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 : Biotechnology Value Fund, L.P. -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: aknahow who wrote (261)	8/28/1998 2:43:00 PM
From: scaram(o)uche	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 4974

George: preamble.... I've worked with FDA scientists. I've taken two clinical projects to FDA and worked with the agency for IND. Now, to answer your question..... Toxicity is not yes or no. There is a fine line that a regulatory agency needs to walk.... toxicity can't be studied in the detail necessary to say "ABSOLUTELY safe" in a time period that is consistent with rushing new therapies to patients that need them. Thus, drugs are approved and subsequently withdrawn when stuff shows up that testing didn't reveal. It's the risk you take. It is my personal opinion that it's not a risk that society should take if efficacy is not a portion of the equation. We could market sugar, in moderate quantities, for acne. The consumer would determine the market size, yes, but so would advertising. I have worked for a company that didn't have sufficient data to back a product. I have had a V.P. Clinical ask me "do you know how much money is involved?" I characterized "Centoxin" (HA-1A) from Stanford/Nelson Teng while I was at Bayer/Cutter. We returned it to Stanford and elected to pass on the license fee. It was subsequently licensed by Centocor. I knew what the "antibody" was. Centocor's trials were eventually halted, given that patients were dying at a higher frequency than placebo controls. If you take efficacy out of the approval process, I think that the frequency of death and serious consequences will go up. Toxicities are often not observed until AFTER an exhaustive search for them has been conducted. Why take that chance for stuff that would have the effect of sugar, when there are overzealous or just plain dishonest individuals out there trying to make a buck off of people's misfortune? No question..... the approval process needs to be reworked, and we need an agency that takes greater risk in the face of demonstrated efficacy. Recent changes at the agency have gone a tremendous way toward that end. There are people out there trying to cheat, George. Some of them don't care if they kill people. That's the real world. Rick

To: aknahow who wrote (261)	8/28/1998 3:26:00 PM
From: scaram(o)uche	Respond to of 4974

>> How will biotechs raise capital in a bear or even non bull market? << The big question! Pharmaceuticals are valuable. They bring nice profit margins. Those biotechs that have an interesting pipeline will find funding. As Jim Silverman has recently said (paraphrasing)..... "I'm sick of the little scam companies.... let them go belly up, merge the remaining strong efforts, and let's get on with this act". I'm also sick of the half-assed efforts and dishonest managers that have contaminated our sector. I expected them to be gone long ago. Keep beating that drum, George...... you're asking good questions, IMO. Rick