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: Doc Bones who wrote (13376)	10/7/2004 10:01:44 AM
From: Ian@SI	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 52153

Re MRK valuation/litigation risks... Wasn't Vioxx the first Cox II inhibitor? And didn't it meet an unmet medical need at time of introduction? Aren't there numerous other approved drugs which have known cardiac risks, but continue to be used anyway? Even Erythromycin which has been around for at least 4 decades is getting this kind of press lately. I'm beginning to wonder if the litigation risk is overblown. Getting a 3+ year study completed less than 6 years after Vioxx introduction doesn't strike me as a company negligently dragging its heels. IF the FDA were faced with the same situation today (New treatment/unmet need), would they behave differently? I think not. or at least, I hope not. Is this issue more emotional? ... or is there a solid legal foundation? Any thoughts appreciated. Thanks, Ian