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 : ARIAD Pharmaceuticals -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Biomaven who wrote (3263)	3/2/2014 10:37:00 AM
From: Biotech Jim	Respond to of 4474

"Dirty", to some knowledgeable in the art, is viewed as a 'rich' pharmacology. For example, before the days of monoamine reuptake inhibitors like SSRIs, the early antidepressant drugs were considered to be "dirty." Like tricyclic antidepressants hitting multiple monoamine G-protein coupled receptors.

To: Biomaven who wrote (3263)	3/2/2014 11:48:48 AM
From: tom pope	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 4474

I wonder if AF was using it in that sense. I certainly read it in a purely pejorative sense.

To: Biomaven who wrote (3263)	3/2/2014 2:50:07 PM
From: Zohar_Power	Respond to of 4474

Very interesting Maven, thanks for the reference. In all of my years of drug development we always used "not selective" or "indiscriminate" to describe this attribute for a molecule or drug substance. I never once heard the word "dirty" used with that meaning. I believe you, but am sure that its use has been discouraged professionally since the advent of GMP, due to its dual meaning. When communicating to laymen, I try to use clear and unambiguous terminology that cannot be mis-interpreted or manipulated.