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 56.89

+1.2%

Jan 14 3:59 PM EST

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next

To: jayhawk969 who wrote (10537)	2/20/2004 6:07:11 PM
From: quidditch	Read Replies (3) of 52153

J.D., I did go back and listen to that part of the call and related Q&A (while doing a few other things), and I come out closer to your perspective (which, unabetted by Peter's expertise, doesn't mean a whole heck of a lot) than to Peter's or Fred's. In the presentation part of the call, Corrigan somewhat stressed that it was "our opinion" that the new studies didn't confirm any tox signal or indicate other tox issues. In the Q&A, I thought that he got very mealy mouthed about trying to clarify what the parameters and premises of that opinion are. There is no question that SEPR knew that this would come up in the call; presumably, the answer was thought out and vetted by counsel. There is also no question that management didn't want to go out on a limb with false negatives. That said, I thought that the answer management gave in the Q&A lacked clarity and forthrightness. Isn't it better to give the facts than a murky characterization of the facts? quid

Report TOU Violation

Share This Post

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next