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 : Cistron Biotechnology(CIST)$.30 -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: John Metcalf who wrote (2497)	10/4/1999 4:53:00 AM
From: Walter Morton	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 2742

Thanks John. However, the stock goes up and down all the time. Of the 20+ million shares outstanding there is very little trading going on. It seems to me that if the market were afraid about something the trading volume would be much higher than what it has been during the last few days and years. I think the people who own most of the stock are at the Universities that gave the patents to CIST. They don't seem to be worried. So, why should the little guy who knows very little about the technology be worried? I agree that CIST has been slow to create a major product out of IL-1b, but they did successfully create ICE (which took a few years). This past 10-K mentioned more actual testing of the technology than I have ever read before. It seems that outsourcing the R&D has sped up the R&D process. Frankly, I don't believe CIST knew about PAI-2 being in Phase II clinical trials until that email was posted to the thread from Biotech Australia. Genome Securities would have included that information in the sales pitch. Anyway, the PAI-2 technology is the closes of all to potentially becoming a marketable product. If all else fails CIST could probably sue somebody into a merger agreement. With just a few employees I believe that the Millions in cash (plus another $3 million next month) could sustain CIST for several years until it finish its research and clinical trials. Once clinical trials are completed it should be much easier to find marketing partners. If CIST knows that it will never get that $31 million from PMC and that the PAI-2 clinical trials will be a failure, then CIST should liquidate the company NOW!!!

To: John Metcalf who wrote (2497)	10/7/1999 1:48:00 PM
From: scaram(o)uche	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 2742

In the event that Galton didn't sell the entire farm...... Thursday October 7, 12:03 pm Eastern Time Company Press Release SOURCE: CytImmune Sciences, Inc. Colloidal Gold as a Targeted Drug/Gene Delivery System COLLEGE PARK, Md., Oct. 7 /PRNewswire/ -- CytImmune Sciences, Inc. has received an award of $2 million from the Advanced Technology Program (ATP). The ATP, part of the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), Department of Commerce, conducts a rigorous competition for new technologies in the fields of biotechnology, chemistry, information technology, electronics and photonics, and materials and manufacturing whose impact on the national economy is deemed to be significant. The Company was one of 37 companies chosen from over 400 applicants to receive this award. This 3-year cooperative agreement will help fund The Company's R&D program, which is focused on commercializing a colloidal gold-based drug and gene delivery system. The ATP sponsored research will help support two new cancer therapies. The first therapy is designed to safely and efficaciously deliver the potent anti-cancer cytokine, tumor necrosis factor alpha (TNFa), while the second therapy is designed to develop a targeted, non-viral gene therapy for the antiangiogenic factor, Endostatin(TM). The Company is currently working in collaboration with the National Cancer Institute and EntreMed, Inc. to bring these therapies forward through the necessary pre- clincial studies prior to entering the clinic. The Company recognized early that the unique chemistry of colloidal gold may provide safe, effective, targeted delivery for highly active drugs and genes. Colloidal gold is a solution of gold nanoparticles that is manufactured from inexpensive gold salts. These sub-microscopic spheres have been used clinically to treat disease, but their use as a clinical drug/gene delivery system has not been previously explored. The Company has a number of patents pending that cover the various uses of colloidal gold in medicine. ATP funding will help The Company realize its goal of providing new therapies for cancer treatment. By using the colloidal gold delivery system, The Company will demonstrate that cytokine treatment and gene therapy may be directed or targeted to specific cells within the body to enhance safety and efficacy. These cancer treatments can then achieve their full potential. ''Because of this correlation this project will directly influence the evolution of traditional medicine as we know it,'' remarks Lawrence Tamarkin, Ph.D., President and CEO, Cytimmune Sciences Inc. When successfully developed and later commercialized, the technology may reduce the toxicity of many drugs and transform the practice of oncology to emphasize therapies that harness the body's natural defenses. College Park, Md.-based CytImmune Sciences Inc., is a privately held company founded in 1988. The Company patented its ACCUCYTE® product line in 1996 and has commercialized 52 different immunoassay kits under the ACCUCYTE® and CytELISA(TM) product lines. After receiving an initial round of funding in 1997, the Company is collaborating with research entities worldwide to explore new platform technologies including targeted drug delivery systems, methods for safe delivery of cytokines for immunotherapeutic regimens, gene therapy, and vaccine adjuvants. For further information, please visit the CytImmune Sciences Web site at www.cytimmune.com. Statements herein that are not descriptions of historical facts are forward-looking and subject to risk and uncertainties. Actual results could differ materially from those currently anticipated due to a number of factors, including risks relating to the early stage of products under development; uncertainties relating to clinical trials; dependence on third parties, future capital needs; and risks relating to the commercialization, if any, of the Company's proposed products (such as marketing, safety, regulatory, patent, product liability, supply, competition and other risks). ACCYCYTE is a registered trademark and CytELISA is a trademark of CytImmune Sciences, Inc. Endostatin is a trademark of EntreMed, Inc. SOURCE: CytImmune Sciences, Inc.

To: John Metcalf who wrote (2497)	10/8/1999 12:31:00 AM
From: Walter Morton	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 2742

September 1999 J Virol, 73(9):7193-8 1999 Sep Shafren DR; Gardner J; Mann VH; Antalis TM; Suhrbier A Therapeutic interference with virus-cell surface receptor interactions represents a viable antiviral strategy. Here we demonstrate that cytoplasmic expression of the serine protease inhibitor (serpin), plasminogen activator inhibitor type 2 (PAI-2), affords a high level of protection from lytic infection by multiple human picornaviruses. The antiviral action of PAI-2 was mediated primarily through transcriptional down-regulation of the following virus receptors: intercellular adhesion molecule 1 (ICAM-1, a cellular receptor for the major group of rhinoviruses), decay-accelerating factor (a cellular receptor for echoviruses and coxsackieviruses), and to a lesser extent the coxsackie-adenovirus receptor protein (a cellular receptor for group B coxsackieviruses and group C adenoviruses). Expression of related cell surface receptors, including membrane cofactor protein and the poliovirus receptor, remained unaffected. These findings suggest that PAI-2 and/or related serpins may form the basis of novel antiviral strategies against picornavirus infections and also therapeutic interventions against ICAM-1-mediated respiratory inflammation.

To: John Metcalf who wrote (2497)	10/15/1999 12:35:00 AM
From: Walter Morton	Respond to of 2742

Do you recall what the volume was when CIST was trading around $1?

To: John Metcalf who wrote (2497)	10/27/1999 8:31:00 PM
From: Walter Morton	Respond to of 2742

-----Original Message----- From: Clive Bunn <clive_bunn@bioaust.com.au> Date: Wednesday, October 27, 1999 2:57 AM Subject: RE: PAI-2 Reply to: RE: PAI-2 Dear Mr. Morton In reply to your recent questions, I cannot respond in numerical terms, as the agreements between Biotech Australia and Cistron are commercial-in-confidence. Suffice it to say that the wording of the Cistron filing " ..... sublicense to .......... make, use, and sell PAI-2...." , is an accurate description of the situation. This is a normal commercial agreement, and Biotech Australia is proceeding to develop PAI-2 for clinical use. Thank you for your interest. Clive L. Bunn, Ph.D. Walter Morton wrote: >Thank you for responding to my last email. However, I am confused as to who >has the patent on PAI-2. Is it Biotech Australia Pty, Ltd or Cistron >Biotechnology? > >I found Biotech Australia's patents dated 1995: > >http://www.patents.ibm.com/details?pn=US05422090__ >http://www.patents.ibm.com/details?pn=US05444153__ > > >And I believe Cistron Biotechnology has a patent claim dated in 1990 >(through a university partner): > >http://www.patents.ibm.com/details?pn=US04923807__ > >I found out about Biotech Australia Pty, Ltd when I read this in a Cistron >Biotechnology SEC filing: > >"In May 1993, Cistron granted an exclusive sublicense to Biotech Australia >Pty. Limited ("Biotech"), a jointly owned subsidiary of Hoechst A.G. and >Hoecsht Australia Ltd., to make, use and sell plasminogen activator >inhibitor ("PAI-2") protein in the U.S. using technology contained in >Cistron's PAI-2 DNA patent. Cistron has recently initiated development of a >PAI-2 assay, using Biotech's reagents, which, if successfully developed, >Cistron would sell to the North American research market." > >Now, I am no patent expert nor am I a biologist. Also Cistron will not >respond to my email. So, I must ask you these questions: > >As you stated before: "We have developed and patented a gel formulation for >topical application of PAI-2 to the skin. In addition, we have extensive >world-wide patents on PAI-2, both for the original isolation of the molecule >and for specific disease applications." Is the "extensive world-wide >patents on PAI-2" what Cistron is referring to when it states that "Cistron >granted an exclusive sublicense to Biotech Australia Pty. Limited?" > >What is Cistron sublicensing to Biotech? > >Was Biotech able to create the "gel formulation for topical application of >PAI-2" without the Cistron sublicensed PAI-2 patent? > >If Biotech Australia successfully markets PAI-2 in the form of a topically >applied drug that has been clinically proven to help heal ulcers, does all >of that money go to Biotech (and its investors) or does Biotech have to give >Cistron a portion based on sales volume? > >Is Biotech has to pay Cistron some amount based on sales volume of the new >PAI-2 topical drug, will that amount be very small as compared to the amount >that Biotech (and its investors) would receive? > >Thank you, > >Walter Morton I sent this email to him early in September. It took him more than a month and one-half to respond. That's not the best way to get investors. I wonder why they need investors. They were part of that big biotech company that merged with PMC's parent company.