Biotech Values

[DewDiligence]

Re: Seattle Times article, and what it all means (see end of post)

>>Drug-company executives say they know about the practice but can't crack down on the doctors they rely upon for conducting patient testing.<<

What a load of crap!

>>The Seattle Times interviewed 15 of the lead doctors on the Macugen and Lucentis research, many of whom acknowledged accepting money to talk to Wall Street firms. None specifically recalled talking to Smith Barney, but they said they had talked to many investors during the time Eyetech's stock price was in a steep decline. All 15 doctors insisted they didn't reveal confidential or valuable details.<<

Whom do they think they’re kidding?

>>Some involved say they're doing nothing wrong and are, in fact, performing a useful service to advance "promising therapies."<<

Nice rationalization!

>>But hedge-fund managers said it often is possible to find out from doctors how a study is progressing, even when it is "blinded." That's because drugs can have obvious side effects that patients receiving a placebo won't get.<<

No kidding.

>>The Securities and Exchange Commission, told of The Times' findings, said it had no comment.<<

“No comment” may mean that they are investigating or plan to do so. It’s all political—if enough people are ticked off about this and complain to their elected representatives, the SEC will move on it… eventually.

In the meantime, I remain convinced that it is possible to beat the market in biotech without illegal access to insider information. If I weren’t convinced of this, I wouldn’t be doing it for a living.