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: quidditch who wrote (2412)	4/17/1999 11:39:00 PM
From: BDR	Respond to of 10280

I have to ask- "Liacos_samui"?

To: quidditch who wrote (2412)	4/18/1999 1:13:00 PM
From: Gary L. Kepler	Respond to of 10280

RE: FDA letter. For those more knowledgeable who want a comparison, I believe that Agouron got slapped with a similar letter about Jan 1997 after Viracept was approved.

To: quidditch who wrote (2412)	4/18/1999 2:28:00 PM
From: Jill	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 10280

the potential change in pharmaceutical companies' way of doing business if the genome segment of the sector takes off and bypasses the need for "therapeutic" drugs, boy, that's a way's off--and certainly not going to help most illnesses...a genome approach to multi-factorial and multi-focal illness like depression for example? Or even asthma, which involves a cascade of inflammatory chemicals? That seems a distant concern. Jill

To: quidditch who wrote (2412)	4/18/1999 3:11:00 PM
From: Bob Swift	Respond to of 10280

<< Long term I believe in their science>> I think short term you should too, the FDA letter did NOT dispute their science. If I am ill, and face the choice of taking either a purified isomer or a racemer, I will pay a little more to take the single isomer just for the margin of safty. In the case of Xopenex, the evil twin may be harmful or may be it is just there doing not much. The SEPR data inescapably points to the former. If you were to prescribe a drug, won't you want to err on the side of being conservative ? By using words like misleading etc to dispute minor points, this letter itself is misleading for it did not balance its presentation with the other side of the story. Of course, it is SEPR's job to do that and the fact that the FDA has approved its sale says it agree with its data. Still, giving the visibility of FDA, it does more harm than good by not presenting the balanced view in the same letter.See how investors have been misled already, what about the patients who needs to make a choice ?