I just read that article and I believe the negative opinion was in regards to the problem I mentioned above...I am going off of what the clinical trial nurse is telling me and what research I've done on it in the past, as nothing I can find online is real specific. From what I know, when the information was first submitted to the FDA, or whoever it goes to first, the induction phase for the drug was listed as one thing. In the clinical trials, they have been using a longer induction phase. So, there is concern that the induction phase is longer than what was originally reported and they are requiring more clinical trials to be conducted. That article, and all others I've read, said that the clinical trials do show the drug to be effective. And, the side effects discovered so far are not any different than those with other biologicals (injection site reactions, infections, etc.). So, I wouldn't let that one line about the negative opinion disappoint anyone that this isn't going to be an effective treatment option in the future...it will just take longer than originally expected before it is available on the market.
...rejoice in our sufferings, because we know that suffering produces perseverence; perseverence, character; and character, hope. Romans 5:3-4