A look at minocycline research for MS, particularly Canadian studies from the early 2000s, and how a pharmaceutical company may have acquired and shelved that work to push a costlier drug at $60-70k per year instead. The talk questions why cheaper, equally effective treatments aren't pursued.
Chapters
So until about 2010, there was a lot of research on minocycline for multiple sclerosis, particularly in Canada, where they pretty much have self insured. One insurance policy, they'd have an interest to reduce drug costs. And a big pharma company came in and basically bought out the research and got them researching their drug, showing that their drug worked just as good as minocycline. So let's research our drug, which costs 60, $70,000 a year. So this talk is not about, you know, bashing pharmaceutical companies that do a lot of good work, but they're very expensive and potentially, you know, we can't afford these increasing cost of drugs in the country. So should we look for practical alternatives that work just good, in some cases better?