Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Biotech / Medical : ArQule -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Herc who wrote (375)	8/2/1999 9:06:00 PM
From: Dr. Voodoo	Respond to of 399

'Splain it to me. Please accept my apologies in advance, First, one goes computer screen and finds big words. Then one goes to a library to find out what such big words mean. Here are some big words for you: Racemic mixture of compounds. Structure activity relationship. Therapeutic index. Toxicity and specificity. Really I'm not trying to be sarcastic, it's just my nature. SEPR does not make modifications to existing drugs. They make use of those big words I wrote up above thar^. ARQL does not make modifications to existing drugs, unless they decide to prostitute their chemistry department. Not a bad idea if you have no other choices. ARQL is all about making new stuff to be found as drug leads. LEAD is a very broad word that would take a long time to explain, and would be a good place for you to begin your dd. Otherwise just send me a check it will be faster. Good luck, V

To: Herc who wrote (375)	8/2/1999 9:15:00 PM
From: tommysdad	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 399

<<SEPR goes in and slightly alters a known drugs molecule so that it will have less side effects and can be patented for however many years are allowed for a new drug?>> Sometimes they don't even alter it. They just "purify" it. Sometimes they just make an active metabolite. <<But can't the generic drug companies undercut their price with the old compound now off patent? It's not like SEPR is creating whole new classes of drugs.>> Yes. But, theoretically, the new drug is better than the old drug -- why risk malpractice by prescribing an old, inferior drug? Many (most?) new drug introductions are simply improvements over existing medications. <<I'm an ophthalmologist and can tell you that most people don't suffer side effects from drugs. Otherwise the drug would have never been released in the first place if the hazards outweighed the benefits>> I have no experience with ophthalmology drugs. But: Side effects are the number one reason for people not taking medications. Ever ask somebody how they like chemotherapy for cancer? Ever ask a large group of women how they feel while they're on the pill? Have you ever read a package insert for any oral medication? It's a wonder anyone takes anything. Getting around side effects keeps pharmaceutical companies in business. Side effects kill hundreds (if not thousands) of people every year. The benefit may outweigh the risk, but if I can discover a drug with significantly less risk (say, reducing the risk of liver damage from 1 in 50,000 to 1 in 300,000) than the one you're taking now, which would you rather take? Even at twice, 3x, 5x the price? Why are people paying so much for Vioxx? Why does every pharmaceutical company on the planet have a PDE5 program to compete with Viagra? Why is Rezulin destined to be an also-ran? Why was/were fen-phen pulled? (A: Side effects.)

To: Herc who wrote (375)	8/2/1999 9:31:00 PM
From: Dr. Voodoo	Respond to of 399

I hereby take back all the nasty stuff I wrote and offer you an olive branch. They make active metabolites. Which if'n you wanted to call'em modifications to existing compounds I s'pose you could. All of the information you need to know is at: sepracor.com V