Biotech Values

[iwfal]

He conveniently omits real facts like Sarepta's "plunge" caused by AE's and death was clarified as 3 deaths were ALL patients in their 20's I think 1 didn't even receive drug.

This is untrue. See below quote - in which he says fairly clearly that the drops resulting from the FDA's new data tool was unwarranted. You may not be happy that he didn't specifically mention *how* the data was flawed (and thus the drop unwarranted), but the whole point of this, and all other scientific evaluation, is that wildly messy data is neutral and generally not worth further discussion.

"Not only was FAERS already public, albeit in a slightly less user-friendly form, the database is also messy, context-free and subject to all sorts of biases and errors, making it nigh impossible to interpret properly. It's not something that the public should be very excited about; FAERS certainly isn't a precise enough tool to tell market speculators whether to dump a stock, any more than a sledgehammer is a precise enough tool to amputate a limb. Yet soon after the FDA announced the new interface, the stocks of four companies—Sarepta, Ionis, Biogen, and Acadia—plunged."

---------------------------------------------------

I am really surprised you'd give this guy credibility! I stopped reading his article the first time because it lacked substance was pure tabloid.

I agree he is a little breathless - both sides of the Sarepta debate are. But the point of my post was very specifically the FOIA data - which is hard data. In an argument with the breathless on both sides (e.g. modern politics) I focus on the hard data wherever possible - and targeted redaction is interesting data.