Graham:
I have gone over my old posts and I am having difficulty matching my statements with the labeled "points" in the scientist's note to you in post #289.
In any case, point #4 is not important because it's just jargon. I think an article written by Crick in 1970 about what he may have meant in 1958 does not matter in 1998. I went to college in 1976-80 and graduated medical school in 1985; they were teaching it as I stated back then. Now that we have the modus operandi of retroviruses figured out, it doesn't matter what I was taught or what Crick may have really meant. What matters is to this thread is if this company has developed novel and usable technology to fight diseases and if they can make it work, then profit as a business while they serve people.
So, to point #1, I could concede their point if it can be done in vivo AND work to solve the disease problem. It may involve cell regulatory mechanisms that are either more complicated than they have assumed or already out of control (i.e. perhaps with multiple chromosomal defects). Should that make the stock quadruple? IMO, all speculation, but if you want to, try the ride. Big Dog et. al. apparently are. Point#3 basically = point #1.
Point #2 -Regarding the primary use of the vector, I surmised their potential use for the vector based on statements taken directly from their website. Looking back now after reading the answer, I think it was reasonable to make my assumption as their website info is still the same(from the website-"To properly repair the foreshortened telomere end, a single strand of DNA with the proper sequence of nucleotides is needed..."). Anyway, that sounded like a vector for use in gene therapy to me. If they want to argue that it is merely antisense therapy, fine, but I think that would be defined by the specific disease.
I may just be arguing points about which the technical definitions I may be somewhat behind but conceptually the problems I point out are real and, even if this is considered a breakthrough, it isn't going to work in humans tomorrow, next week or next year, IMO. Several years, maybe. Can you maintain a stock price on that?
The bottom line here is that there is no bottom line here. This could be big. It might be developed by someone else who has a slightly different biologic technique that evades the patent.
MCRR stocks were usually picked by looking at investment fundamentals. Hey, I have HTEK and nothing is happening yet. And XGNT and Pacer. But they have profits. I can only say that what we have is very preliminary - the market will do what the market will do, and unfortunately I am not privy. |
