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 Stock Picking for Charity - 2006 -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Arthur Radley who wrote (412)	6/7/2006 8:53:58 AM
From: kenhott	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 592

Sorry to junk up the board with my reply. But a little funny that ACUS speaks about biases with specificity and sensitivity and you bring up the FDA and risk aversion. Kind of like the same thing. The other side of the "FDA is biased story" is that the FDA can be a big dark hole for a lot of people. Something I have learned is that a scary number of biotech execs don't know much about how the FDA works. And CROs have a scary number of average workers which little bios depend on to do the job right the first time around. The 1st time through the FDA without the right people on board at the company can be a very scary thing for investors. It certainly make sense that the FDA is more risk averse now than before Vioxx. You beat people with a stick, they will become stick averse. But it also make sense to me that if you bring the 5th sleep drug (for instance) that works about the same to the FDA, the FDA should have a high hurdle given the need for a 4,5,6th drug and the potential number of users.