Pfizer ulcerative colitis drug leads to remission in a third of patients -study

https://www.reuters.com/business/healthcare-pharmaceuticals/pfizer-ulcerative-colitis-drug-leads-remission-third-patients-study-2022-05-24/

It's an S1P receptor modulator called Etrasimod, and is said to be a potential competitor for Zeposia, which gets marketed by Squibb. So, of course, the big pharmas are excited about its possibilities as a profit-maker. / Old Hat (40+ yrs with left-sided UC; in remission taking Colazal)

When the scientific community comes to agreement on what the root cause of UC is then I will pay more attention to the theory about hydrogen peroxide. Right now all the info I can find about it is all traced to 1 source causing me to take a wait and see approach.

I'm really interested in all of this—encouraged by new meds but also hoping with you, VanJordan, for more scientific work on the root cause.

A question, though: am I correct in understanding that a novel antioxidant would address GI symptoms but not extra intestinal manifestations of disease? I'm dealing with uveitis and sacroiliitis, along with what may in fact be ankylosing spondylitis. All of these troubles are significantly correlated with each other and understood to have an autoimmune component. So would the hydrogen peroxide theory have any insights into these other inflammatory conditions? How exactly do we conceptualize cause/effect in the case of such correlations?

I agree with you all. As a matter of fact, biological drugs which affect immune system have bigger percentage of developing cancer. I think the most crucial issue to generate a new drug is the paperwork, and authorities bureaucracy.

Somebody said...
about a third of UC patients will always respond really well to UC drugs

I am not sure this is correct. Many patients respond well to at least one drug. Few patients always respond well (otherwise they'd never need to try different medications).
New drugs are coming out all the time which block different immune pathways and give patients who were refractive to existing treatments new possibilities.
There are different types of UC (in particular at what level the inflammation is located). That is a contributing factor why different meds work for different people.
Excess hydrogen peroxide may well be relevant but that is not an explanation to me as to what the "root cause" of UC is. What is the underlying mechanism which causes excess H2O2?
I don't think any of my doctors have put much emphasis on calling UC an autoimmune disease. The focus was always on finding a treatment that stopped the inflammation process.

poopydoop said...
I am not sure this is correct. Many patients respond well to at least one drug. Few patients always respond well (otherwise they'd never need to try different medications).
New drugs are coming out all the time which block different immune pathways and give patients who were refractive to existing treatments new possibilities.
There are different types of UC (in particular at what level the inflammation is located). That is a contributing factor why different meds work for different people.
Excess hydrogen peroxide may well be relevant but that is not an explanation to me as to what the "root cause" of UC is. What is the underlying mechanism which causes excess H2O2?
I don't think any of my doctors have put much emphasis on calling UC an autoimmune disease. The focus was always on finding a treatment that stopped the inflammation process.

The stats on single biologics are 29%. It has remained that way since they were invented. Yes, we can argue that adding more drugs increases the odds, but I'm just talking about biologics as a stand-alone. Only 1/3 of UC patients respond universally well to most drugs. The next 30% are mixed, the final 30% is divided into 20% who get very minimal response from drugs and 10% who are completely refractory and respond to nothing (I'm in this category).

The reason why this study is noteworthy is because the success rate was higher than 29%. That's why they are going on about it. Breaking the 30% barrier is REALLY hard.

I'm sorry, I'm not trying to trash biomedicine... I'm just telling the truth about what I've read.

If you do an informal survey of how of many UC patients have their symptoms under control with just 1 biologic and nothing else, and with no eventual drug failure (i.e. a remicade patient who is still asymptomatic after 5 years), the numbers aren't that high.

Their low success rate is because UC is not an autoimmune disease. Our immune systems are healthy. It's the gut epithelium whose integrity cannot be maintained due to oxidative stress, so gut bacteria become exposed to the immune system, causing immune response. We need biomedicine to invent novel antioxidants, not more immune suppressants.

As for the underlying cause of H2O2... likely a genetic deficiency in the enzymes that promote antioxidants like SOD2 and native glutathione production. In my case, I have SOD2 and GSTP1 mutations, so my body does not break down oxidants too easily.

You can learn about the reductive theory of UC here:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XuFiH4vFJjY

In my opinion, this is the root cause. I have done high level research for almost a decade now and this is the only theory that has turned my UC around. I can't wait for Dr. Pravda to publish his final paper detailing the cure. I know in my heart this is it... and I have tried EVERYTHING.

GrittyHope said...
I'm really interested in all of this—encouraged by new meds but also hoping with you, VanJordan, for more scientific work on the root cause.

A question, though: am I correct in understanding that a novel antioxidant would address GI symptoms but not extra intestinal manifestations of disease? I'm dealing with uveitis and sacroiliitis, along with what may in fact be ankylosing spondylitis. All of these troubles are significantly correlated with each other and understood to have an autoimmune component. So would the hydrogen peroxide theory have any insights into these other inflammatory conditions? How exactly do we conceptualize cause/effect in the case of such correlations?

They don’t care about root cause they want to keep us on medication

Theanxiousaries said...

They don’t care about root cause they want to keep us on medication

Who is "They"?

Medical research takes years and years and is very expensive. A lot of research is independent of drug companies. And if they don't offer a viable alternative to medications with undesirable side effects, it's because they haven't found one.

In many countries healthcare is funded by the taxpayers and then it is in noone's interest to keep people on expensive medications that they don't really need.

Is the system perfect? No. Do the pharmaceutical companies need an overhaul in their pricing systems? Yes.

But is there a conspiracy to keep us all on meds unnecessary? No.

garyi said...

poopydoop said...

Theanxiousaries said...


Is the system perfect? No. Do the pharmaceutical companies need an overhaul in their pricing systems? Yes.

But is there a conspiracy to keep us all on meds unnecessary? No.

Long term 'expensive' research plays into 'their' bottom line profit motive, and while 'they' may not conspire to keep us on basically unproven meds, it sure drives 'their' revenue and profit sky high.

It's amazing to me, how little medical 'science' really knows about curing root causes.

90% of the drugs which are generated by the drug factories, are not successful and don't get approval by FDA. Hence, these they put the expenses of the previous failed drugs on the approved drugs, which make the drug expenses and reduce their net profit.

Furthermore, the drug manufacturers usually run by investors and wealth management companies, these companies want profit, it is not a charity. They are eager to maximise revenue, it is not thier top priority to cure any illness, their focus how to make money. Thus, if finding cure for any disease will contradict with thier aim to maximise the profit, for sure they will choose the later option unfortunately, it is what it is.

If the government interven with the drug companies like what they did during Coronavirus.they might fund a cure. If they leave it competently to the investors, they will never try to find cure.

In the deep dive research I've done on a number of ailments and cancers, the innovative research, out of the box thinking, and yes, the published reporting comes from outside Big Pharma USA. China, Germany, Italy, Australia, Israel and so on.

I believe much of the so called American research is poorly planned, sophomoric lab work, uncoordinated + secret between competing fancy campus companies, and is drastically limited by liability fears, needless governmental bureaucracy , cost accountants, and "businesspeople" leaders whose primary measure is return on bottom line, rather than finding cost effective cures. Even spelling medium or long term side effects is not in their vocabulary.

Maybe I've become too cynical, and possibly some are just too trustingly naïve.

VanJordan said...

garyi said...
It's amazing to me, how little medical 'science' really knows about curing root causes.

There have been many, many scientific discoveries about root causes and cures in the past 60 years. They all got buried by big pharma and profiteers. If you've only read 1% of the insider info I've read... ugh... it's absolutely terrible.

Most of the best drugs were invented between 1940-1980 when drug research could still get public funding. Now it is 100% private and big corporations call the shots on what gets researched. It's so bad that they even control university studies now, so people going into STEM fields learn what big pharma wants them to learn. They are all educated to become part of the big pharma complex. Thus big companies go the profitable route of immune suppression with IBD because it keeps customers coming back over and over. There's video footage of big pharma conferences where executive presenters literally say that if a treatment is too effective it cuts into their shareholder earnings, so treatment research should be maintained consistently middle ground.

The best thing we as a society could do is bring back public research... but that's not going to happen because our government has been taken over by mega corporations. It's at the point now that if somebody discovers a cure for something, they better keep it hidden because big pharma will bury them. I don't think most people realize that's where we're at these days.

Most cures are incredibly cheap because they are based on molecules found in nature. That's the sham of it all... they are bleeding us dry of money like parasites with bad "medicine" when the real cures are super affordable. They just need public investment and political protection to see the light of day.

The average person can't wrap their mind around it because they can't imagine a system so psychopathic that it would keep people sick and dying in order to profit. They apologize for it by saying that diseases are complicated and cures are expensive to find... but it's not true. How many trillions (literally trillions) of dollars have been raised to "fight cancer", and are we any closer to stopping it? The outcome of chemotherapy and radiation is still abysmal for most cancers.

Assuming humanity survives and we make incredible advancements in the next 200 years, our descendants will look back at this time with utter disdain at how corrupt and evil we let certain groups of people become.

I believe you.. 100 percent

poopydoop said...
Actually there's been some really interesting progess in cancer research recently, especially in the field of cancer vaccines

https://www.science.org/content/article/new-generation-cancer-preventing-vaccines-wipe-tumors-form

At least where l live in Europe, public research is ongoing (for example, they're still working on fecal transplants). Reading the posts on here sometimes makes me feel like I'm on another planet.

There's always "interesting research". Even if you never read science, how many news articles have come out over the years talking about promising new therapies coming up in research? How many make it all the way to market and into our day to day lives?

Immunotherapy is the only major method that's relatively new. The rest have remained basically unchanged. I remember when the University of Alberta discovered that dichloroacetic acid reverted most cancer cells to normal tissue, the finding got buried. Then they wrote article after article discrediting it. Yet many patients pursued it independently and it cured their cancers. The problem? Dichloroacetic acid is cheap as dirt.

The subject of cancer is near and dear to me as I've had several close relatives die in the past 5 years, after prolonged agony of chemotherapy and radiation. As with IBD, the treatments are just not good enough. People are languishing and it's not right. I will not donate one red cent to the major foundations. They aren't leading us to cures, just sick care.