I'm flattered. :)
The JPMorgan Healthcare conference started this week. I know a few people that went that help with M&A consulting. I wanted to go but could not. So much wheeling and dealing. :). I'd love to be at the conferences and listen in on the presentations. I'm a research junkie, enjoy finance and science. I've got so little free time lately that I find myself sleeping less to read reports that I stumble upon in my quest for knowledge. But, the reporting back what I uncover isn't the best for me, and my skill set; I'm no scientist. It takes me a while to gather my thoughts in a concise way, particularly when it involves explaining the scientific premise and investment rationale in understandable terms. That's hard to do when so many things are in lingo that is only used by researchers, educated in their field. I'm just a novice. Plus, there's the time thing... I wonder if I'm the only one who sometimes wishes the days were a bit longer. I love being up. I love sleeping too. Sometimes there doesn't seem like there's enough time for both. Lol. :)
But I'm still up now... As of late, I really have been spending my time away from posting. I'm trying to learn as much as possible -- unrelated to investing-- about a disease. I rather not say which one. Someone I've known most of my life is affected by grim diagnosis. I really just want help this person if I can.
I'm trying to comprehensive research of treatment options to pursue outside of the norm, possibly outside the country, to combat the disease. I want to take the fear of the unknown away; and I believe an educated person who knows their choices, won't get swept up my fear emotions as easily. Anyway I hope it will help, but I hardly have gotten anywhere. I've been combing through grant research requests, and subsequent papers, hoping to find viable approaches in the pipeline before considering where to start. Sadly, research moves slowly and there is less in the way of treatments opportunities for earlier stage disease that isn't an infringement on care choice.
The problem with doing a clinical trial is that creates a rigid standard of care for the patients involved. It needs to be that way in order to do a comparison test against new therapies. But that's not necessarily good for patients. There is no deviation and so the therapy being tested needs be way better than all the available treatment options in order to make up for limiting choice simply to join as a participant. For instance, sometimes standard of care patients live longer as they can jump from drug to drug, if one isn't working, or they can stay on a drug if it's working, going above approved standard of care regiment. So for example there are many GBM patients who go above chemotherapeutic 6 treatment cycles. I have read reports that some have gone up to 101 cycles. That's years of survival but patients in clinical trials that adheres to 6 cycle would not be privy too. This phenomenon is why efficacy tends to approve for many drugs after approvals, as only then can patients go above what clinical trial standards adhered clinical participants once drugs are approved.
But, then there are also limited options if statistics are bad if one chooses to avoid trials. Maybe new therapies will surpass what's out there in the market. That's what I definitely believe some trials will ultimately prove. But those are needle in haystacks and often early on data is of small patient populations.
As for what's already approved, there's a ton of research there too. But generally unless a patient is at an advance stage disease, they don't get offered treatment choices that improve their ability to combat the disease in question. They essentially get proposed option that are radiation and/or chemo cocktails that break the body down - a catch 22 if you will.
Okay, I'm rambling. Off topic posts EOM. Nite. :)
