Believe me: if you had a drug that had any positive effect on Alzheimers you'd be rich beyond the dreams of Croesus. What possible incentive could Pfizer have to suppress something they thought could be useful?
Read the link to Derek's Loew's analysis in Science for deeper analysis: it's posted elsewhere on this discussion.
Pfizer has no incentive to axe a promising drug that would make tons of money, but journalists always have the incentive to kick up dust and make sensationalist articles.
> What possible incentive could Pfizer have to suppress something they thought could be useful?
Without seeing the results of the test it would be impossible to know.
But hypothetically the reason could be as simple as them not wanting to provide any kind of help to their competitors, no matter how small.
Their explanation that they did not release the data because it could lead to other scientists heading down another dead end path of research is just stupid.
The field of science is full of such dead ends and is exactly the scientific process that has got us to where we are now.
I would say it is more likely Pzifer did not release the data to help ensure their competitors would head down that same dead end should they try.
"I understand that AD affects many families who would very much like to have an intervention for the disease, and are anxious to see this trial clinical proceed. Nevertheless, I do not feel that this trial is warranted based on the existing data. Additional studies are needed to understand the mechanistic connection between HSV-1 infection and AD, and specifically to clarify whether infectious virus, or viral proteins are involved."
Sounds like it's not yet in the realm of proven effectiveness.
Read the link to Derek's Loew's analysis in Science for deeper analysis: it's posted elsewhere on this discussion.