Hi, Chris. Thanks for sharing your blog that helps us understand the financial upside of Lemtrada being approved. I have also blogged about this company and this drug, neither of which I like much, but bottom line is people with aggressive forms of MS should be given this drug as an option.
The latest this week is the drug's lead investigators are planning to file their own appeal of the decision. You might find their perspective interesting that if patients here in the US can't get this treatment, they may take the same route as CCSVI and become medical tourists and travel to Europe or Canada for treatment.
Now there's a bull tip - medical tourism is a booming trend.
You don't say in your blog - do you have a personal connection with MS as well?
best, Laura
Lemtrada Works And MS Patients Want A Choice: http://seekingalpha.com/instablog/957061-chris-demuth-jr/2582421-lemtrada-works-and-ms-patients-want-a-choice
Yeah, the guys over at Barts and the London were talking about it, too. A couple of interesting comments, too.
http://multiple-sclerosis-research.blogspot.com/2013/11/is-alemtuzumab-too-risky.html
I'm pretty sure I don't want to try it.
1) Tysabri is working well, and I'm JCV negative.
2) Lemtrada just sounds too risky (I know folks have said that about Tysabri, lol)
that's strange because my neuro told me it was "coming out" the end of the year and he wants to put me on it. One of our forum members was in the trials.
Yikes. That article doesn't make it sound like the FDA is out of line on this at all. In the risk-benefit ratio, it would seem this one doesn't stack up.
I'm a bit confused by the phrasing 'FDA staff says' though, versus 'The FDA states'. Is this just an unnamed source situation?