tera, <<The amount of drug that was administered (in animals) was equivalent to a human eating pounds of it per day for a long time... of course something would show up in liver studies... when you do a tox study you expect to see tox. >> ---------- Naturally the toxicity test is designed to see the effects of high dosages. However are you saying that the animal dosage was much higher than the typical required toxicity test? Has there been any info about how the animal dosage translates into human dosage.
Was the dosage decided by Aventis extraordinarily high to purposely get a high toxicity result so that Aventis could renegotiate the roylty terms? Of course that does not make sense but I wonder. Do not accuse me of conspiracy theory fantacy because I have recently read that several big pharmas are trying to find excuses to renegotiate the collaboration terms with their smaller biotech partners thinking that the smaller companies do not have any choice but to accept less royalties than previously agreed upon due to their short supply of cash and the difficult environment to raise cash.
Ps. This also reminds me of the fact that when the first Pralnacasan study was done and the results were announced Boger and Sato kept insisting that the study proved that the end points were successfully met. However Aventis would not concur and delayed the follow up of the project for many months to "study and further analyze the results." I wonder if they have been a half-hearted partner all along?