by the drug company

Novartis, in spite of the remarkable clinical trial results Karl refers to here.

People literally at death's door, in the hospital with no hope of recovery, were

given their lives back. In spite of the miracles, Novartis, in the setting of

the good drug company it is, decided that the market was too small, and was

prepared to let the drug (and all of the CML patients) die.

It was only by shaming the company that Dr. Drucker got the drug into

production. Of course, when the miracle cures were being reported on every

newspaper in the world, Novartis elbowed Dr. Drucker aside and claimed that they

had 'fought' for the drug's success and had 'risked' millions on a plant to

manufacture the drug.

Folks, this is B.S.

The drug has gone on to be a huge money-maker for Novartis, and you can be sure

the company has re-written history to reap all of the accolades. (You can just

see the executives pushing each other aside, hoping to claim credit and the

paper crown for being 'heroes'.

Let us not kid ourselves. CLL is a rare cancer, and the drug companies are in

business for one reason, and one reason only; to make money. If they can make

more money letting a drug die, they will do it. (If you don't believe me, look

into the sad, sordid history of BMP-7, a drug which REVERSES kidney failure and

fibrosis, and would save thousands of lives a year. The company that owns the

patent seems uninterested in producing it. It is FDA approved already!)

The pipelines may be 'bursting', but how many new drugs have you seen approved

for CLL lately? Look at HuMax CD-20. How long has that been in trials? More

than a few years. Has it been approved? No.

The 'gold standard' for CLL is FCR. The newest drug in FCR is rituximab, and

that drug was approved MORE THAN 10 YEARS AGO. The other two drugs are ancient

ones that were probably used by Abe Lincoln.

The state of drug discovery and implementation in the world is abysmal.

Molasses-slow action by the FDA (Failed Drug Approval) agency is one reason.

Fear of lawsuits is another HUGE one (thanks, and your evil ilk).

But the biggest is the simple lack of money devoted to CLL research. It's just

too small of a market to make any 'real' money in. Viagra? Now THAT'S a

blockbuster!

What's the solution? We really need to raise millions of dollars. We need

movers and shakers at bat for us. We have good-intentioned people who donate

tens of thousands of dollars. It's nice and all, but it isn't getting the job

done.

Look at this article for the solution:

www.newyorker.com/reporting/2008/01/28/080128fa_fact_groopman

Where's our Kathy Giusti? (Would $92.4 million for CLL Research make a

difference? Don't we have any business school grads with lots of connections

out there, with an interest in curing CLL?)

From: KarlS@... <KarlS@...>

Subject: agents of promise

, cns-PAL ,

LymphomaVaccine , MantleCell ,

nhl-dlc , nhl-follic , nhl-info ,

nhl-malt , PAL-datafork

Date: Tuesday, October 7, 2008, 9:36 AM

Greetings,

Just a few years ago CML, a type of leukemia, was a devastating diagnosis. The

prognosis was dire; death was nearly certain.

But thanks to the 10-year work of Dr. Drucker and his team, the cellular

mechanism that caused this type of leukemia was discovered and a drug was

designed that targeted it. Today, that drug, Gleevec, has made CML among the

most treatable of the blood cancers.

Other cancer types have not yielded their secrets so readily, but Gleevec

shifted the focus of cancer research. Today the focus is to discover the

defects of cancer cells - the molecular pathways - so that drug molecules can be

rationally designed that bind to and stop cancer cells with greater potency and

safety.

Witness the growing list of such molecules entering early clinical testing Each

with it's own difficult-to- recall coded name: ABT-263, CA101, ... the letters

indicating the sponsor (ABT - Abbott), the number a version of the molecule.

I feel very confident that with clinical testing we will soon discover which of

many rationally designed molecules will be most effectives and safe. However,

because there's a limited patient pool, it will become increasingly challenging

to test these agents on a timely basis, and integrate the " winner molecules "

into clinical practice.

Anyhow, keeping up (objectively as possible) with investigational therapies in

clinical phase is an important goal - one that provides also a potential to

benefit from state-of-the- art targeted treatments by participation in clinical

trials. There's a pressing need to educate ourselves and our oncologists, and to

keep alert to the outcome data that can help guide our many choices.

Certainly, patients cannot do this alone. We must also consult the experts and

inquire specifically about the agents of promise, and which studies may be

appropriate to our clinical situations and treatment goals.

See http://www.lymphoma tion.org/ treatment- pipeline. htm for our attempt to

keep up!

The pipeline is bulging. New agents added almost weekly, marked with NEW.

All the best,

Karl

Patients Against Lymphoma

www.Lymphomation. org

Non-profit | Independent | Evidence-based