RE:RE:RE:ONC/Y and the FDAventure009 wrote: An AA is something we would all like but I don't think it's going to happen. The FDA is in the BP back pocket and an AA wouldn't be in their best interest.
Do you have specific knowledge of this in the case of ONC/Y, venture009? I looked online for corruption/bribery issues involving FDA and only found a handful mentioned in the last five years or so. FDA is overseeing thousands of trials a year. I'd suggest it's a small problem.
There is an issue with the pharma industry providing funding to FDA - there are legislators who think that creates a conflict of interest (and I agree with them) - current FDA budgets are funded about 75% by industry. However, BP tends to act more through their lobbying group, and their lobbyists seem to spend more time restricting generic drug production. What collusion I could find was to get new drugs approved rather than the opposite.
In the case of ONC/Y, Pfizer/Merck/Roche would benefit either way - an AA would give them quite rapid access to an enlarged market for their partner drugs in the ONC/Y combo. They'd likely make more money owning Pela, but they still make money from their own partner drugs in the Pela combos. And they get a further 12 years' patent protection either way.