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 : Ionis Pharmaceuticals (IONS) -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: tom jones who wrote (2132)	7/23/1998 2:47:00 AM
From: Cavalry	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 4676

Then why was ISIP's FDA approval by an overwhelming 5-2 vote? I prefer to go with the opinion of the FDA, thanks though! Cav

To: tom jones who wrote (2132)	7/23/1998 7:47:00 AM
From: wolfdog2	Respond to of 4676

Tom, your post is nonsense <g>. ISIP has most certainly proved that antisense works, unless of course you wish to attribute the therapeutic effect to the needle stick. You are right, of course, that other applications have not yet been demonstrated.

To: tom jones who wrote (2132)	7/23/1998 8:05:00 AM
From: jackie	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 4676

If the antisense technology did not work, what did? If 'inactive' ingredients (preceding phrase is oxymoronic) are the cause of the improvements in these patients, why not just test with the 'inactive' ingredients? Wouldn't it be a lot easier and cheaper to just give injections of the 'inactive' ingredients? In fact, forget about the value of antisense technology, we have just seen the effectiveness of 'inactive' technology proven! So effective, it fooled the FDA panel. They thought antisense formulation was the source of the improvement in the test population. Regards, Jack