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: Vector1 who wrote (5826)	3/8/2002 1:10:55 AM
From: scaram(o)uche	Respond to of 52153

>> The sad truth is that for the most part they are a bunch of hacks who could not make it in the commericial arena or academia. << It's been a long time, but I once had extensive interaction with FDA scientists. I found them -- generalizing -- to be competent, motivated, and well-informed.

To: Vector1 who wrote (5826)	3/8/2002 1:48:01 AM
From: Miljenko Zuanic	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 52153

<<It also frankly destroys any incentive to develop improved products for all buy life threatening diseases.>> Is allergy life treating disease? <<The sad truth is that for the most part they are a bunch of hacks who could not make it in the commericial arena or academia.>> Hold on! (I second Rick here) That was my general opinion before I started dealing with them. However, I agree that they should be held accountable for their decisions. But they are not always one who dictate tone in negotiation. Miljenko

To: Vector1 who wrote (5826)	3/8/2002 3:34:17 AM
From: Londo	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 52153

Richard and Miljenko took a crack at your previous comment, but I'll address stuff they didn't (which I either agree with, or in the case of FDA officials, can't comment): It also frankly destroys any incentive to develop improved products for all buy life threatening diseases. Should a company be wasting it (or its shareholder's) cash on drugs for non-life threatning conditions that are only an epsilon improvement? If the previous treatment was proven safe for (in the case of allergies) millions, then how could you justifiably approve a drug with only incremental improvements when there is a substantial risk of future complications? Especially considering the other allergy drugs pulled due to QTc complications? and had trial results that werer virtually flawless. What's more dangerous is what they didn't publish in the papers.. also, I don't know if this is significant, but the animal data. I'm kind of getting out of my realm here, but basically I'm asking how somebody could determine (except SEPR insiders) if the trial was 'flawless'? Let's consider for a moment that Soltara is truly safe; SEPR does another clinical, submits the data, and the product gets improved. The drug gets out in society, and the FDA has fufilled their role in making absolutely sure that the incremental gain in efficacy is associated with a reasonable assurance that the drug is just as safe as the drugs that soltara is trying to replace. The only loser in this game would be SEPR's stakeholders. The rest of society wins. And since there's nothing you can really do about it, the next time around, you either thouroughly design the trial perfectly (which costs big money), or you develop drugs that have greater incremental gains in efficacy. Do you have allergies. Claritin is a friggin sugar pill. Spring hayfever. Although it was worse when I was younger. Claritin is crap, agreed. Personally, I liked Seldane.. tasted like minty spit, but worked really damn well. And I haven't died of a heart attack yet. Maybe I can launch a class action lawsuit for potential future cardiovascular complications. Increasing the cost of drugs is of benefit to no one. It's to the benefit of shareholders in companies selling patented products that other companies don't have the resources or intellectual capability to develop. There are always winners in the game for any given condition. And in a way, it's also to the benefit of the consumer. Imagine what crap there would be out there if there was no such thing as a double-blinded clinical trial? Would you be willing to bet your life on IMC-C225's Phase II data? Didn't think so. The fact that so many companies are getting rejected after submission is clear evidence of a major problem. Did that prevent IMCL from doing what it did? Also, the sign that so many drugs getting rejected could perhaps be a sign that companies are willing to take shortcuts in preparing their data, and sloppy clinical trial design. The onus is on the company to prove safety and efficacy, not the FDA's. On the issue of "Biotech valuation", the great thing about this sector is that companies which survive the process are rewarded handsomely; our job as investors are to find ones that will pass the FDA and have as many people as possible betting against them when your bet is made... now that plenty of people are betting against SEPR, the real valuation questions here are: Is SEPR going to get another crack at the FDA with Soltara? Will they be able to cough up $400M in cash by the end of 2005?

To: Vector1 who wrote (5826)	3/8/2002 6:29:19 AM
From: scott_jiminez	Respond to of 52153

<<Your argument that there are other drugs on the market that are almost as good and are safe misses the point.>> It would seem when discussing 'points being missed', the focus should be squarely on the company, not the FDA. Why was Soltara being developed? To circumvent/avoid the problems with Hismanal. What should have been Sepracor's overwhelmingly primary objective in their data presentation? To show, beyond a shadow of a doubt, with a large excess of human data, that there wasn't even a hint Hismanal-like cardiac involvement. The question was NOT of Soltara's efficaciousness. The objective was prove, to a standard much higher than originally requested of Hismanal, that son-of-Hismanal was NOT-Hismanal. And it is indeed the objective of FDA to keep unsafe drugs aware from an ignorant public, ESPECIALLY when a 'new and better' version of a withdrawn predecessor has not shown to a high standard that the same complications could not surface once again. So, to paraphrase, 'Yes the BT companies should be run by scientists but do you think the best and the brightest are at the BT companies?. The sad truth is that for the most part they are a bunch of hacks who could not make it in academia. They should be held accountable for their decisions and the rules should be carefully developed so that companies do not spend hundreds of millions of dollars following protocols that do not lead to approval because a company is 'unaware of the FDA'S main concern'.' If a BT company has one job on earth it is to be 'focused like a laser' on likely FDA's concerns during clinical trials, ESPECIALLY when the company's pipeline involves drugs replacing withdrawn compounds.' I've always had some difficulty in accepting the premise that an enantiomer is an avenue towards improving a racemic drug. There have been some successes and some failures, but an assumption of improvement by 'purification' is misplaced. I think investors would be wise to wait far into the clinical testing process before even the outline of preliminary conclusions can be understood. And if there is this additional concern about Sepracor's inability to perceive FDA issues accurately, then the risk here is quite high, in my view.