Replies to post #102238 on Biotech Values

[tinkershaw]

<<<The problem with your (mis)reasoning here is your implication that the judge's ruling on the TRO has any direct relevance to the issues Sanofi is raising before the court.>>>

It does have direct relevance as Sanofi claims the drug is dangerous. You don't let a drug that you are so sure of being dangerous on the market, at least without a fight. So the point is, is that the court is not going to be ruling on the basis of whether or not this drug is dangerous. That is off the table, and Sanofi is arguing the much narrower, technical point, no matter what their attorneys may claim in an article, like the one that was posted earlier, which made the claim that Sanofi thinks the drug is dangerous, yet did not seek a TRO.

Not seeking the TRO and an imminent danger to the public are not consistent. Sanofi therefore is not credibly making any argument of danger, and instead their issue is relying on the narrow technical argument that a drug that is not dangerous can still not be approved in the manner that the FDA approved it, because the statute says so - and some future drug, if approved in this manner, might be dangerous, because this drug in front of the court is not, or at least we have no evidence that can prove it is dangerous (which is why we consented out of the initial TRO before 10,000s of thousands of patients started to receive the drug in life threatening situations).

If I must say so in one of the more convoluted sentences that I've authored recently.

Tinker

[jbog]

Bladerunner,

Blade,

When we see the Court make rulings similar to todays Embryonic Stem Cell ruling, or last weeks California Marriage law ruling, how could you ever attempt to make a prediction of what some Clown with a robe would rule?