Farmas USA

soy monogamo

Cierto, a mí me lo ha repetido muchas veces. Lo cual no excluye la pornografía de rubias de pote. :)

Bueno, que haga 9 ya para las opciones de mañana y fin de año ya a 7 para el rebalanceo de los fondos. Que conste que la última vez nos tangó así, con las opciones un par de días antes y luego cayó y cayó.

Señoras y señores, dejen de mentar ruinas por diosssssss.

Framus, eres un señor de los pies a la cabeza, que conste que tocarse no cuenta como cuernos eh. Y si nos vamos a las reglas no escritas, si es de otro estado no cuenta... jaja

Sigo con el off-topic. Este video de pulp fiction con el tema de las elecciones españolas me ha encantado, dos minutos muy entretenidos:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CYxDmP9fqdw

Y perdón...

OXGN

De hace 5 min por si alguien quiere tradearla

OXiGENE Receives European Orphan Drug Designation for OXi4503 to Treat Acute Myeloid Leukemia

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/oxigene-receives-european-orphan-drug-200000285.html

Interesante artículo sobre Vincent T. DeVita y la historia del tratamiento del cáncer. Pego solo la parte relativa a la aprobación de medicamenteos de la FDA

The F.D.A. is the country’s diffusion gatekeeper: its primary goal is to make sure that good drugs get a gold star and bad drugs never make it to market.

DeVita reminds us, though, that this gatekeeping can hinder progress. A given tumor, for instance, can rarely be stopped with a single drug. Cancer is like a door with three locks, each of which requires a different key. Suppose you came up with a drug that painlessly opened the first of those three locks. That drug would be a breakthrough. But it can’t cure anything on its own. So how do you get it through a trial that requires proof of efficacy—especially if you don’t yet know what the right keys for the two remaining locks are? Since cancer comes in a dizzying variety of types and subtypes, each with its own molecular profile, we want researchers to be free to experiment with different combinations of keys. Instead, DeVita argues, the F.D.A. has spent the past two decades pushing cancer medicine in the opposite direction. He continues:

Drugs are now approved not for a specific cancer or for general use in a variety of cancers but for a specific stage of a specific cancer and specifically after and only after patients have had all current treatments, which are listed drug by drug, and the treatments have all failed. Doctors risk F.D.A. censure if they use an approved drug under any other circumstances, and patients are penalized because insurance companies won’t pay for treatments not approved by the F.D.A.

The vital insight gained by using an approved drug in a different way for a different tumor has been lost.

There’s a second problem with the “efficacy” requirement. Suppose Drug A, the existing treatment for a certain type of cancer, wipes out all but a billion cells in the typical patient’s tumor. Drug B, your alternative, wipes out all but a handful. DeVita points out two curious facts. First, a typical tumor has so many billions of cells that even a drug that leaves a billion cells untouched will look good after an initial treatment cycle. More important, after five years the patients on both Drugs A and B may have identical survival rates. That’s because of something called the Norton-Simon effect: smaller populations of cancer cells grow back faster than larger populations. But, in reality, Drugs A and B aren’t identical. If you are designing a combination of drugs to cure a cancer, DeVita writes, “the treatment that reduced the population to a few cells is the one you want to go forward with.” How many researchers and companies sit on promising therapies because they don’t want to spend several hundred million dollars on a clinical trial, only to fall short of the F.D.A.’s high bar?

DeVita would have the F.D.A. take a step sideways—away from worrying exclusively about standards and safety, and closer to the innovation end of the continuum. In this respect, his position echoes that of Peter Huber, who in his 2013 book, “The Cure in the Code,” called on the F.D.A. to stop evaluating drugs as cures and start evaluating them as tools

http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2015/12/14/tough-medicine

PAT,,,,no las sueltes todavia......KERX

KERX
Acabo de llegar de la comida merienda cena de navidad. Me quede sin batería cuando estaba en -3%. Y ahora llego y me encuentro con este rally. Seguimos en ella.
Lleva buenas ventas en USA. A ver si los japos se ponen las pilas, y un buen partner en Europa.
Y en Q2 de 2016 liberan dstos del estudio que estan llevando a cabo si es positivo esos 8 los supera.
Que siga la fiesta.

Brutal la caída de IBB y los futuros de última hora.

U.S. stocks under pressure as oil settles below $35

http://www.marketwatch.com/story/us-stocks-set-to-continue-fed-fueled-santa-rally-2015-12-17?dist=afterbell