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 : Pharmos (PARS) -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: NeuroInvestment who wrote (978)	1/26/2000 1:35:00 PM
From: David Israel-Rosen	Respond to of 1386

music to my ear High Tech Features "Pharmos' Value Could Be Upward of $1 Bln" By Eliav Alalof Is Pharmos coming to life? Investors regarded it as a down and out biotechnology share. Suddenly, in the past two weeks, it shot up by 77%. Strange to relate, there had been no dramatic announcement or change that would explain such an advance. And what explanation does general manager Dr. Haim Aviv offer? Well, he has several explanations. "Last week I met in London with a number of investment firm and analysts, following a ten-minute write-up about us a month ago on BBC2. "My feeling is that our shares are good merchandise, that is starting to sell. The assets Pharmos has are not mere ideas, and we are well beyond start-up stage. Next week, moreover, we are due to publish our financial results, which were pretty good, and which point to an ongoing improvement in the company". Thus Aviv, who owns that he is not inclined to over-praise Pharmos. Another explanation may perhaps be found in the rivers of cash that European and US investors are pouring into mutual funds that cannot acquire another Cisco, America Online or Juniper Networks. They are accordingly switching to fields such as biotech, first to major shares such as Amgen and later to smaller ones. Pharmos, trading at a low market value, could be in line to benefit. Pharmos has been traded on Wall Street since 1993, and has known not a few ups and downs, mostly the latter. The biotech sector suffers from the fact that product development takes 7-10 years, not precisely the investment range that interests NASDAQ day traders. The company wistfully recalls the $9.5 per share record it reached in 1994. Even after recent advances, the company is trading at a value of $140 million. "Where there is a potential market with a billion dollars in annual sales, Pharmos will be worth a billion dollars and more if our product is realised", Aviv declares. He produces the January edition of "NeuroInvestment", a newsletter to biotechnology investors, which assesses the Pharmos share's economic value at $8 at the end of 2000 (compared to $3.2 today). To be quite truthful, we had not heard of this newsletter, but the claim is that the return on its recommended portfolio for 1999 came to 75%. Pharmos develops a number of drugs for treating ophthalmic problems and head injuries. It is currently recording income from the sale of the ophthalmic drugs Lotemax and Alrex and Q4 1999 sales are expected to top $1 million. The drug on which Pharmos mainly relies is dexanabinol, for treating patients with head injuries, Alzheimer's disease, stroke and Parkinson's. These were the brainchild of Dr. Rafi Meshulam of the Hebrew University, Jerusalem, while Pharmos holds an exclusive development, manufacturing and marketing concession. The drug inhibits the excessive release of amino acids following head injury or stroke, which is liable to result in brain cell destruction. This drug is without parallel anywhere in the world, and the company defines the results of recent clinical tests as "dramatic". Success here naturally excites Aviv's imagination. He hastens to add, however, by way of qualification "I always tell the boys on Wall Street that a little enthusiasm is good, but too much enthusiasm will kill you". Meanwhile, there is nothing to worry about. We are, it seems only at the beginning.

To: NeuroInvestment who wrote (978)	1/26/2000 4:20:00 PM
From: Rick Strange	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1386

I, for one, admit that I have preached to the choir. I do, indeed, understand your comments and I think that your point of view is objective and that a traditional stance will be maintained regarding Hu-211 trial structure and that you will be proven correct. But, I do believe that the FDA can be made to change. One has only to look at how flexible they have been when considering AIDS drugs and fast tracking their approval. And this is good. Would that it were that the same logic was applied toward less politically correct killers as TBI. If the logic for fast tracking approval of AIDS drugs is valid, I think it is, would it not also be valid in any situation where there is no known alternative. Saving lives and enhancing the quality of life should be a universal goal at the FDA and not up to an individual department head and defer to his style of conducting the approval process. Again, I step down off of my soap box.

To: NeuroInvestment who wrote (978)	1/26/2000 5:48:00 PM
From: Gabe Fernandez	Respond to of 1386

I understand your statement re FDA and do not mean to be preaching. I truly would like to know what the primary objective is. Is it improving mortality and morbidity and that is all they would like to see. If they see the difficulty that we have when treating an individual with an ICP above 25 that does not respond to hyperventilation Mannitol or Barbiturate induced coma,they would see the drop in systemic blood pressure that occurs with those methods without improving cerebral perfusion.