[paula_w]

Finally....
http://www.newsweek.com/id/68221

paula

[Heidi L]

Okay, he's on my list of people to write to.

Quack Quack Quack!!!!!

[paula_w]

I have to bump this up and emphasize the opportunity this article provides for getting out how you feel.

You can post anonymously - absolutely nothing to lose.

Dare I suggest that you post there?

paula

[lou_lou]

http://www.newsweek.com/id/68221/page/2

continues:

[paula_w]

i hate to nag so early in the morning, but one of the most influential inventors in the history of mankind has admitted his Parkinson's and is talking our language in Newsweek. He is calling for a cultural revolution in research. This board is the best. Can you please be a little better at revolution and post anonymously if you choose?

Pretend you are a transformer, [autobots of course, not decepticons]looking for the ALLSPARK. They did what they had to to help mankind.

http://www.newsweek.com/id/68221

thank you

[lou_lou]

this is my first seeing that it never showed up -
Posted By: christena @ 11/05/2007 11:20:47 PM
Comment: hello I was diagnosed in 1994 at age 31 and there was a chance of a cure, GDNF owned by Amgen but it worked too well, so they pulled a BS monkey studyout of their back pockets, their is also available Dr. Levesques adult stem cell operation - so far they have given us bad drugs such as the likes of Mirapex, with
horrid side effects -they could cure us, but palliative medicine is their bread and butter ...
if bigpharma had it their way we'd all be on drugs! yet these drugs do not cure -they are only palliative at best.
sincerely,
a young onset ****** off parkie...

__________________________
Posted By: christena @ 11/05/2007 11:44:49 PM

my second -
Comment: hello Dear Mr. Grove,
If we were machines - I have confidence that your corporation would have fixed us all by now...
I am an advocate for cures -
I was diagnosed in 1994 at age 31,
They have two extremely good alternatives to palliative meds - since L-Dopa Carbi-dopa - are certainly not cures at all...
Amgen had GDNF -they withdrew the drugs from the patient study,
by pulling a monkey out of their (back pockets) -I do know the men were getting out of their wheel chairs -
the study was done by the Morris K. Ufdall -doctors/ scientists at the University of Kentucky.
the similiar study in Bristol England had excellent findings the GDNF protein worked!
Dr. Michael Levesque at Cedar Sinai in LA, had great success with an adult stem cell transplant,and testified before congress - but the good doctor has not been approved for clinical trials - I know you are a man with a good mind for good business,
but bigpharma only thinks good business works with addictive /palliative drugs - Mirapex was not a good drug for many PD patients, but they aren't interested in patients being cured, just the dividends of big money being added to there bank accounts.
peace to your heart,
sincerely,
christena

[lou_lou]

Sponsored By Kodak

A Research Revolution
Former Intel CEO Andrew S. Grove says the pharmaceutical industry could learn a lot from the computer and chip businesses.
By Sharon Begley

Newsweek Web Exclusive
Updated: 3:58 PM ET Nov 4, 2007
During the time Andrew S. Grovespent at Intel, the computer chip company he co-founded, the number of transistors on a chip went from about 1,000 to almost 10 billion. Over that same period, the standard treatment for Parkinson's disease went from L-dopa to . . . L-dopa.

Grove (who beat prostate cancer 12 years ago and now suffers from Parkinson's) thinks there is something deeply wrong with this picture, and he is letting the pharmaceutical industry, the National Institutes of Health and academic biomedicine have it. Like an increasing number of critics who are fed up with biomedical research that lets paralyzed rats (but not people) walk again, that cures mouse (but not human) cancer and that lifts the fog of the rodent version of Alzheimer's but not people's, he is taking aim at what more and more critics see as a broken system.

On Sunday afternoon, Grove is unleashing a scathing critique of the nation's biomedical establishment. In a speech at the annual meeting of the Society for Neuroscience, he challenges big pharma companies, many of which haven't had an important new compound approved in ages, and academic researchers who are content with getting NIH grants and publishing research papers with little regard to whether their work leads to something that can alleviate disease, to change their ways. He spoke with NEWSWEEK's Sharon Begley just before he left for the neuroscience meeting. Excerpts:

NEWSWEEK: What spurred your interest in and concern about the slow pace of drug discovery?
Twelve years ago I was diagnosed with prostate cancer, which has a great advocacy community, and I became an advocate for putting more money and time into research on it. But I got disappointed with the lack of real output. Not much has changed 12 years later. The other thing that bothered me as I learned more about biomedical research is that I didn't see important aspects of R&D emphasized, such as progression biomarkers [chemicals, such as those in the blood, that indicate whether a drug is working]. Then I was diagnosed with Parkinson's, and found out that a major development taking place in this field was FDA licensing for deep-brain stimulation [to treat Parkinson's], which is a big step. But when I looked around there were no other big steps or even medium steps; the same drug that was the mainstay of Parkinson's treatment in the 1960s, L-dopa, is still the mainstay today. I became convinced that something was wrong here.

In what way does the semiconductor industry offer lessons to pharma?
I picked the semiconductor industry because it's the one I know; I spent 40 years in it, during which it became the foundation for all of electronics. It has done a bunch of unbelievable things, powering computers of increasing power and speed. But in the treatment of Parkinson's, we have gone from levodopa to levodopa. ALS [Lou Gehrig's disease] has no good treatment; Alzheimer's has none.

Why is the speed of progress so different in semiconductor research and drug development?
The fundamental tenet that drives us all in the semiconductor industry is a deeply felt conviction that what matters is time to market, or time to money. But you never hear an executive from a pharmaceutical company say, "Before the end of the year I'm going to have xyz drug," the way Steve Jobs said the iPhone would be out on schedule. The heart of every high-tech executive has been, get the product into customers' hands and ramp up production. That drive is just not present in pharma; the drive to get sufficient understanding and go for it is missing.

How do the two industries deal with failure?
When I started Intel we couldn't make a device twice in a row in the same way. I earned my reputation by being part of a team that figured out why a thing was not reproducible, what you need to do to make results come out the same way twice in a row. The attitude [in high-tech] is, something went wrong for a reason, let's find the gold nugget. In 1970, Dov Frohman [at Intel] was investigating insulator leakage, and it led him to invent a brand-new device that is now a fundamental building block of cellphones, cameras, MP3 players and computers. But in pharma, if a clinical trial doesn't work--which means the average of all the patient responses is not better than the average of a placebo treatment--they just throw [the drug] away, when in fact the averages may hide stuff that did work, and something that made patients different [such as genetics]. I've never heard anyone talk about the opportunity costs of a good drug being thrown away. But a good drug wrongfully convicted means the loss of benefits goes on forever.

What stands in the way of more and faster success in getting cures to patients?
The peer review system in grant making and in academic advancement has the major disadvantage of creating conformity of thoughts and values. It's a modern equivalent of a Middle Ages guild, where you have to sing a particular way to get grants, promotions and tenure. The pressure to conform [to prevailing ideas of what causes diseases and how best to find treatments for them] means you lose the people who want to get up and go in a different direction. There is no place for the wild ducks. The result is more sameness and less innovation. What we need is a cultural revolution in the research community, academic and non-academic. We need to give wild ducks the opportunity to emerge and quack their way to success. But cultural change can be driven only by action at the top.

URL: http://www.newsweek.com/id/68221© 2007 Newsweek.com

[lou_lou]

Posted By: williamwn @ 11/06/2007 12:18:47 AM
Comment: Grove cannot compare the pharmaceutical industry with the electronics industry - at least not rightly so. The growth in the electronics industry is due to the advances in transistors. Really it is these transistors that underlie the whole industry. Using the learning effect theory, these are going to become easier and easier to produce the more of them that are produced. Think about how many billions of transistors are produced - no wonder they keep getting smaller and allowing such advances in electronics.

Compare this to the pharmaceutical industry. Research is done on an individual basis for each disease. A cure is not a simple transistor, but rather, it is based on a complex problem. It takes time to discover all the interactions between complex drugs and the complex human body.

Maybe there are problems with the pharmaceutical companies, but in a very basic sense, these two industries cannot be compared. This criticism, coming from a CEO of one of the most respected companies, is something that any undergraduate studying Operations Management can tell you is wrong.

Posted By: tkeubank @ 11/06/2007 12:00:05 AM
Comment: This cannot be discussed with no mention of the legal climate around the medical industry. "The fundamental tenet that drives us all in the semiconductor industry is a deeply felt conviction that what matters is time to market, or time to money." I can just see Dr. Grove being bashed over the head with that comment in a court room or by a grandstanding politician in some ridiculous congressional hearing. Intel has had its share of courtroom battles over the years, but nothing that comes close to what pharmaceutical companies face. He makes very good points, and I tend to agree with him, but the two operating environments are radically different.

Posted By: christena @ 11/05/2007 11:44:49 PM
Comment: hello Dear Mr. Grove,
If we were machines - I have confidence that your corporation would have fixed us all by now...
I am an advocate for cures -
I was diagnosed in 1994 at age 31,
They have two extremely good alternatives to palliative meds - since L-Dopa Carbi-dopa - are certainly not cures at all...
Amgen had GDNF -they withdrew the drugs from the patient study,
by pulling a monkey out of their (back pockets) -I do know the men were getting out of their wheel chairs -
the study was done by the Morris K. Ufdall -doctors/ scientists at the University of Kentucky.
the similiar study in Bristol England had excellent findings the GDNF protein worked!
Dr. Michael Levesque at Cedar Sinai in LA, had great success with an adult stem cell transplant,and testified before congress - but the good doctor has not been approved for clinical trials - I know you are a man with a good mind for good business,
but bigpharma only thinks good business works with addictive /palliative drugs - Mirapex was not a good drug for many PD patients, but they aren't interested in patients being cured, just the dividends of big money being added to there bank accounts.
peace to your heart,
sincerely,
christena

Posted By: ljh839 @ 11/05/2007 11:40:41 PM
Comment: Mr. Grove knows what he is talking about. The Parkinson's community is just waking up to the fact that throwing money at research will not find a cure for this debilitating disease. More effort needs to be applied on bringing forth the discoveries made in the labs to treatments for patients.
Brought together by the Internet, patients now can keep track of the progress of research. We can access the journals. We can communicate with researchers across the world. We know what the pharma companies are doing and we know that for many of them -- the bottom line is what really matters.
There was an effective treatment for Parkinson's being developed. It is called GDNF -glial cell line derived neurotrophic factor. Delivered by a pump infusion method directly into the brain it gave many clinical trial participants in the US and the UK their lives back. Three years ago, Amgen, the patent owner and sponsor of the phase II trial pulled the plug on further human testing and denied compassionate use (which was okayed by the FDA) for those who were already receiving treatment in the clinical trials. The results of their phase II trial are considered by many scientists as inconclusive due to differences in dosage and delivery system from the phase I trial. Further research was recommended.
Many patients believe that GDNF works, and it was the most hopeful treatment under development for those in advance stages. There is nothing else comparable available now.
Amgen hasn't continued the development of this treatment and wouldn't sell it to another company or researchers who are very interested in it. What an awful waste!

Posted By: JRFoutin @ 11/05/2007 11:32:17 PM
Comment: There is a small revolution starting in medicine already, and from a contributor who was also part of building the technology industry. Some of those same open-source concepts have been ported into solutions for diseases of aging and chronic inflammatory diseases now also clearly associated with cancers.

Unfortunately, status quo medical industry brick, mortar, and government regulation has stalled progress already revealed by molecular genomics and a ground-breaking pathogenesis. It is not researchers or their industry that should shoulder all the blame, but we ourselves for not demanding congressional acts that remove the barriers and pave the way for results with humans, in silico and in vivo, with full comprehension of the human immune system genomics and metagenomics. We, as an aging population (and we are all aging every day no matter how old we think we are), must demand and expect this new science to come to light now.

It will require legislation to move genomic clarity from sitting idly in regulation files because it is not yet recognized as evidence that surpasses failed but legally-approved murine models. The NIH and FDA might think to move slowly forward into the science of this century but instead strangles and stalls, full of rank and corps who must service the revolving door with personally safe but socially cancerous lack of action that hide blissfully behind a lack of demanding legislation to move them into this century.

We are all so familiar with the death sentence we see about us, we actually believe there is nothing that can be done so we let distractions of war and getting on with our daily lives stop us from the future we should bring. I'm with Andy in thought and purpose. I am recovering from a killer disease. Are you?

Posted By: JRFoutin @ 11/05/2007 11:31:59 PM
Comment: There is a small revolution starting in medicine already, and from a contributor who was also part of building the technology industry. Some of those same open-source concepts have been ported into solutions for diseases of aging and chronic inflammatory diseases now also clearly associated with cancers.

Unfortunately, status quo medical industry brick, mortar, and government regulation has stalled progress already revealed by molecular genomics and a ground-breaking pathogenesis. It is not researchers or their industry that should shoulder all the blame, but we ourselves for not demanding congressional acts that remove the barriers and pave the way for results with humans, in silico and in vivo, with full comprehension of the human immune system genomics and metagenomics. We, as an aging population (and we are all aging every day no matter how old we think we are), must demand and expect this new science to come to light now.

It will require legislation to move genomic clarity from sitting idly in regulation files because it is not yet recognized as evidence that surpasses failed but legally-approved murine models. The NIH and FDA might think to move slowly forward into the science of this century but instead strangles and stalls, full of rank and corps who must service the revolving door with personally safe but socially cancerous lack of action that hide blissfully behind a lack of demanding legislation to move them into this century.

We are all so familiar with the death sentence we see about us, we actually believe there is nothing that can be done so we let distractions of war and getting on with our daily lives stop us from the future we should bring. I'm with Andy in thought and purpose. I am recovering from a killer disease. Are you?

Posted By: christena @ 11/05/2007 11:20:47 PM
Comment: hello I was diagnosed in 1994 at age 31 and there was a chance of a cure, GDNF owned by Amgen but it worked too well, so they pulled a BS monkey studyout of their back pockets, their is also available Dr. Levesques adult stem cell operation - so far they have given us bad drugs such as the likes of Mirapex, with
horrid side effects -they could cure us, but palliative medicine is their bread and butter ...
if bigpharma had it their way we'd all be on drugs! yet these drugs do not cure -they are only palliative at best.
sincerely,
a young onset ****** off parkie...

Posted By: nwAut @ 11/05/2007 9:20:18 PM
Comment: Both Andy Grove's interview and most of the subsequent discussion misses the point. It is that medical community (includes doctors, researchers, drug companies) is a cartel and abides by a strict code of silence. Drug companies pick and choose research that suits them, and doctors only pick and choose the reasearch that suits them, if there is any research done to explore avenues that might not fit fit with pharamas and doctors' business model because who decides what research to fund? The standard conventional medical treatment for sleep apnea is CPAP machine and mask and it costs more than one thousand dollars and has made CPAP equipment manufacturing a billion dollar plus industry. In reality it can be treated by simple exercise of throat muscles like singing aloud for 20 minutes a day. No sleep specialist will tell you this because he can't charge $100 consultation fee for telling something as simple as that and will not get repeat visits from you. Computer revolution happened because the industry was open to new ideas and innovation from any source whereas medical community has a monopoly on healthcare and is not interested in innovation and finding simple solutions to problems.

A lot of research that medical community rejects because it does not fit their business model of treating people with expensive medicines and equipments is picked up by so called 'alternative' practitioners. There are numerous treatment modalities that cost a fraction of conventional treatments and are far more effective and backed by science that are practiced by 'alternative' practitioners and rejected by mainstream medical community. Treatment for Autism is one example that is 100% successful and is practiced by Dr. Bernard Rimland for over 20 years. Treatment for Schizophrenia as practiced by late Dr. Carl Pfeiffer is far more effective than mainstream psychiatric treatment. Alzheimer's disease and dementia is preventable and even curable in some cases by treating oxidative stress. All these treatments are rejected by mainstream medical community because they have a vested interest in not treating illnesses and just treating symptoms. Treatment for ADD (attention deficit disorder) is another example where treatments not supported by mainstream medicine are far more effective and rooted in science than Ritalin.

Posted By: plwitt @ 11/05/2007 8:56:19 PM
Comment: While I understand Mr. Grove's example of comparing drug development to the management of his life-changing computer chip development, a different perspective can also be presented when comparing the two. Information at peoples' fingertips, with the help of Intel, has resulted in it becoming almost dynamic. By the time a drug is developed. something else is learned, something better is presented. The treatment or the delivery method is obsolete before it gets to market, just like Ipods, cell phones, or technology in general, are always being 'improved'. This can be good in some cases; not good in others.

I like ducks though.

" People in labs trying to save the world, have barely interacted with a patient who has the disease they are trying to solve. Doctors, I mean specialists, are part of a team. How can we get them to realize this? They think they are superior. And pharmas, biotechs etc. wouldn't save their own family members if it wasn't economically profitable," she quacked.

Research cultural revolution. Do it or die.



Posted By: mohave @ 11/05/2007 7:24:17 PM
Comment: Andy should try his hand at science sometime. It is disingenuous to compare the peer review system to medieval guilds. Maybe its the Parkinson's...

Posted By: jejones3141 @ 11/05/2007 6:47:38 PM
Comment: How quickly would Intel advance if there were hordes of lawyers waiting to pounce with class action suits over the FDIV bug, or if it could be driven into bankruptcy over non-factual claims about their products?

Earth to Mr. Grove: alas, science doesn't work like a corporation. Nature is sadly resistant to executive or Congressional Congressional decree.

Posted By: GeorgeK @ 11/05/2007 5:49:22 PM
Comment: The premise of the article is flawed, as is Mr. Groves understanding of drug development. I also believe Mr. Groves opinion is being colored by his condition; being effected by a greivous illness. If I had parkinsons, I would want to know when I could expect a treatment as much as Mr. Groves does.

The nature of drug discovery is much different than the nature of developing consumer products. Defective Intel processors irritate customers, and can even cost customers money and cause recalls (remember the FPU math fault in the original Pentium processor) . Defective drugs kill people - there is no recall for that. Drugs that fail in trials do not just get shelved. The drugs which fail trials are examined for use in other indications, or the science around the drug is expanded and new compounds are developed that may be more efficacious. Failed drugs are also sold to other companies that may see promise in them or alternative use.

A pharma executive can not tell if a drug will be safe and efficacious, that answer is in the hands of science or God - depending upon your persuasion. Any pharma executive that would step forward saying "by date x, our company will have developed, tested and marketed a drug to treat or cure condition y" would be a charlatan.

Posted By: GeorgeK @ 11/05/2007 5:49:03 PM
Comment: The premise of the article is flawed, as is Mr. Groves understanding of drug development. I also believe Mr. Groves opinion is being colored by his condition; being effected by a greivous illness. If I had parkinsons, I would want to know when I could expect a treatment as much as Mr. Groves does.

The nature of drug discovery is much different than the nature of developing consumer products. Defective Intel processors irritate customers, and can even cost customers money and cause recalls (remember the FPU math fault in the original Pentium processor) . Defective drugs kill people - there is no recall for that. Drugs that fail in trials do not just get shelved. The drugs which fail trials are examined for use in other indications, or the science around the drug is expanded and new compounds are developed that may be more efficacious. Failed drugs are also sold to other companies that may see promise in them or alternative use.

A pharma executive can not tell if a drug will be safe and efficacious, that answer is in the hands of science or God - depending upon your persuasion. Any pharma executive that would step forward saying "by date x, our company will have developed, tested and marketed a drug to treat or cure condition y" would be a charlatan.

Posted By: GeorgeK @ 11/05/2007 5:38:21 PM
Comment: The premise of the article is flawed, as is Mr. Groves understanding of drug development. I also believe Mr. Groves opinion is being colored by his condition; being effected by a greivous illness. If I had parkinsons, I would want to know when I could expect a treatment as much as Mr. Groves does.

The nature of drug discovery is much different than the nature of developing consumer products. Defective Intel processors irritate customers, and can even cost customers money and cause recalls (remember the FPU math fault in the original Pentium processor) . Defective drugs kill people - there is no recall for that. Drugs that fail in trials do not just get shelved. The drugs which fail trials are examined for use in other indications, or the science around the drug is expanded and new compounds are developed that may be more efficacious. Failed drugs are also sold to other companies that may see promise in them or alternative use.

A pharma executive can not tell if a drug will be safe and efficacious, that answer is in the hands of science or God - depending upon your persuasion. Any pharma executive that would step forward saying "by date x, our company will have developed, tested and marketed a drug to treat or cure condition y" would be a charlatan.

the link -
http://www.newsweek.com/id/68221/output/comments

[paula_w]

Originally Posted by But in pharma, if a clinical trial doesn't work--which means the average of all the patient responses is not better than the average of a placebo treatment--they just throw [the drug

away, when in fact the averages may hide stuff that did work, and something that made patients different [such as genetics]. I've never heard anyone talk about the opportunity costs of a good drug being thrown away. But a good drug wrongfully convicted means the loss of benefits goes on forever.

URL: http://www.newsweek.com/id/68221© 2007 Newsweek.com

Here he refers to a Good Drug No Future.

paula

[Howardh]

Andy. Great article in Newsweek. Let's hope this one grows some much needed legs. I agree with you, the planet has advanced beyond belief in the last 40 years, particularly in the computer industry and the pace is not slowing down. L Dopa has been with us 40 years and no significant improvement has developed. The technology needs to be grabbed by the ballistics and given a neccessary shake:

Let's hope you can add your expertise to this field in getting the job done.


GO HARD......ANDY

GO HARD.....SCIENCE