Biotechnology Value Fund, L.P. 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 : Biotechnology Value Fund, L.P.

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next

To: John Starks who wrote (538)	3/24/1999 1:26:00 AM
From: scaram(o)uche	Read Replies (1) of 4974

John: Good, admire your conviction. >> but doesn't all science build on existing work? << Sure, but....... all work should be internally consistent if sufficient documentation does not exist elsewhere. In this case, the last lines of the manuscript should have read..... "this work is not internally consistent. We set out to find a potential mechanism of action for an anti-angio compound, but we can find little evidence that it is indeed an anti-angio compound. The biological significance of our results, therefore, is entirely dependent on the veracity and capacities of others." Despite all the huffing and puffing about peer review, PNAS is still an old boy's club. The results in the paper are impressive and largely conclusive, IMO. And, it may provide a new way to look at the inhibition of angiogenesis. However, I would have dinged it or insisted on independent verification of substantial biological activity. How would ENMD's molecules compare, head-to-head, with the BPI fragment that XOMA describes? How many random proteins can we cut up to find exactly what we are looking for? Rick

Report TOU Violation

Share This Post

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next