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: tom pope who wrote (17133)	6/19/2005 2:33:23 AM
From: DewDiligence_on_SI	Respond to of 52153

>>NYT. I think this is a stupid editorial<< I would have to agree. The editorial is 180 degrees removed from the direction in which the industry is headed.

To: tom pope who wrote (17133)	6/19/2005 11:16:52 AM
From: Mike McFarland	Respond to of 52153

<why the hell not> People with african decent are more genetically diverse than other races. Tageteting a drug to a group that has the least distinct genotype? On the other hand, I see on the mygn thread that the brca patents again have the Europeans up in arms--and Ashkenazi Jewish women are much more genetically distinct than black people. That is, there is far more diversity between two given black people than two Ashkenazi women. I think I got that right--but I did find a nifty powerpoint refresher here: mcb.berkeley.edu

To: tom pope who wrote (17133)	6/19/2005 2:12:49 PM
From: Arthur Radley	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 52153

Tom, I guess the writer of this article didn't grasp what they were writing. This is borne out in the following two sentences that amazingly the writer placed in sequential order... " Its arrival could be a boon to black patients, who die at disproportionate rates from congestive heart failure. But the history of this first racial medicine raises troubling questions about the impact of patent considerations on how drugs are tested." One wonders if it occurred to this person that the fact blacks suffer at disproportionate rates and that there are diseases that occur in certain races or genders because of genes specific to those groups. If there are those who are concerned about drugs being developed for a specific race I wonder if they have concerns for those diseases that are specific to a gender and that scientist shouldn't work in finding a cure for those diseases. Maybe this is the reason that I lost a grandfather and three first cousins so that hemophilia is no longer a scourge in my family, because there are no longer any females that carry the gene that causes this life shortening disease for most that suffer this malady. With the logic of those who question developing drugs for specific races, what is the difference in such not applying to gender?