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 : VD's Model Portfolio & Discussion Thread -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Biomaven who wrote (7287)	12/12/1999 11:33:00 PM
From: Bob L	Respond to of 9719

Some real words of wisdom there, I think. Thanks. There really is a lot to learn from the IDPH vs CLTR scenario. Sort of like having a 2x4 broken over my head, though.

To: Biomaven who wrote (7287)	12/13/1999 1:27:00 AM
From: Vector1	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 9719

<<It is often a big mistake to not invest in the first drug on the scene >> I am not sure I would reach the same conclusion. In addition to Viracept there are a number of situations that have gone the other way. Biogen's Avonex is an example. Arguably better effacacy but clearly more convenient with fewer side effects. Although Betaseron had about a 1 year lead Avonex has dominated and those who made the bet on the better molecule won big. You site CELG and PCYC as examples of buying too early. these companies had great years. CELG for example was caught earlier in the year in the small cap malaise. IMO it was a great pick a year ago. Yes you could have bought it at $20 in September but no one is that good. If you try and time it too close you can miss an opportunity. CLTR has been a dog this year because management blew the BLA filing not because Bex isn't a major advancement in NHL. Maybe thats the point, the reason these biotech investments have to generate huge IRRs is because there is so much risk in getting through the approval process. Once a drug is approved that risk is no longer present. Patient empowerment is going to be interesting. As Miljenko stated a few posts back cancer patients are not nearly as well educated and organized as HIV patients. However, the tide is turning and the doctor patient relationship is changing. IMO the internet will have a profound impact on doctor patient relationships. Patients knowledge will force the doc.s themselves to become more up to date on the latest innovations and clinical studies. Knowledge is power and the internet gives patients power. V1

To: Biomaven who wrote (7287)	12/13/1999 11:07:00 AM
From: biowa	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 9719

Peter, Great observations, and I'm not arguing the imminent demise of IDPH (In fact, as V1 can verify I was once a wet blanket on speculation about CLTR putting Rit out of business). Yet, IF the clinical results we "saw" at ASH bear out I do think Bex will eat into Rit mkt shr more quickly than it seems you're suggesting. Unless the subset of oncologists I know is an aberration, there seems to be way too much emphasis on the patients having to drag their doctor to Bex. Yes, there will be some docs who will hang their hats on experience and longer clinical data, but what constitutes a significant impact on Rit's sales? Even if only 10% were early adopters (conservative IMO, if once again data is as seen thus far) that hits Rit's market share. What's more, even the perception that Bex is eating into Rit mkt shr more rapidly than expected will be multiplied by the market. I really believe that oncologists will be efficacy driven, but probably the only way to fully resolve this would be a well-designed survey of oncologists. And ultimately, payers may be the more important question. This is a great debate, BTW. FWIW, biowa