Replies to post #137485 on Biotech Values

[oldberkeley]

Following the link to his site, on 2/19 he was predicting a yes vote. I assume that's been superseded by AF's info.

He gives his rationale for changing his prediction, followed by a more detailed discussion:

Highlights from Previous Prediction
•We correctly projected 22 potential panel members.
•Burman, Flegal, Goldfine and Henderson were asked to return. We originally predicted they would not serve on this panel due to their EMDAC terms expiring.
•FDA included seven fresh non-EMDAC members who have not served on any of the obesity drug panels. Their names are highlighted in orange.
•There is minimal cardiovascular representation on this panel. FDA decided to include more teratogenicity experts, including Suzanne Gilboa who is attending as a non-voting speaker. More on her below.
•One of the caveats of our previous prediction was that Flack, Hiatt, Segal, Balish, and Hirsch were the members least likely to be asked to serve on this panel. That turned out to be the case, as none of them are included on the draft roster. Consequently, this panel lost a lot of projected yes votes from our previous prediction. Lost votes are Yes 8, No 3.

My concern is the validity of predicting the vote based on the voters, rather than the drug itself.