Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

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 : XOMA. Bull or Bear? -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Robert S. who wrote (10389)	6/9/1999 9:09:00 PM
From: Robert K.	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 17367

"is still a topic of considerable debate:" Somehow I kinda find that arguement lacking. IMO.

To: Robert S. who wrote (10389)	6/10/1999 1:47:00 PM
From: Cacaito	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 17367

Robert S, Endotoxins are not the only trigger of the Systemic Inflammatory response syndrome and or the Multiple Organ Damage Syndrome. (notice only). I post about one month ago several links to the non sepsis causes of the SIRS/MODS. I have posted several times my doubts on the choice of the Hemorrheagic/Trauma trial due precisely to the problems of non sepsis causes. The phase II from Xoma had 400 plus patients, there was only a clear decrease in gram negative pneumonia and the face saving composite pneumonia/ARDS. I would have like more a Phase III trial on abdominal infections (great phase II results)for a clearcut gram-negative indication. I do think they will go ahead with a phase III in due time. Xoma has the clinical infraestructure in place for th Hem/trauma trial, it is probably not very expensive, and they have a chance of showing decrease pneumonia, on itself worthwhile. Even without FDA indication approval it will be used by clinicians for this, if Bpi is FDA approved ever (if....If....If...). But the phase II Hem/trauma did not show decreases in mortality, nor hospital stay, neither costs. These is as clear as could be, Bpi could control infections and sepsis related SIRS/MODS. Bpi could not control other causes of problems. Do you expect it to decrease traffic violations in Manhattan? The article on endotoxins and congestive heart failure show an association between these two, but also showed the disappearance of the endotoxins after successful diuresis treatment. Could Bpi bring improvement faster in this condition? decrease mortality? decrease costs?, speculations for the future, Bpi for sepsis is the present. But, in my view, burn affected patients will be one of the major beneficiaries of bpi products, it is a huge market. Pseudomonas and other resistant organisms are one of the big problems in burn victims., Sepsis is the indication, the rest is speculation. Finally, all (or close to all?)cases of SIRS/MODS will receive Bpi, clinical distinction between sepsis and non sepsis origin will be debate after the use of the medication, TIME (actually the lack of time) will make it so.

To: Robert S. who wrote (10389)	6/13/1999 9:47:00 AM
From: Robert K.	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 17367

Ohhhhhhh, I almost forgot (VBG) >>A question for RobertS>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>RobertSSSS Your comment "George, as is evident from the conclusions presented below, the significance of the role that endotoxins play, in many maladies, is still a topic of considerable debate" RobertS>Now I challenge YOU to actually read the endotoxin paper, read all the scientists that think endotoxin plays a role, and tell me again how considerable the debate actually is that endotoxin does not play a significant role. Reference as many papers as you want to support your case. Standard K. disclaimers.