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 : Ligand (LGND) Breakout! -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Hippieslayer who wrote (22768)	6/27/1998 12:06:00 AM
From: bob zagorin	Respond to of 32384

fugazi, actually i disagree. the analyses i've seen say FDA might tighten approval process for drugs where there are other choices and the diseases are not critical or life threatening; but at the same time, they are looking at speeding approvals on cancer treatments and other products where there are no good alternatives at present. in fact, i saw a good interview with kessler on mcneil-lehrer to just that point this week. i'll see if i can get the text. the wsj may be the wall street bible but i don't put much stock in their editorial or columnists. ps. tony, i was actually responding to robert barry who asked for the BOP so i'm glad to oblige.

To: Hippieslayer who wrote (22768)	6/27/1998 12:13:00 AM
From: bob zagorin	Respond to of 32384

here's a great link to a PBS report on this very issue featuring both sides of the issue. there are also other links on the page on the same subject. pbs.org I'm sorry if the PBS approach (both sides of the story and you have to make up your own mind) is too "taxing" but i prefer it to blindly following the WSJ editorial page.

To: Hippieslayer who wrote (22768)	6/27/1998 8:58:00 AM
From: jayhawk969	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 32384

Fugazi, I have read the PBS article and the negative editorial from the WSJ. As usual the government has it wrong again. What is lacking is a well coordinated medical information system. Instead of getting it right, the FDA will continue to use a worn, tired political process that hides behind the veil of science to monitor the issuance and use of drugs. The direct and indirect cost to humanity is well into the billions. Ultimately we as voters and taxpayers are responsible.I have a number of complaints about the lack of personal health information and statistics. First my father died of a heart attach at 55. His brothers died in their early 60's of the same event. I have elevated cholesterol that I treat at the age of 51. Do I have a clue of their cholesterol levels or for that matter any other diagnostic information that could help me? NO. Second, Unless one keeps diligent self records there is nothing that allows one to easily track their own medical history. I had successful treatment from a back injury 10 years ago. Upon a recent re-injury, I could not relocate that DR.(I had purged my financial records from that time). Furthermore, just try in this day and age of HMO's-- and the constant churn of physicians that one sees, to follow the statistical evolution of one's own health.(simple stuff, like blood work, weight, blood pressure,psa etc.), information that gives one insight into the evolving status of his or her health. A good system would track each of the above issues, and link to a national system that tracks health and disease statistics, Any newly prescribed drug would be automatically tracked, and any combinations of drugs and or ailments would be far more recognizable. Early warning of problems as well as general efficacy would strongly benefit all participants. Candidates for treatment could easily be screened. The benefits are endless and enormous. Our current health information infrastructure is equivalent to the quality of a third world communication infrastructure. How does the quality of that infrastructure impede their potential progress. Same thing applies to our health system. Once again the cart is before the horse.