from: Pharmaceutical Business Review Drug Discovery and Development

The neurodegenerative disease market saw few major announcements at this year's recent American Academy of Neurology conference. While the Alzheimer's disease field must wait until next year before efficacy data from late-stage pipeline drugs are released, Parkinson's disease announcements were restricted to post-marketing studies designed to reposition treatments or protect vulnerable franchises.


Sigh.

I know: go ride a bike, go dance, do some brain teasers, box, think loud (or speak loudly), eat right (not "that" kind of right, but "this" kind of right), call your congressperson, do aerobics, be optimistic, practice yoga or tai chi, rah rah rah.

Yeah, but sometimes ya gotta wonder when the most positive results coming out of research seem to be increasing your "ON" time by 1 or 2 hours a day or taking one pill in place of two. Do these pharma companies share Wall Street's idea of what a balance sheet between responsibility and private profit looks like?

I know we are supposed to be understanding of the complexities and cost of developing treatments for PD, but is it really so hard to make headway on getting treatment for this disease? Or are there preoccupations and compromised priorities or conflicts of interest that take precedence? Such as "post-marketing studies designed to reposition treatments" or protection of "vulnerable franchises."

Is it my responsibility to always look on the bright side? Always be positive? Sometimes I feel that it is my responsibility to point out that it is raining pretty hard on both sides of the street.