That's an interesting narrative, but are you sure that's actually what happened? It seems to elide the role of the drug manufacturer who pays for all these trials in the first place. Why would they pay for such doomed trials, just for the emotional hopes of patients? Are they that irresponsible with their stockholder's money? If so, they should probably be ousted and replaced with people who have more business savvy.
Or alternatively, this really didn't have anything to do with hopeful patients or their advocates, but rather the greed of the pharma companies, hoping to push through unproven drugs for the sake of profit.
I don't have any special insight into which narrative is true, but we've seen a lot of the second narrative historically.
They can't profit if it doesn't work. There is that bizarre case with the Alzheimer's drug, but that seems rare and not something they should pin their hopes on.
It sounds to me as if the drugmakers and the patient advocates are coming from the same place. They are desperate for it to work, and will convince themselves of it on any thin evidence. Probably something like "it did X in a petri dish so it must work eventually."
There are surely executives making a calculated risk, but I think they couldn't do it if there weren't also scientists who feed them over-optimistic guesses because they want it to work for the patients too.
The FDA won't usually approve a drug that doesn't work. Yeah, regulatory capture occasionally happens, and the FDA's definition of "work" is looser than you might hope. But it's just not a profitable strategy to keep throwing good money after bad on a drug that simply doesn't do anything.
Or alternatively, this really didn't have anything to do with hopeful patients or their advocates, but rather the greed of the pharma companies, hoping to push through unproven drugs for the sake of profit.
I don't have any special insight into which narrative is true, but we've seen a lot of the second narrative historically.