Biotech Valuation Message Board

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Biotech / Medical : Biotech Valuation

CRSP 56.58

-0.7%

3:59 PM EST

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next

To: mistermj who wrote (6068)	4/2/2002 12:25:18 PM
From: Biomaven	Read Replies (1) of 52153

mjfdl, <ENMD> SECOND THEORY: One or more Big Pharma oncology companies has reason to expect that EntreMed's products will succeed and eventually replace cytotoxic chemotherapy. This threatens a multi-billion dollar yearly market. Biotech companies use access to the capital markets to fund their trials, and advance their products. If spending $250,000,000 on a strategic shorting program can delay patient access to EntreMed's non-toxic therapeutics by 6 months or more, then it is MONEY WELL SPENT. They have a responsibility to their shareholders, after all. What's a few tens of thousands of lives compared to that? All my general legal and biotech knowledge tells me that the above theory is laughable. I haven't followed ENMD closely for a while (I owned it before all the publicity but sold on the spike. I've played it a few times since then but never in any size). One concern I do have is with the stability of endostatin. Is this still an issue? My recollection - correct me if I'm wrong - is that some endostatin failures were blamed on the use of non-potent versions. Peter

Report TOU Violation

Share This Post

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next