Replies to post #94356 on Biotech Values

[microcapfun]

>>Nonetheless, "biologic activity" can and must equate to clinical efficacy before one gets to go from the lab to the patient to prove whether it works. I mean you have to prove it works in the lab before anyone will let you prove it works (or not) in patients.<<

Again, every drug which makes it into the clinic works in the lab, and a high percentage show some sort of biologic activity in patients. Yet the great majority of them eventually fail for one reason or another, and I can't think of any which did not show clear efficacy after 5 years of clinical testing and yet eventually were successful.


>>So what chemo agent out there is completely non toxic?<<

It's a therapeutic window issue. As you increase the dose, you want to see efficacy before you reach severe toxicity. Geron's drug doesn't appear to have any therapeutic window.


>>The abstracts at AACR show promise<<

Cells and mice. Irrelevant at this point.


>>Okarma said he plans an 80 (OK, then he 50) center study for breast cancer. Surely that is not based on a drug that does not work.<<

LOL. At some point Okarma is going to have trouble finding any centers and any patients if that drug continues to fail in the clinic.


>>Okarma says these are disruptive technologies, so far besides his warped sense of time and tendency toward hyperbole I have given the benefit of the doubt.<<

I did for a while. But it's worthwhile to read the specific product-related claims he was making a dozen years ago and to realize how none have come to anywhere close to fruition thus far.

micro