Dew,
An excellent response to the Forbes' author which indirectly highlights what I consider to be a typical shortcoming in that publication: It tries so hard to create an "edgy" slant that it omits the distinctions which would round an article to be one from which a reader could make informed decisions.
Obviously your response points out that the "big" success of the Macugen trial might well be considered not so impressive, a failure perhaps. Personally, I find an article that is that loose with facts sloppy to the point of being unreliabe. I feel this has happened with other articles in Forbes as well (They seem inclined towards the "sin of omission"). Accordingly, I put only minimal stock in Forbes' information.
Nonetheless, it never hurts to have the name(GENR) out there, and in that sense Forbes provided some nice recognition.
Keep up the fine work,
mgm
Market Data 
Markets 
AI
