Replies to post #128523 on Biotech Values

[iwfal]

I hope I never buy into this attitude that seems pervasive here that if there's a bear case, the investment is a dud

You seem instead to lean the other way and call it neutral - e.g. you called the one and only study I found a bear case just because it happened to be negative. As I am not so subtley saying - that isn't neutral. That is lean-over-backwards-positive.

As for why there is "negative attitude" here it is because this board (and science in general) believes in the aphorism 'extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof'. Or, since you want to use probability, try the following on for size:

If DRUG A is known to be completely effective at treating rare disease x which has 80% mortality within 1 week - curing 100%. The downside is that it kills 20 percent of patients from side effects. In contrast another drug, DRUG B, cures only 70% of patients (the remaining 30% still die) but is very safe (no one dies from the drug). You are diagnosed with disease x. Should you take DRUG A or DRUG B?

(And, yes, this quiz is directly pertinent to why you perceive this board as very negative - but you'll have to take the quiz before I explain how.)

[exwannabe]

I hope I never buy into this attitude that seems pervasive here that if there's a bear case, the investment is a dud.

I have no opinion on the stock. I would tend to think the drug does work though, as we know anthracyclines are effective and presumably the PK benefit was easy to establish.

I would disagree with your view that posters must be on the "right" side of every argument. In this case, for me to disagree with the "we can do the numbers" crowd in no way implies I think the trial is unlikely to hit. yet you think it did.