I appreciate what ENTA has been able to do in virology. I like that they have other programs ongoing as well. But I have concerns that a lot of money is going to be wasted, across the pharma/biotech landscape, going after NASH. When I look at a list of drugs currently in trials for NASH, my mind swims with the variety of approaches being pursued (at least 15, maybe 20 or more). It tells me that there's no great consensus about the class of drug(s - for combinations) of the eventual king(s) of the hill.
Philosophically, what would patients do if you told most of them that they could get positive resolution of a cancer diagnosis by changing diet and exercise habits (maybe relatively radically)? I think they would do that. I think society has a right to ask people to do that, first. We'll have to make difficult $ allocation decisions in healthcare in the not-to-distant future. Why do all of these drug companies think that you and I will always be there to pay dearly for a disease that has other ways of mitigating/resolving it (in many cases)?
I'm sure this type of discussion will bring me some heat. I'm not trying to start a discussion about personal responsibility, but venting about the assumption that the money trough will always be open for pharma to treat lifestyle (NAFLD->NASH only fits partly) diseases.
So, I'm not happy that ENTA is starting over on this expensive quest for a possible sip at that trough in the distant future.
News 
Market Data 
Discover 
