The latest Investing Matters Podcast episode featuring Jeremy Skillington, CEO of Poolbeg Pharma has just been released. Listen here.
London South East prides itself on its community spirit, and in order to keep the chat section problem free, we ask all members to follow these simple rules. In these rules, we refer to ourselves as "we", "us", "our". The user of the website is referred to as "you" and "your".
By posting on our share chat boards you are agreeing to the following:
The IP address of all posts is recorded to aid in enforcing these conditions. As a user you agree to any information you have entered being stored in a database. You agree that we have the right to remove, edit, move or close any topic or board at any time should we see fit. You agree that we have the right to remove any post without notice. You agree that we have the right to suspend your account without notice.
Please note some users may not behave properly and may post content that is misleading, untrue or offensive.
It is not possible for us to fully monitor all content all of the time but where we have actually received notice of any content that is potentially misleading, untrue, offensive, unlawful, infringes third party rights or is potentially in breach of these terms and conditions, then we will review such content, decide whether to remove it from this website and act accordingly.
Premium Members are members that have a premium subscription with London South East. You can subscribe here.
London South East does not endorse such members, and posts should not be construed as advice and represent the opinions of the authors, not those of London South East Ltd, or its affiliates.
Equally good post on A D V F N site by millwall fan , well worth read
There is a fundamental flaw in EB's post which suggests a lack of understanding of the setting for Parsortix. It doesn't have the potential to reduce medicine use at all, that's no what it's about and if anything it increases it. Just a couple of examples:-
1) Ensuring that patients are on the correct therapy for the genetic profile of their tumour at any given point in time and that changes can be spotted quickly and treatments adjusted accordingly. Currently, when patients are on a targeted therapy, the first indication that their tumour has stopped expressing that particular target will be when their cancer has spread and that's too late.
2) Monitoring of patients who have been successfully treated and are currently clear of cancer by spotting any relapse early and also potentially identifying dormant cancer cells lying in wait in the bone marrow. Rather than living in dread of their cancer returning, patients would have the reassurance of regular monitoring via a simple blood test and if the worst happens, treatment can be started at a much earlier stage.
So Parsortix isn't about reducing drug use, it's making sure the right drugs are used on the right patients at the right time.
EB - So what is the evidence that the FDA (and the MHRA come to that) do not "have a good track record" when it comes to devices that allegedly reduce medicine use? I'd be genuinely interested if there is any.
ElderlyBird
What is this rabid nonsense about FDA/MRHA not wishing to approve Parsortix because Cancer is a cash cow etc? Neither organisation makes any money from from pharma, and in suggesting otherwise you insult the intelligence of other posters. Happy to see your evidence, otherwise a further period of absence from the board will be appreciated
Coincidence that jakeyork turns up with his 'negative holder' patter shortly followed by ElderlyBird with her 'holder who thinks FDA wont grant approval' patter....maybe, maybe not.
Ha ha Phantom25 - no, all you need to do is click on the poster's name and you can quickly see all their previous posts :-)
4 posts over 2 years. all telling us AGL will not achieve FDA
Do you have a calendar reminder set or do you just wait for Jakey Ork to send a message
Hi ElderlyBird
Buzz_Lightyear has explained why this device will be good for pharma but irrespective of that could you share some examples to support your assertion that:-
'the FDA and MHRA do not have a good record at making decisions on new systems that will cut down on drugs'
You have basically said the same thing in each of your 4 posts over the last 2 years but haven't provided any supporting evidence for FDA or MHRA - I'd be interested to see the examples.
Thanks
You are Wrong!
There you go ;D
Parsortix opens up a huge market for expensive personalised oncology drugs that require in depth diagnostic of a Patients exact disease to enable all these new expensive drugs coming to market to be administered correctly.
Parsortix are the enabling technology that offer the level of diagnostic required for many of these new drugs to be used in the clinical market.
Parsortix is also a companion diagnostic for downstream analysis for example Abbotts offering for MBC as used in the trial for the FDA submission. Abbotts Fish probe technology currently on it's own can only be used once on a solid tissue biopsy at presentation, but in conjunction with Parsortix liquid biopsy, Abbott will be able to offer their diagnostic multiple times for each patient.
Large Pharma will beat a path to Angle's door in order to increase their own revenues.
I am afraid the FDA and MHRA do not have a good record at making decisions on new systems that will cut down on drugs. In my humble opinion they are too interested in the bottom line. Better and quicker diagnosis = less expensive treatment. Please tell me I am wrong.