>> Dew, I will carefully follow QTc-prolongation in the comming abstracts, but I feel you are only looking at the worst case senario. <<
mid_swe: The worst-case scenarios are the ones which determine product labeling, so they assume more importance economically than they might have clinically. As mentioned in my previous post, the QTc-prolongation seen with Pfizer’s Geodon is clinically modest but is hugely consequential economically.
When a drug has no competition, physicians will prescribe it in spite of warnings on QTc-prolongation in the product label. But when there are competing drugs in a disease indication, a drug with a QTc label restriction will generally be at a disadvantage to one without such a restriction.
I think you may be misunderstanding my view of CA4P. I do not think that CA4P is a bad drug; rather, I think that QTc-prolongation increases the likelihood of a restrictive label and hence it lowers the probability that CA4P will be able to generate robust sales in a disease setting with competing therapies. This in turn reduces the amount I am willing to pay for an ownership share in OXGN.
I will try to stay abreast of developments vis-à-vis CA4P’s cardiac toxicity, and I may buy back into OXGN at some point. In the meantime, I appreciate your contributions on this message board and hope that you will continue to contribute. Regards, Dew
Market Data 
Markets 
AI
