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 : Biotech Valuation -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Biomaven who wrote (5817)	3/7/2002 3:55:58 PM
From: Elmer	Respond to of 52153

Peter, In the past you commented on the issue of diminishing returns for big pharma and how it was positive for biotech at least in the short run. Do you think the flood of recent bad news hitting biotech is the result of too much venture and IPO capital in the late 1990s chasing too few good drug opportunities? Is the flood of bad news just coincidence or a reflection of too easy money funding bad ideas? This hurts, David

To: Biomaven who wrote (5817)	3/7/2002 7:22:00 PM
From: Sam Citron	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 52153

Biomaven, Brief question about the NDA process from a newbie: In an ideal world, in the years of necessary preclinical tests and Phase I, II, and III testing, a drug company would acquire a pretty strong indication as to the exact nature and duration of the testing regimen that would be required by the FDA for drug approval. Given the extremely high social costs of delaying the introduction of new drugs, would it be possible for the FDA to sign off on specific test protocols BEFORE they are undertaken? Or is it simply the case that in a dynamic iterative testing environment that is designed to serve the public interest, the possibility simply cannot be ruled out that due to no fault of the company, the results for a certain patient population (in this case, patients with certain heart conditions) may simply be so inconclusive that the FDA has no other choice but to issue the nonapprovable letter? In other words, I guess I am asking whether in your view and from a public policy perspective the system is inefficient and ought to be reformed. According to Wall St. Jnl.: "The FDA said Sepracor's safety evaluations weren't long enough to show how [Soltara's]accumulation in tissue would affect patients, especially those with certain heartconditions." online.wsj.com I am also trying to get a sense of whether the nonapprovable letter is properly viewed by the investor as a blunder that could/should have been avoided, or merely a random stochastic event that delays a product introduction. TIA, Sam

To: Biomaven who wrote (5817)	3/8/2002 1:50:10 PM
From: Michael Young	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 52153

Anybody follow CBST closely? Was yesterday's news a good sign that their lead drug is back on track? MIKE

To: Biomaven who wrote (5817)	3/9/2002 5:59:01 PM
From: Crossy	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 52153

re : SCLN To all on this fine thread -- there was a recent newsblip about SCLN pointing to favourable preliminary trial data of their ongoing Phase-3 Zadaxin trial for the treatment of Hepatitis B - biz.yahoo.com now I have this stock - bought it in the $2,40 range - laregely because it was a biotech with Phase 3 trials, a multiproduct pipeline and imagine that, revenues - coupled with low valuation (sub $100m) Does anyone of you have any opinion on SCLN and their prospects here ?? rgrds CROSSY