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 (12304)	11/22/1999 11:18:00 PM
From: Cacaito	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 17367

30% vs 15% is a 50% decrease, same from 3% to 1.5%!!! Only that with a 200 patients the first one is outstanding, and one need 200,000 to "prove" the second and still probably not of value. George, I congratulated you recently for being skeptic of the trauma pII results and the lack of sense of a pIII. I was the one who following the pr (xoma news)was defending the design, but when the pr review (Journal of Trauma)came out (more than a year after and with pIII in full swing) I changed my mind and I predicted that "best for xoma in September is that DSMB says it is safe continued with the trial" clearly the worst came about and DSMB halted due to lack of efficacy. Bpi Trauma trial at best was a psychodrama that got xoma to feed itself several million$ of financing while the Wall street crowd was talking loud the "big indication", fine for xoma if they knew or not, the only thing was the $25 millions from one placement, and the $18 from Sutro. It was smart, too bad I knew but believe xoma will give data on meningoIII as a buffer, hey, the only buffer was the garbage about use of hu1124 for "additional indication" on transplant and the sublicense proposal for the fusion something technology, fine xoma is playing to its interest, it just happen not to coincide with mine. Trauma pIII at best was naive, at worst was plain manipulation of science and the market. The recent and continued semi-silence from xoma is further prove that it is not to be trusted. Look at the garbage xoma provides as "information" at the web site, check on all the "progress in the clinic" as I predicted Vienna turn out to be REGRESS and REGRET in the clinic, nothing of substance, they could show humility and dignity and present the plain failure, NO they are presenting "50% decrease in certain events" 1. decrease mortality? no 2. decrease ICU days? no 3. decrease costs? no 4. decrease infections? no 5. decrease ards? no 6. decrease morbidity? no 7. decrese pneumonia (the only one to show "decrease" in pII) in pIII? no Then what are the "events" with a 50% decrease? It was clear for you 2 years ago, What is less clear now? It does not work for trauma indication. xoma gives a lot on non information, "data will be collected in months" "analysis will take more months" does xoma know the calendar also has years and decades? I do not believe xoma one soggy potato chip. Whatever their purpose not to provide meningo data if it fits them fine. It does not fit me. xoma will not provide trauma trial results in years if ever, surprisingly I agree with xoma to hide pIII trauma results, it will help the stock a lot. For scientific presentations has some value, good that xoma let regress in the clinic in the Vienna zone.