JN's 3 Un-named "Experts" v. Elsevier BI Therapeutic Area Partnerships independant panel of experts?
This seems a bit funny that the market is responding so strongly to this guy's tweet based upon unvetted and unidentified sources who's credentials or track records of successfully evaluating the validity of concepts or potential efficacy of compounds is unsubstantiated. On the other hand, we have an market recognized source of independant, industry specific and proven experts who have a vetted and substantiated history of successfully evaluating the validity of concepts and the potential efficacy of compounds identifying Z-160 as a Top Project to watch in the Nueroscience field and were kind enough to lay out the outline of the criteria they used in their determination. Most interesting is that Z-160 was selected over "hundreds of compounds...who's potential of becoming a future product" was weighed!
I don't get your comment, "now one wonders"? Nor do I understand why you say "this is clearly troubling"! There is no rationale for these comments. I would request that Jason submits the qualifications of his sources within the specific field of Neuroscience and Bio-chemistry along with their track record of successful evaluation of concepts and viability of proposed compounds within the field of question! This is as negligent as yelling fire in a crowded theater; I seriously question the ethics and professional integrity of a person who would make such an inflamatory remark during a highly volitile phase of a compound's clinical trials without substantiating and disclosing the quality of his sources. This guy is as bad as the husband who lit his cigarette while filling his tank catching his wife on fire!