Re: Healthy News Article from Mercola.com

July 13, 2002

In a message dated 7/13/02 11:01:21 AM Pacific Daylight Time,

lizwizz2000@... writes:

<< http://mercola.com/2002/jul/13/ra_researcher.htm. >>

Liz, I can't bring up ths site. (( Maybe later it will co operate. LOL

hugs

July 13, 2002

--- RCColloran@... wrote:

> In a message dated 7/13/02 11:01:21 AM Pacific

> Daylight Time,

> lizwizz2000@... writes:

>

> << http://mercola.com/2002/jul/13/ra_researcher.htm.

> >>

>

> Liz, I can't bring up ths site. (( Maybe later

> it will co operate. LOL

>

> hugs

>

Hi, , neither can I from there.!!!!LOL I get

the Mercola newsletter regularly, he is quite

interesting, but I don't take it all as gospel. The

article was interesting because it referred to Dr

Trentham wanting funding for research on Minocin from

the drug company and being refused. Dr M's sugestion

is that the refusal is because they want to push

Enbrel (expensive) over Minocin (not expensive). I

have no other ideas about how to access it, sorry,

love Liz

>

__________________________________________________

July 13, 2002

Hi Everyone :-)

I hope this message doesn't send Yahoo into a tailspin, but here is

the article from Dr. Mercola: (keep trying to access it at

http://mercola.com/2002/jul/13/ra_researcher.htm because the links

at the bottom of the article might be worth reading, too) ~Connie H

Drug Company Denies Harvard Rheumatoid Arthritis Researcher

E-mail to a friend

By Alice Dembner

Dr. Trentham is the chairman of the Department of Rheumatology

at Harvard. He has used the antibiotic Minocin for successfully for

many with rheumatoid arthritis and scleroderma. He decided to study

the drug in those ages 6 to 14 and asked drug maker Wyeth for a

donation of $15,000 worth of the antibiotic. Wyeth, which made $14

billion last year in total sales of drugs and other products, had

acquired a small company that supported Trentham's previous studies

of minocycline in animals and in adults. But this time, the answer

was an unequivocal no.

''While scientifically interesting, the concept and design is not

consistent with our current business objectives,'' wrote a company

official in a letter that Trentham said stunned him.

While company officials later said patient safety was the reason for

the denial - the antibiotic can cause some side effects, such as

discoloration of the teeth - Trentham believes the letter gave far

more insight into the company's reasoning.

Trentham's translation of the letter: If minocyline worked, it might

compete with a blockbuster drug called Enbrel that Wyeth now markets

for both adult and juvenile rheumatoid arthritis. Enbrel costs $1,300

per month for adults and has life-threatening side effects, while

Wyeth's brand of minocycline, called Minocin, costs only $280 for an

adult monthly dose, Trentham said. And unlike Enbrel, minocycline is

no longer under patent, so many companies could benefit from the

drug's success.

As rheumatologist Trentham put it, ''It's a commercial decision, and

it's unfortunate for the patients.''

Trentham said it was the first time in his career that a drug company

had turned down his request for support of a study. But other

researchers said denials are becoming more common as the drug market

becomes ever more competitive.

''It happens all the time,'' said Dr. Woosley, a prominent

drug researcher who is vice president of health sciences at the

University of Arizona. ''They don't want you to study their drug

because of what you might find or how your finding might affect

another drug they're marketing. They want to control the data on

their drug.''

While companies have no legal obligation to support research by

doctors who don't work for them, many scientists believe they have a

moral responsibility to society.

''When a company refuses to allow someone to do legitimate research

on their drugs, we all lose out,'' said Sheldon Krimsky, a Tufts

University professor who has studied relationships between academic

researchers and drug companies. ''Their interest is in their market

share, not in public well-being.''

A spokeswoman for Wyeth, however, said economics played no role in

the company's decision. ''The decision was made primarily on

safety,'' said de Vane. ''The company felt there were newer

medications that could be studied that didn't have the side effects

that this particular drug has. Minocin is contraindicated in young

children and there were very young children in this proposal.''

While minocycline carries an FDA warning against use in children

under 8 because of possible permanent discoloration of teeth,

Trentham said that is a far cry from the warning on Enbrel, of

serious and sometimes fatal infection or sepsis. Nonetheless, Enbrel

was approved by the FDA in 1999 for use in juvenile rheumatoid

arthritis for those patients who fail other treatments.

Despite the rejection by Wyeth, Trentham is forging ahead. He secured

a $20,000 grant from a small private foundation, the Road Back

Foundation, to fund lab fees for the six-month study and will buy

Minocin from Wyeth, and then charge study participants or their

insurers for the drug. But he said he worries that that will make it

much harder to recruit participants and will delay the study, now

scheduled to begin this summer. He plans to recruit patients across

the country who are not currently taking Enbrel or another treatment,

methotrexate.

''It's terribly important to get to the bottom of whether Minocin

works in children with juvenile rheumatoid arthritis because of the

benign nature of Minocin,'' said Trentham, who is known as an

antibiotic enthusiast.

Juvenile rheumatoid arthritis affects up to 50,000 children in the

United States, causing painful swelling, stiffness and deformity of

joints and sometimes stunting growth. While some children outgrow it,

others fight the disease their whole lives. Doctors believe it is

caused by a malfunction of the immune system and typically treat

children with anti-inflammatory drugs starting with ibuprofen and

moving to more potent drugs.

If minocycline works consistently in children, Trentham said, it

would also be a safer alternative to two other common treatments for

JRA - steroids and methotrexate. Steroids can stunt a child's growth,

and methotrexate, often used to treat cancer, can be toxic to the

liver and it can harm the immune system when given in higher doses

than usually given in children.

Some pediatric rheumatologists said, however, that methotrexate is

not as risky and minocycline is not as safe for children as Trentham

suggests. A cousin of tetracycline, it commonly is used to treat

severe acne. But it can discolor teeth and skin, irritate the

stomach, and, in rare instances, it can cause liver or kidney damage

and has been associated with lupus.

''We're able to control a large number of our patients with currently

available drugs,'' said Giannini of Cincinnati Children's

Hospital, a senior scientist with an international consortium that

studies pediatric rheumatology treatments and helped test Enbrel and

methotrexate. ''I don't see much of a need to look at this drug,

because we feel it's only partly effective in adults. But there's no

harm in studying it.''

Concern about side effects of methotrexate led Masala to

bring her daughter, Gloria, to Boston for treatment with

minocycline. ''I was wondering which was worse, the disease or the

cure,'' she said.

With minocycline, Marsala said, Gloria's transformation

was ''incredible.'' As Gloria said: ''Before, not many people liked

to play with me because I couldn't do the things they wanted to do.

Now, I ride my bike, I rollerskate, I can jump, I can even climb a

little.'' And Trentham said she is growing again, catching up to her

classmates, without any medication side effects.

Scientists do not understand why minocycline appears to help some

arthritis patients. A national study of 219 adults with rheumatoid

arthritis, supported by the National Institutes of Health and

published in 1995, found, however, that minocycline significantly

reduced joint swelling and tenderness in more than half of patients,

although a dummy pill caused similar improvement in about 40 percent.

Lederle Laboratories, which then made Minocin, provided the drug and

placebo free for the study. Wyeth subsequently bought Lederle and

helped market Enbrel, which chalked up $900 million in sales last

year.

Trentham, who was one of several investigators for the NIH study,

chose to use Minocin for his new study for consistency, rather than

other generic versions of the antibiotic made by other drug

companies.

Getting free drugs for research is ''especially a problem when the

company has a competing drug,'' said Woosley, a professor of

pharmacology and medicine. He and colleagues were thwarted a few

years ago, he said, when they wanted to study the side effects of an

older synthetic estrogen replacement. The company, which he declined

to name, refused because officials were worried the study would focus

attention on the side effects of a new drug they were developing.

''From a business point of view, it makes sense. Why should they get

involved in anything that might harm them?'' said a Boston-area

researcher, who requested anonymity because he feared alienating

companies from which he regularly seeks support. ''But the research

community is trying to find out the truth, about mechanisms and side

effects of drugs and how they are best used clinically. And the drug

companies' posture impedes that. It's gotten worse year by year and

the last two years have been impossible.''

Boston Globe June 25, 2002

----------------------------------------------------------------------

----------

DR. MERCOLA'S COMMENT: E-mail to a friend

It's amazing to me that the head physician in Harvard's rheumatology

department would be denied drug research by a drug manufacturer. I

guess if you consider the drug company's primary focus is making

money, then it might not be much of a stretch.

If the patient benefits from the research, great. If they aren't

killed from the side effects, better yet. What they don't want you to

know is that the drug either doesn't really work or it is almost

identical to a less expensive version. This is a classic marketing

ploy that preys on those less informed. To me, it highlights

the " evils' of the drug company's approach in ruining health care in

this country.

But, don't worry. The purpose of this site is to facilitate a radical

transformation by offering people practical, inexpensive, natural

alternative solutions so they could recover their health and not rely

on these companies.

Sign In

Re: Healthy News Article from Mercola.com

Recommended Posts

Guest guest

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Guest guest

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Guest guest

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Join the conversation

Activity