Ron:
Lots of thoughts.......
1. You brag about your neuro background, but..... in all of your history here, you've not made any neuro picks. You've just hung around under various handles and told us how lousy ours have been.
Ours have been very profitable. Why does that disturb you so?
2. You brag about your track record being as good as anyone's here, as good as any portfolio.
Are you only counting since you tried to sneak back as Scott? Are you only counting ARIA, KLIC and that diagnostic company? That's hilarious. The fact is that you have one of SI's worst records, if not the worst.
3. Does everyone here know who you are, despite the fact that I socialize with, for example, Jim? No.
Why? Because, despite your paranoia re. my PMs, my policy at SI is to not accept them. There are numerous contributors lurking here who could verify that. I don't answer the majority of PMs that I receive, but I feel guilty about it and don't delete them either. I currently have 20 messages in my inbox, dating back to 8/29/99. If you can get Jill to do such, you are welcome to retrieve all of my PMs for years and to publish them here. There are no PMs that relate to you or your paranoia (post "Courtney days", that is). There are very few PMs, period. I don't do them, and you'd see repeated references to such.
4. You pick GLIA as my weak pick. I've been one of the most visible of online biotech proponents since Spring '95. That's over five years. You pick a stock where I (1) made a decent return, (2) exited well before crunch time, and (3) clearly posted at SI and Yahoo that I was exiting and my reason for doing such.
I have no concept why our success ticks you off so much, but thanks for the indirect compliment.
With respect to your making fun of Miljenko's English. He's a man.
You have challenged me in public on one neuro issue. I was correct..... acetylcholinesterase inhibitors are selling well.
Make some neuro picks, loud mouth. I wish you well. I wish you the marked success that we've, despite our horrendously weak backgrounds, had with ours.
My god what a unfortunate - and disgustingly, sophmorically personal -reaction to what I considered quite positive comments to the TTP data.
Couldn't have had anything to do with the little comments that you've peppered around SI since coming back, could it? You're such an innocent, picked-on guy. Not.
Are we supposed cower under the likelihood, no the certainty, that Rick sends more PMs than Dear Abby ever would write to assure complete compliance with his view of 'acceptable' participants in SI biotech forums?
Ron.... sincerely.... get SI personnel to post all of my PMs. Go back as far as you like. You're off in your imaginary world, making enemies that need not exist. You're correct, however..... I wish you weren't here, and, IMO, it would be best if you had never set foot in a lab.
The only thing that "assures compliance" with content in any SI biotech thread is our track record. Without that, any attempt to control the content of certain threads would not have washed.
What one sees in public at SI is what one gets of me. Your "assure complete compliance" is delusionary. I'm certain that, with your neuro background, you'll be aware of the correct drugs for extreme paranoia and fixed misconceptions.
I wish that there was a drug that could induce, where necessary and appropriate, apology.
I'll continue to communicate directly with you in the Fountain thread. Your track record as a stock picker is horrid, and it's appropriate that someone continues to counter your claims.
I know, I know.... you have a cousin who does investigations for the SEC, and you've committed all your sins as part of a trap for the bad guys. Bull.
Message #60 from scott_jiminez at Sep 26, 2000 4:24 AM
<<Two 600 pts pivotal placebo and active drug controlled completed. Highly statistical significant, positive and
negative symptoms, no safety issue! >>
My god what a unfortunate - and disgustingly, sophmorically personal -reaction to what I considered quite positive
comments to the TTP data. I will revise my wording to indicate the patient poulation was more than adequate for
the scope of PII and PIII. I will reiterate my points, said up front and prominently, that Zomaril is likely to be a
'significant improvement versus current antipsychotic regimens', and 'strongly suggesting a win/win scenario: a
reduction in both positive and negative symtomology together with substantially fewer extrapyramidal, cardiac,
weight-related etc. contaminating factors. '
But PII and preliminary PIII data is just that.
I did my graduate work with someone who was just entering the schizophrenia field and thus doing a substantial
literature compilation. The field is fraught with reports of 'wonder drugs' only to be shown to be applicable to a
restricted sub-group of the effected population subsequent to approval for broad use.
And this <<Right! In your dream!>> crap! What the hell is that? Where the hell are you coming from anyway?
Describe to me your training - or that of Rick Harmon for that matter - in neurobiology and thus having the proper
background and perspective to judge schizophrenia pharmacology. I guess it's irrelevent to dilineate the 5-HT
versus the DA synaptic chemistry in order to understand this relatively new class of of atypical antipsychotics. Do
you even understand what make these a 'new class' in the first place or is the science irrelevant?
In short, I gave high praise for the promise of Zomaril. However, with a much clearer understanding of the history of
antipsychotics than you display, I was logically and rationally hesitant to be blindly gangbusters about the data
(like yourself) until a much broader population sampling is achieved.
And what the hell is this Ariad 'baying' nonsense? For someone who has 'Many semi-favorite, only one true love...
REGN, REGN and only REGN' in their profile, you've got incredible nerve! What a friggin' hypocrite! And what
about Rick Harmon's astute 'baying' of Gliatech (talk about a short!)? Your collective hubris is off-scale.
And I challenge you to compare the publication records of Ariad and Regeneron. Not even close...but oops! I
forgot...the science doesn't count (and it also doesn't count that I'm on public record on SI that I sold about 98% of
my ARIA holdings about 6 months ago...but why in the <expletive deleted> should I have to explain this to
YOU??).
Are we supposed to be AFRAID of everyone Rick Harmon makes friends with? Are we supposed cower under the
likelihood, no the certainty, that Rick sends more PMs than Dear Abby ever would write to assure complete
compliance with his view of 'acceptable' participants in SI biotech forums? Is everyone outside his 'clique' open to
absurd broadsides like you just unleashed while the 'insiders' are protected? What is this, the SI version of the
Balkans??? Do you always follow so closely Rick Harmon's coattails, Miljenko, and do you remind him (and
yourself) at every opportunity of the incredible 'baying' you two do of your own pet stocks?
I can't believe the tone and the personal nature of your post - obviously based on encouragement from Rick
Harmon - since we've had few, if any, exchanges in the past. If I misrepresented the number of patients that were
appropriate for this stage of Zomaril's development, fine. I deserve to be corrected...in a dignified and intelligent
manner. That's what SI is all about. Your tone was, and is, unnecessary especially since it reeks of the paradox
that you have no training whatsoever in the Neurosciences. GO FIGURE THAT ONE!
(but there I go again letting that silly Science creep into the text).
No one on SI (or anywhere else) would or should put up with your tone; I can promise you your tone and approach
will be met in kind.
Scott |
