Provoking article. I was interested in their statement about lithium as I, admittedly, got caught up in that game of telephone. That said, I do believe it has a positive effect, and I disagree with the latter part of this section:
This trail of progressive misinformation would be bad enough if it was limited to IPLEX, but it is not. It is a growing problem on the internet. Before the recent IPLEX furor there was another surrounding lithium. A small but well-documented case series showed potential slowing of ALS progression on lithium 16. This was followed by a rash of unsubstantiated reports of dramatic improvement on it, including a widely viewed video of a PALS who reportedly regained the ability to run and ride his bicycle on it 17. Not surprisingly, many PALS wanted to try lithium. Those who wanted to experiment on themselves found physicians to prescribe it, and even found an online forum for entering their data 18. Now these lithium 'data' (none of which are validated or controlled) have been analyzed and there is reportedly no obvious beneficial effect, which has prompted calls to cease further study of lithium 19. Clearly, this type of misinformation (pro or con) could negatively influence enrollment in ongoing and future clinical trials in ALS and slow the development of effective treatments for ALS 20. It could also lead erroneously to moving a less-promising drug to the front of our current pipeline, or a more promising one to the rear.
Anyway, happy reading. Interested to hear your thoughts.
No comments:
Post a Comment