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 : CLTR COULTER PHARMACEUTICAL -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Gordon James who wrote (255)	8/23/1999 11:23:00 AM
From: Gordon James	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 666

P.S. regarding HAMA and first-line treatment, I suppose it's not necessarily the case that a possible inability to adequately control HAMA in first-line Bexxar treatment would preclude widespread use of first-line Bexxar - if we were to find through analysis of results that patients' long-term survival was improved with first-line Bexxar vs. not using it first-line, then it might be determined that the increased risk of HAMA preventing subsequent Bexxar treatments would be outweighed by the survival benefit. So this would perhaps end up being more of a problem for CLTR and it's shareholders than for patients (less Bexxar sales for re-treatment). Still seems a less likely scenario to me, but possible I'm sure...

To: Gordon James who wrote (255)	8/23/1999 2:47:00 PM
From: Bob L	Respond to of 666

Gordon, Since I don't have a strong background in the science at hand, I'm reluctant to speculate much beyond what I can read in the journals and abstracts. For me, the data are just too thin to reach conclusions about bexxar/fludarabine combinations. Plus, I feel that we all have a subjective bias in favor of radiolabeled antibodies vs unlabeled antibodies. Radiolabeled just oughta do better, right? I tend to compensate for that perceived bias by discounting somewhat the conclusions reached from the data so far. I don't exactly diverge with you on the belief that bexxar provides superior treatment to rituxan. I think the preliminary results are very encouraging but well short of proving this point. Similarly, its great that the trials so far suggest that bexxar may provide more durable responses. But the patient populations were so small. I think the small populations are a particular problem for NHL, because there is so much individual variation in disease. It is hard to find two patients who really seem to have the same disease, either at the cellular level or in terms of the way the disease has progressed. I wonder why the rituxan investigators chose to try CHOP first, rather than fludarabine or some other chemo. Was it because they suspected a particular synergy there, or did they just want to hit it with the biggest club they had to see what happened? As you say, CHOP is no picnic. On the investment side, I'm pretty comfortable with the view that bexxar will likely be approved and it will likely be used extensively to treat NHL in some manner. Thus, the company should be worth a good bit more in the future than it is today. As I understand it, this is a fundamentally good thing in investing . . . . I questioned the bexxar/fludarabine theory not to argue against it, but to see if others would tell me things I don't know. I'm glad you responded. I look forward to your future posts.