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.

Pastimes : son of T/FIF -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: JMarcus who wrote (315)	12/15/1999 9:04:00 PM
From: scaram(o)uche	Respond to of 673

Marc: I'm not the person to ask. Antisense has always been a curiosity to me, and ISIP has taken it further than I ever thought possible. I can't tell if it's because there's real promise, or because it was a technology with money behind it that couldn't be diverted. There is no hidden bias behind that. It's one or the other. Can't cheer against them, as they've tried to make a reality of something new and radical. OTOH, we've certainly seen recent examples of management teams that take crap too far. Haven't a clue if it's a screaming buy or a slow ride to $0. Rick

To: JMarcus who wrote (315)	12/15/1999 9:19:00 PM
From: Pseudo Biologist	Respond to of 673

Marc, check this: messages.yahoo.com He seems to have direct lab experience with at least some antisense. He makes a good point re. "hit" rates. Some antisense is said to recruit ribonuclease H (? I used to know this stuff) and clip target mRNA as well. I am not sure if the just-failed ISIP compound was supposed to have that property or if it was a simple code blocker. So, no direct answers to your hard questions, oh well. PB

To: JMarcus who wrote (315)	12/15/1999 9:24:00 PM
From: scaram(o)uche	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 673

OK, better answer..... (1) Is there an established mechanism for the CMV product? One for which there is solid evidence? I don't know the answer to that question, I'm just suggesting that it might help you to answer or refine your questions. (2) Some observers represented the Crohn's data as the best evidence that antisense works. (3) They just lost their major cancer partner (please correct me if I'm wrong). That means that Novartis didn't consider the ISIP programs to be of highest priority. Lilly returned Viracept blah blah blah, but "return" usually means bad stuff. I hate generalities like that.