|
Page 3
Page
1 - 2 -
4 - 5
- 6 -
7 - 8
- 9 -
10 - 11 -
12 - 13
Well, actually it's worse
than that because instead of this continuous flow of experiments, the
most important neurologically significant experiments come in big, big
batches. Instead of FedEx trucks, it’s like a train that leaves the
station once a decade, and you better put your experiments on that train
because if it leaves the station, you may have a better idea that will
have to sit around and wait for the next decade or the next train.
Example -- one of the trains that had left is a NIH/NINDS-driven
clinical trial to establish neuroprotective characteristics of a variety
of agents. The train will take seven years to go to its destination.
The estimated cost is $60 million. That's bad enough, but the evaluation
methods that are on the train are even more concerning.

The train
experiments start by eliminating those candidates that don't make the
cut line. These are called futility trials. The drug is considered
non-futile, in other words, worthy of further travel, if it provides a
30 percent improvement. At this point you should ask, "Improvement as
compared to what?" and I would say, "I'm glad you asked that question."
In comparison to prior clinical trials placebo arms.

Net-PD
train does not have its own placebo. It relies on old trials’ placebo
arms. Placebo is placebo. One placebo is as good as another placebo.
Well, that was what I call a hidden assumption, an assumption that
should be stated as an assumption but isn't. Hidden assumptions lead to
danger. An illustration:

Continued: Page
1 - 2 -
4 - 5
- 6 -
7 - 8
- 9 -
10 - 11 -
12 - 13
|