Replies to post #205978 on Biotech Values

[ghmm]

@VinayPrasad82 :

I don't get why he is so popular. I find him to be quite self promotional/absorb and his personal attacks on DMD families makes me wonder how he treats his patients especially if they have a rarer cancer with limited data.

[mcbio]

FWIW I couldn't agree more. I tweeted as much several weeks ago to @VinayPrasad82

@matthewherper think u'll find high %age long term inv mostly agree w ur positions. Science is an edge. Chaos is bad.

— Clark H (@Clarksterh) October 25, 2016

Further thought is that, again as I tweeted (to @matthewherper in this case), I hope if we are going to swing to a too permissive FDA, that we go whole hog back to the 1950s. I think that likely has the least long term damage because it will crash and burn quickly (quickly is all relative - perhaps 10 years before it becomes apparent to the public that something is very very wrong)

Not sure I agree with the two of you. Legit companies with legit drugs will presumably be able to differentiate their drugs from others in the marketplace with their superior drugs. The marketplace will be the ultimate arbiter. So, an easier approval process in general (if really true) seems bullish to me for legit companies with legit drugs, particularly the small-cap biotechs I focus on that traditionally have longer odds for their drugs to reach market.

[bladerunner1717]

Dew & Clark,

The devil is always in the details. So it all depends on what one means by "FDA reform." If it means, for instance, hiring more qualified FDA reviewers, I think most of us would see this as a good thing. If "FDA reform" means instituting the ideas in McClellan's "Critical Path Initiative," then that would also be a good thing, IMO.

So let's wait a bit and see what the details are of any FDA reform plan.


Bladerunner