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 : Biotech vs. Shorts -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Biomaven who wrote (10)	7/25/1999 3:22:00 PM
From: LLCF	Respond to of 427

Business Week this week has Sturart Weisbrod of "Merlin Biomed" saying in the first paragraph "Although biotech stocks show signs of rebounding, they're still no picknic, "I'm short a lot of them" says Weisbrod. He goes on to say how he still believes that the best investment plays are in the "orphan" and undiscovered biotechs. The best catches he says can be snared amoung biotechs with market caps of about 100 million with promising product pipelines and ample cash. [likes ARNX, BRCX] The only short he listed was ENMD... it certainly wasn't a bash article... more like "it's dangerous out here, so you better hire me". DAK

To: Biomaven who wrote (10)	7/26/1999 9:23:00 AM
From: scaram(o)uche	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 427

I don't have many contacts among neurosurgeons. I have one. That's not a large sampling. However, that one individual says that there are no problems with Adcon-L. Extensive preclinical work argues against the claims made by Biotech13 at Yahoo. I have assumed that the individual making those posts is a liar, and I feel that it is unfortunate that a forum like Yahoo exists where anonymity can lead to unjustifiable attacks on companies that are trying to bring MEDICINE to the patient. messages.yahoo.com Jesse Eisinger lurks at SI and reads our posts. I've verified that at each of the last two H&Q meetings. He therefore knows that we've been effectively commenting on (and countering the logic in) his articles. I do not consider his past reporting to have been irresponsible, but I would consider going back to the same sources to be such, since we've effectively discredited them.