>>…the most recent data that seems to confirm improved vision for a third of patients (as I recall the Mexican study also found a third OF PATIENTS improving).<<
You have to compare apples to apples! The new data (the 40mg data from the “207” study) show 1/3 of patients with improved vision one month after the end of treatment only if you use double counting, i.e. if you count two eyes per patient. As a percentage of the treated eyes, which was the basis on which the Mexican data were reported, the “207” study had an improved-vision rate of 2/12=17%, only half as large as the 33% rate in the Mexican study. (For further details, please see #msg-5096477.)
The efficacy from this tiny trial is not even the main issue for Squalamine in AMD as far as I’m concerned. Safety is. Please see the bottom of #msg-5105195 as well as the several fine posts by isolution on the issue of systemic vs local treatment in AMD.
>>I took the plunge with GENR some time ago, based on the promised efficacy of squalamine and the appeal of systemic delivery (which seemed a huge competitive advantage to me at the time, and still does).<<
I agree with the first part of your statement: that systemic delivery seemed like huge advantage at the time. I disagree with the second part of your statement: that systemic delivery still is an advantage. Given the FDA’s new mindset, systemic delivery could turn out to be Squalamine’s millstone. Regards, Dew
Market Data 
Markets 
AI
