As the few people who come up to my site already realize, I've had a strained relationship a good amount of the time with my editors at Seeking Alpha. Quite frankly, I'm a difficult person to work with because I have impossible standards for myself that bleeds over to unrealistic expectations of others.
Yesterday, however, Mike Taylor, Eli Hoffman, George Moriarty, Daniel Shvartsman and company did something truly heroic. They allowed me to speak openly within a published piece on Seeking Alpha about an added layer of due diligence I perform on most stocks I consider called a tarot card reading. This is no small thing. Many, if not most, people treat practitioners of tarot as if they were charlatans. Just as marginalizing are those who feign acceptance while insisting we not talk about it thereby keeping it in the closet.
Therefore, I wish to thank Mike, Eli, George, Daniel and anyone else who participated in that decision for their courage. I doubt seriously that anyone of them has an experience with this craft that would afford them the confidence in it that I possess, but that's what makes their choice uncommon, and what makes me highly appreciative.
And I want to thank Mike Taylor, once again, for saving me due embarrassment by nixing the publication of my naïve submission on NovaBay recently. Due because I haven't learned to stop falling for the nonsense that biotech executives habitually throw out there for gullible people like me to eat up. In this regard, and many others, I'm a total loser. Mike saved me from myself. And for that I'm grateful.
Always be well...
To understand how this works, I encourage you to read the article in which I introduced the concept which you can find here. What follows is a brief excerpt.
This index is essentially a spectrum of subjectivity running from the malignant on the left to the benign on the right. I know that some of you will argue that to be human is to encompass all of those qualities on the far right side of the page, but for me, these are more divine attributes. Placing a product within this spectrum is done by assessing how much of an impact it will have on the ruling paradigm. In other words, FDA representatives, since the PDUFA act of 1992 depend on large-cap pharmaceutical companies for their very jobs, and consequently, are likely to subconsciously produce judgments in their favor. It is, therefore, wise to note how many companies could be materially affected by a favorable decision and to what extent they would be materially affected.
So, where on this spectrum is the FDA as a regulatory body? Well, my answer to that question would be, like most of us, all over the expanse of it at any given time based upon the circumstances presented.
Please keep in mind that this is only one aspect of this (drug approval) process. The science under girding each application rightly occupies center stage in our thinking. But to deny the fact that the FDA is now more akin to a bureaucratic oligarchy than a democratic institution is foolish at best. And the consequence of this is, at the very least, an opening of the door to subconscious manipulation of otherwise well-intended agency representatives.
Always be well...