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.

Strategies & Market Trends : Gorilla and King Portfolio Candidates -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Apollo who wrote (13954)	1/3/2000 1:13:00 PM
From: Dinesh	Respond to of 54805

OT Question We all know that Y2000 is firmly in the 20th century. YET, all newspapers, tv shows, etc. have committed themselves to calling it the new millennium. So, the question is, at what point does hype become fact ? Is it by quantity or by the quality of the hypsters ? Is this like what someone on this thread a while ago called the groupthink ? (when it's easier/polite to agree) -Dinesh

To: Apollo who wrote (13954)	1/3/2000 5:30:00 PM
From: Jill	Respond to of 54805

I remember that article well, as it was by Gina Kolata, the Ny Times veteran science writer. She's done a lot of good work but some controversial work as well--she got some flack for her early AIDS reporting as I recall. WHen you go back and read the original article it contains the proper caveats--i.e. the studies were in MICE!--but it got picked up around the world and hyped and not only did Entremed stock zoom and then crash back down, but cancer patients around the world wanted this drug. Nobody understood that mice studies are just the beginning of a long journey. I think in general the media is to blame for that, not the NY Times, which is usually pretty careful (at 4 p.m. every day all the section editors get together and pitch which story should run on the front left, which is considered the lead story. A story really has to have legs and be well researched to make it.)

To: Apollo who wrote (13954)	1/3/2000 9:30:00 PM
From: Seeker of Truth	Respond to of 54805

In my work we are consultants to a pharmaceutical/chemical company and what you say about biotech in general seems to me exactly fitting to what I see. Biotech research consists of huge gambles. High tech, i.e. engineering technology from physics, seems to me a lot more predictable and the return on capital invested is higher than for the biotech industry as a whole. I second your statements and urge our fellow posters here not to expect a gorilla in the biotech area, no matter what Goldman Sachs or any other person far from the lab wants to say.