:quality(70)/cloudfront-us-east-1.images.arcpublishing.com/tronc/RSQY4KEVHEWZ7ROQB2NDPOHWSA.jpg)
Dr. Raymond Scott Turner in his op-ed (“Medicare agency is limiting access to new Alzheimer’s treatment,” July 6) neglected to disclose upfront that the lecanemab treatment is a product of Eisai, one of the companies that provides support for clinical research at Georgetown University, where Turner is a vice chair of clinical research. Yes, Eisai is noted as providing support for clinical trials; however, it should have been disclosed at the beginning of the op-ed that lecanemab is an Eisai product.
Turner also failed to note is there are very specific criteria to determine who is eligible for the lecanemab treatment. The effectiveness of the treatment varies among individuals.
The treatment is not a one-and-done. It is an infusion given every two weeks, and Eisai proposes a yearly cost of $26,500. The treatment slows the progression of Alzheimer’s disease but does not stop it. It is not a cure. It addresses the amyloid plaque buildup, but there is ongoing debate as to whether the plaque buildup is the cause of Alzheimer’s or a symptom.
Turner implies a bias against the elderly, ageism, may be one of the reasons that Medicare may limit the treatment. This seems to be a red herring meant to divert attention from other aspects of the treatment such as cost, risk and level of effectiveness that call for more scrutiny.
Unless I am mistaken, Medicare is for the elderly, so claiming an ageism bias from Medicare is off-base.
— Gerry Gosewehr, Warrenville
Advancing dementia research
Much of the news today prompts heated debate, but is there anyone who doesn’t favor dementia research? After all, an estimated 6 million Americans suffer from dementia conditions, with untold millions of friends and relations indirectly affected. Given an aging population, the numbers will certainly rise with the condition unchecked. And given a personal family history of it, has any mentally healthy senior like me ever not wondered whether they will be next?
It was in this sympathetic light that I enthusiastically read “Alzheimer’s drug Leqembi wins full approval from FDA” (July 7). First medicine on the market to slow the disease’s ravages, certified safe, Medicare-supported? Yes, yes and yes. But the qualifiers here undercut that happy news considerably. Chief among these are the heavy cost of even the deductible, use restricted to moderate cases (a number further reduced by cautions against concurrent use with blood thinners) and only moderate improvements exhibited, according to limited study data to date.
After the first rush associated with the pluses fades, therefore, the story’s overall effect can disappoint. But here we have to remind ourselves: Leqembi (lecanemab) is another significant step, a milestone telling us not how far we have to go but how far we have come. And having my own near future to contemplate, I for one am heartened by the ongoing commitment to advances.
— Tom Gregg, Niles
Let Fitzgerald speak for himself
In Thursday’s “Voice of the People,” I read six letters all strongly in favor of head football coach Pat Fitzgerald’s firing at Northwestern University in Evanston, which I attended in the late 1960s and early ’70s.
Two similar instances come to mind: Joe Paterno and Sen. Al Franken. Regardless of relevancy or comparison, I, along with Jarett Payton of WGN-TV, want to hear from Fitzgerald. Why, when a man’s career and reputation have been so castigated and abridged, can’t we hear directly from the accused and shamed?
I want to hear Fitzgerald’s side of the story before making my judgment. He deserves at least that — a chance to defend himself and bring clarity to this situation.
I feel the coach loves this university and his football program. He bleeds purple.
Everyone should step back and hear what the man has to say.
— R.J. Artabasy, Glencoe
Leadership at Northwestern
I’m a Northwestern alumnus and lifelong fan, and we have entered our darkest days. These issues are serious, and we all have our opinion on the firing of head football coach Pat Fitzgerald. But after Tribune columnist Paul Sullivan spent most of Tuesday’s column criticizing Fitzgerald for not speaking out (“Coach couldn’t outlast allegations”), I must bring up the real stain on this clownish process — the absolute void of leadership at my university.
University President Michael Schill unilaterally made his decision to suspend Fitzgerald presumably after seeing all the evidence from a monthslong investigation. Then in the next 24 hours, he was scooped by his university’s own student newspaper. Instead of using the two-week suspension to learn more and then act decisively, Schill panicked and issued a laughably weak “Gee, maybe I was wrong” email that served no purpose, save to inflame the situation and dangle Fitzgerald in the breeze.
Seeing what a mess he created, Schill then panicked again and fired the coach. (And Fitzgerald is the problem by remaining stoic?) Meanwhile, where is athletic director Derrick Gragg? Completely absent, he addressed his team through Zoom. He has not spoken to the media. And as a 30-year season ticket holder, I have yet to hear a word from Gragg or anyone connected with Northwestern.
The alleged hazing episodes described were horrific. Fitzgerald was wrong not to have known. We can argue about the appropriate punishment. But the complete void of leadership is what the NU community is talking about now. Fitzgerald will be gone, but these jokers remain. Disgusting.
— Mike Hayes, Chicago
Scandal calls for drastic action
Ever since I joined the Northwestern University community as an undergraduate almost 50 years ago, there have been various scandals that have rocked the NU world. Some have seemed momentous; others not so much.
Chicago Tribune Opinion
The very recent news about the NU football team hazing is momentous. It is abhorrent. It is anathema to what should be NU’s core for its students, faculty and staff. If athletes playing under the NU banner wish to be treated as adults, they must act that way. Obviously, a significant number are currently unable to police themselves.
This scandal calls for drastic action. For the NU president to say he may have erred in how he dealt with the football coach is, at best, a gross understatement. Firing of the head coach or other staff is not enough.
To emphasize just how much this behavior and culture will not be tolerated, the president should immediately suspend the NU football program for at least the 2023 season. If the participants in the alleged hazing can be justly identified, they should be expelled from the university.
Taking such immediate, drastic action will go a long way to rebuilding NU’s reputation.
— James B. Bronk, Napa, California
Join the conversation in our Letters to the Editor Facebook group.
Submit a letter, of no more than 400 words, to the editor here or email letters@chicagotribune.com.