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 : Sepracor-Looks very promising -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: David Howe who wrote (1879)	3/2/1999 11:41:00 PM
From: Neuroguy	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 10280

Peter, Bob & Dave: Maybe you guys need your own board!!! Just kidding - loved the thread. So refreshing to read after all the rubbish flying around on Yahoo... Well, except Teabury's infatuation with I.Somer..:) I liked the three cases of ICEs and side effects. An (obvious) caveat: it is a drug-by-drug issue. I covered the issue of "Prozac II" and sexual dysfunction in detail on Yahoo. This is a case where the ICE should have 100% of the side effect (case III). So some market share will doubtless be lost to generics. But then again, the marketing capabilities and brand awareness will give the ICE a big share of the market. The main point here (of my post) though - amongst investors in SEPR there seems to be a rampant case of "good isomer-bad isomer" disease (thanks in part to Southwell). This is simply not reality. In many/most cases the "good isomer" will have both the therapeutic effects and the lion's share of the side effects. So patenting the active stereoisomer is not a big advance necessarily in pharmacology here, but rather an advance in skillful patent law and separation technology. Big pharma will not dispute the patents so they can hitch a ride on the SEPR patent after their own patents expire, and use brand name and marketing expertise to continue their earnings into the future. SEPR is all about good business, and relatively little about advances in medicine. If a better SSRI than Prozac, for example, gets FDA approval and widespread press over the next 5-8 years, then SEPR's marketshare dwindles fast. Ditto their other compounds. 'Stripping the bad isomer' does not make a miracle drug free of side effects. I realize I intertwined up a number of issues here, but it's been a long day...:) Mea culpa. I had one student commit suicide this morning (because his GF dumped him), and another have a breakdown in class (neither has anything to do with me, btw)! Yikes! But this good isomer-bad isomer nonesense, which I read in one of the posts in this thread, is so pervasive in the "SEPR Doctrine", but it just isn't so. People have to come to the realization that, while this is the simplistic view that SEPR enthusiasts employ to push the 'story', the reality of drug actions is different. And likewise, the rationale for SEPR's future success (which is terrific), is different. Rant over...! And caveat - I don't mean to imply that any of you three 'SEPRteers' are pushing this simplistic notion. You are all too obviously conversant in the subtlties of the issues. But less familiar readers might get caught up in the "Doctrine" which was mentioned. Personally, I believe that SEPR's patent strategy was a stroke of near genius, and is the better story! They manouvered themselves into a brilliant win-win situation with that, and there's not been enough chat about that, IMO. Better get back to my brain cell research before you guys bash me to death....:) G Neuroguy