BiotechHedge,
Another very amusing response.
<Combination therapies, combining single-target agents at high potency with both combo drugs, will prove MUCH more effective (as noted by many clinicians and oncologists) than using an "all comer" multi-targeted kinase drug. >
It depends on which combination of drugs are used. What you fail to grasp is that all kinase inhibitors affect multiple kinases to some degree. The inhibitors don't affect all kinases equally, but have preferential effects. That can be a strength since multiple pathway are to often activated, or an alternative pathways arise to make the tumor resistant to the drug. I also makes it function more effectively in some cancers as opposed to others. This is what always happens with Gleevec. Yes, the broad spectrum can have drawbacks as well with side effects and toxicities.
<You simply cannot get massive potency with a multi-targeted kinase that you would with a single-agent because it will just increase the toxicity of the drug. >
You keep talking in absolutes, which you shouldn't. What single target drugs are you talking about? Right, if you have drugs that were so specialized that they only hit one specific target, and you could combine 2 such drugs in situations where both those targets were the only or major drivers of cell proliferation in a tumor, it would be great. Now let's enter the real world. Why are you dismissing combinations studies with kinase inhibitors when many such studies are in progress and there have been significant results, such as Nexavar in breast cancer. I guess the clinicians and oncologists you cited didn't notice these things. Perhaps you should widen your circle of references.
Market Data 
Markets 
AI
