RRG, maybe, but keep in mind that most states have enacted laws that require their citizens to wear seat belts.... because so many people refuse to be sufficiently concerned with their own well being, even in the fact of glaring evidence.
Like I have said, all my liquid assets are invested here in EntreMed. So in reality, I am not paranoid.
I believe there is at least some merit in the outcries of investors and patients who are upset by the FDA's DNDN decision. In any event, the SEC should investigate the matter and determine if any of the panel members had personal or family investments that could have influenced their integrity in the Provenge decision.
It is critically important that we citizens be sufficiently concerned and mistrustful of our government and its agencies. It is no more admirable to have unwarranted faith than it is to be overly concerned. Yes, I know the definition of paranoid. The problem is each of us needs enough personal integrity to not allow others to define the bounds of rationality.
Defending Dr. Folkman's statement or the FDA's integrity is all fine and good. The reality is, however, that it all comes down to the frailty of human integrity. People throughout history have always been there to defend virtually every historical figure and every institution. A segment of society always defends even the darkest sides of that society. America will only remain a great nation if its people remain rationally concerned with their own rights and their own democracy. As a citizen, I know with 100% certainty that we would be better off with too much paranoia than too little. And anyone who fails to understand that a significant portion (if not a majority) of decisions made in Washington are bought and paid for is, in my book, not paying attention.
So if it is paranoid to believe that the FDA might be as influenced by lobbyists and corruptions as our elected officials, count me among the paranoid.
Market Data 
Markets 
AI
