Saturday, 6 July 2013

Nail in the Coffin

This is an actual comment from a referee......Brutal.

"The authors of the grant applications have confused two entirely different neurological disorders in animals and humans. EAE is an artificial animal model of inflammatory demyelination that bears no resemblance to MS, particularly non-relapsing progressive MS. EAE and MS are clinically and histologically different, and several hundreds of experimental treatment shown to be effective in EAE never worked in MS because chronic EAE is not chronic MS. The proposed solution of the researchers based on chronic EAE model is highly aspirational and is not likely to translate into an effective treatment of human disease".

There are a lot of clinicians who think this way and their voice is being listened to more and more. 

However, decorum prevents me from providing ProfG's description of this person....However, I suspect it is not in the same league of abuse that will come from the author of the grant 

Hope your grant doesn't go to this guy/gal...Hope too he/she doesn't get any disease because with no animal work in the development process in phase 0, there will be few for the future. So 6 months wasted.

I wonder why someone who feels so "anti-animal experiments" would agree to spend their time actually reviewing a translational drug-development grant in a call from the Medical Research Council for drug development......to make comments that have no purpose other than ensure the work never gets done. 


6 comments:

  1. I agree with that fact, that EAE can't be compared with MS.
    Nevertheless it shows how demyelination and inflammation processes work.

    Therefor I think it is a good (not the best) model to study a disease process.

    What would be the alternative? Test on humans?
    Well, then we would have a supply problem, as not much ppl worldwide have MS and they differ in the subtypes / clinical course.

    How would you make a test / study if you don't have a more or less stable model? In this case EAE.

    So EAE ist not the best model but the best one we have so far.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Why so serious?

    The referee gets the facts right, doesn't she/he:
    a. EAE is not MS
    b. Most EAE tested substances tragically fail when tested on humans

    You use EAE as a means of breaking down the BBB and study demyelination/inflammation. By that, you undetectably accept at least two untested propositions:
    a. that demyelination/inflammation in MS has nothing to do with the cause of BBB breakdown.
    b. that demyelination in MS happens on healthy myelin, while there is evidence to the contrary.

    ReplyDelete
  3. (a) Accepted
    (b) So one has to suffer the actions of myopic immunologistss and neurologists over which one has no control. I am happy with my hit rate and in that respect the referee is way wrong.

    But individual EAEologists cannot be cupable for the actions of pharma in their development choices or neurologists who have a large part to play.

    You presume too much to know how and why I use EAE.

    I am now looking forward to reviewing a CCSVI grant maybe I can use the same approach

    ReplyDelete
  4. Why did this agency ask somebody like this person to evaluate the applications?

    ReplyDelete
  5. No idea, the person it a complete and utter DELETED...

    ReplyDelete
  6. Wow, I've seen some blinkered, arrogant comments in my time but this really stands out. Had this attitude been common there would have been absolutely no progress in the treatment of MS. i do wonder sometimes if certain individuals don't want to see a cure for MS as it would curtail their comfortable lifestyles.
    From my own perspective, I would be happy if MS was cured tomorrow, even though it would put me out of a job.
    As it is, this person is a XXXX and I'd love to know who it is!

    ReplyDelete

Please note that all comments are moderated and any personal or marketing-related submissions will not be shown.