Replies to post #128527 on Biotech Values

[nagpost]

I must be missing something. What do you mean when you say "disease x which has 80% mortality within 1 week" and then follow it up with "the remaining 30% still die". Is the mortality rate 80% or 100%?

[TastyTheElf]

iwfal, re my bad attitude:

First, that wasn't the only RFA case I'd looked at. It had just been a long while, and I was in a hurry. The "bear case" you found IS the big one that CLSN longs worry about.

Regarding your "quiz", I'd take the safe drug then if it failed, I'd take the one with side effects. It would make my overall chance of surviving 70% + 30% x 80%, or 94%.

My contention about the board was exaggerated. But there is a lot of that here -- meaning, finding ways to dismiss certain stock ideas. TSPT was a good example. If you read the press release, and didn't apply heavy skepticism re mgmt, and looked at the B/S, it was a great risk/reward. Co had a TON of cash, and therefore tons of staying power, and a surmountable FDA issue.

That one was my fault. I should have followed my instincts.

[kookiekook]

Given the limited information provided I would choose Drug B (ie lower success but no side effects).

A better understanding of the side effect(s) from Drug A and of the disease would affect my decision and might change my answer.

[MacTheKnife]

iwfal,

"rare disease x which has 80% mortality within 1 week"

"DRUG B, cures only 70% of patients (the remaining 30% still die) but is very safe"

Drug B "cures" (by definition, eliminates the disease) in 70%, but why would the other 30% have to die? After all the disease has an 80% mortality rate, not 100%! The number who should die if 70% are cured is 30% x 80% = 24% only. So 76% survive if they take drug B.