To all:
It seams that this is the only thread for normal and reasonable discussion.
Biowa, ...
Re AMLN, you have my vote. In remaining trials the patients will first stabilize insulin dosing during two month period (this patients have poor glucose level control, type I and II, insulin do have side effects-hypoglycemia is common), and than they will be randomized in trials. This will take some time (little bit longer), but an the end will pay. First two trials had problem with patients/physicians and their stubbornness to marginally follow trials protocol (controlled insulin dose). The purpose of the trials is not to prove efficiency at any cost(read patients). Instead to show Pramlintide benefit over 12 month and beyond (two open label study and pediatric trials) for poor glucose control without insulin hypoglycemia side effects and it will be up to individuals and doctors to designee best regime for long therapy. AMLN seams cheap at this level, IMO.
BTW, after analysis of the interim data for this two study (Jan. 97), they imediately incorporated in remaining protocol trials (I think before they started) new rules. In Nov. insider bought share at 11$/share. Why?
For type 2 diabetes, there will be significant population (because of the growing numbers of the type 2) of the patients who will continue to consume insulin and will need additional drug for reducing insulin dose. The problem is that this diabetes is in nature different than type 1, and resistance to insulin hormone effects can means also resistance to pramlintide. This I do not know. Any idea?
To anyone interested,
Re GERN:
After done some quick research on telomerase (waiting few patents and manuscripts) I become very attracted from what I founded. I agree that in cellular level usually several different mechanism are present for cells differentiation/reproduction/proliferation. But what is going on in cancer cells is obviously: telomerase are very active, for whatever reason are or what activate them, and they significantly contribute to tumor mass grow/metastases development also. Also, I do not thing that Science article reported full story. They will not disclose discovery before protecting it. Discovering of the hTRT protein means that they know (more) how this protein effect RNA:main protein complex, and they can patent discovery as activating ligand(s) and ligand(s) receptor. Can this (if they obtain broad patent) give them right over any molecule(s) which interact with telomerase by inhibiting protein:complex(RT:RNA) mechanism? Or only for molecules which are developed based on this discovery. This is speculation because we do not know what (if issued) will patent claim.
Example: Isis has patent application for mimic oligonucleotide (like antisense) which interact with RNA portion of the telomerase and inhibit its activity (at least they tried to claim in patent application?). Can they patent this like-antisense (sequence and location RNA target , not mRNA in this case) when GERN have patent for full RNA sequence? Stan asked question regards the antisense toxicity for this RNA target, and I do not have complete picture.
Anyway, by translation of the RT inhibitors from HIV, nucleoside and non-nucleoside small molecules have probability to be toxic like other cytotoxic chemotherapeutic. Maybe, some less toxic drug(s) (antibody to protein, specific antisense for mRNA/DNA, or some other underlining mechanism inhibitor) can be developed by accelerated procedure (depend on the P&U interest).
IMO, story is interesting and worth to discuss further.
What is opinion on MIT and Weinberg competition on discovery?
mz |
