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: aknahow who wrote (11286)	8/17/1999 2:32:00 AM
From: opalapril	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 17367

<<it may be that even 12 or 13 deaths in the treatment arm vs 22 or 21 in the placebo do not provide statistical significance>> Perhaps not, IN THEMSELVES. <<but it would IMO still be a very positive sign.>> Agreed. This would be consistent with the analysis you posted earlier. It would also be consistent with Xoma's release statement -- <<Based on its preliminary analysis XOMA believes the data show a clinical benefit in mortality and morbidities, but is scheduling a meeting with the FDA to determine adequacy for filing a BLA.>> As I understand the analysis given at the url you posted, statistical analysis of mortality and morbidity results of an anti-sepsis compound should be understood as far more complicated than any ordinary one-tail or two-tail probability calculation such as suggested weeks earlier by almost everyone. The questions to ask are at least as complicated as the answers sought. Under these circumstances, of course the FDA would want to meet beforehand and settle with Xoma on the details of an appropriate skein of endpoints, exclusions, points in time and treatment, perhaps differing weights to differing clinical settings, etc. etc. etc. Would have been nice if Castello were more of a teacher and had lectured the cc a little on this. Then again, there is this problem of not wanting to ruffle the FDA's feathers.....

To: aknahow who wrote (11286)	8/17/1999 2:34:00 AM
From: Dan O	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 17367

Someone wrote that the company should not wait till open to clarify Ellen's statement. I second that. Jesus, there was a small breath of HOPE that the market would calm down and just approach the morning as a mild disappointment until Bloomberg stepped on our oxygen chord. Ellen's statement, coupled with the fact that Bloomberg had a comletely different tone (MORE FACTS?) than management had in the conference call are both very concerning to me.

To: aknahow who wrote (11286)	8/17/1999 8:08:00 AM
From: Tharos	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 17367

If BPI helps, but fails statistical significance, how is that a positive sign? The FDA will want to see significance.

To: aknahow who wrote (11286)	8/17/1999 9:10:00 AM
From: Cacaito	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 17367

Speculonews no more, Only the actual data could help. No need for further guessing. Is this a plank? a plot to deinflate the recent Murphy/Sutro bubble? to protect themselves legally? Castello the sober notice, Martin the explosive backstage storm "pr". Ms Martin was it intentionally? or is this a deception by the reporter? George, now is when we need the 1 million shares you got to vote no. With this "pr" should be able to double the pledges. But this time should be for access to the data.