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: RWReeves who wrote (411)	11/30/1999 3:00:00 AM
From: scaram(o)uche	Respond to of 666

A time honored function of marketing is to take problems and make them into features. When I went to Cutter (Bayer), Sanzoz (Novartis) was eating the company alive. Cutter had produced an intravenous, polyclonal immunoglobulin from pooled plasma. Such preps were new. Traditional intramuscular preps were very good at non-specific activation of complement, and i.v. admin was a good way to off a patient. For Rathman knows what reason, Cutter had developed a mild reduction procedure, while Sandoz was using low pH. The Sandoz sales team was eating Cutter alive, indicating to physicians that the reduced prep didn't contain any IgG3. I pointed out that matter could not be created or destroyed, and that the IgG3 was still there. Nonetheless, classical procedures could not detect it. I therefore screened several G3-specific monoclonals, looking for one that reacted with an epitope that wasn't blown to smithereens (let's see that one get through spell check). No luck. I did, however, find a G1/G3-crossreactive MAb that did react with the prep. I depleted the prep of all G1 and showed that it no longer reacted with G1-specific MAbs. It still reacted with the G1/G3-reative MAb, however. Presto, formal proof that matter had not been destroyed, that G3 was still in the prep. Marketing was overjoyed. We published a manuscript. The major lesson of the manuscript, of course, was that the Cutter procedure was NUTS. Sandoz backed off of their claims. Go figure.

To: RWReeves who wrote (411)	12/3/1999 1:26:00 PM
From: Gordon James	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 666

RWR, A time honored function of marketing is to take problems and make them into features. Interesting that your reaction to Bex's dosimetry (repackaging problems as features) is similar to how I've seen Zev's attempt to dispose of dosimetry (taking lemons and making lemonade). I still lean toward the idea that radioimmunotherapy will likely be safer and more effective when dosimetry a la Bex is employed, and in order for Bex to be "vulnerable to a cheaper, easier therapy", that therapy has a seemingly high hurdle to cross first IMO - must be proven at least as safe and effective as Bex without the dosimetry dose-tweaking that optimizes the Bex dose. If a competitor like Zev proves unable to match Bex results for safety and efficacy, I don't think that easier administration will even the score, especially with the FDA. But if a competitor like Zev is able to prove at least comparable safety and efficacy along with less complicated administration, then I have to agree with you, that competitor will certainly have an edge in that area. In any case, it's an interesting point that you make, I'm going to have to give it some more thought. FWIW, I don't buy the argument we've heard on WBI - will post sometime on that when I get a chance. Gordon