Let's see - which one tonight.....
I choose Cistron, the ugly duckling. After all the title of the thread is Recs (i.e. recommendations) and wrecks. While Cistron isn't a wreck, it ain't exactly a beemer either. So, John, tell me about Cistron. Here are my conditions: TELL ME ABOUT THEIR SCIENCE. (No lawyers, no money, no consultants, no licensing agreements). Just the facts about what this company believes to be its most valuable proprietary asset. Here's my DD - and slap me silly if my findings are foolish.
[and recall I have a somewhat strict policy of not visiting a company's thread for info - highly unreliable data]
As far as I can tell, company scientists have published 1 paper (in 1988, announcing the development of an ELISA to detect Trichomonas vaginalis, a bacterium infecting 4 million women). No more info on PubMed.
Examine Edgar: Minimal info. No filings since May 15, 1997 and only 10-Qs shown. Lots and lots and lots and lots and lots of stuff about litigation settlements with Immunex and PeproTech re: IL-1, etc. OK, OK, we all agree they have a unbelievable amount of cash on hand. Then comes this: The Company sells its products to the research market and has not generated significant revenues therefrom. None of its products have been submitted to or received approval from the Food and Drug Administration for the sale of such products to the diagnostic or therapeutic markets.
So what does Cistron do? And once again, may I remind Cistron devotees, we now all know that the company has 15 million bucks in their piggy bank. Please point me to solid evidence (not company memos, CEO pronouncements, consultant appointments, pacts, treaties, letters of understanding, love sonnets) that the company will spend their windfall judiciously.
This could be a very intriguing situation. Just answer the questions.
Best wishes,
Peter |
