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 : Home on the range where the buffalo roam -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Sam Sara who wrote (922)	4/7/2000 9:21:00 AM
From: Boplicity	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 13572

Sam, Thanks much I'm glad you are giving your time and expertise to the thread. re: . I am keeping my biotech funds in a biotech mutual fund, and will invest in individual stocks... Would you be so kind to tells what fund you have picked and what stock you own? Thanks again Alawa

To: Sam Sara who wrote (922)	4/7/2000 1:51:00 PM
From: PAL	Respond to of 13572

OK, then, either you go with companies with big drug pipelines or the "picks and shovels" approach. I cannot agree more. My candidate is PE Biosystems: Message 13371334 Appreciate your view on this company. TIA Paul

To: Sam Sara who wrote (922)	4/8/2000 8:00:00 PM
From: babayabada	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 13572

Hi Sam Sara, Although I believe your opening statement is accurate - "The uncertainties involved are an order of magnitude greater than in the standard technology sector," I've got to disagree with many of your takes on biotech. You say that no gorillas have emerged and there are no products tied directly to human genome data. Amgen, Genentech, Biogen et al. are the gorillas of this industry. Just because they don't have market caps of 100B, understand that this is an emerging industry. Soon they will be there, competing with large pharmas. At that time the industry will have to redefine itself - will there now be a few huge conglomerate health care companies, or will the bipolarity of pharma vs. biotech remain? Biotech history is rich. Recall Genentech's report of being the first to clone human growth hormone and insulin in 1978. In 1982, recombinant human insulin became the first biotech drug to be marketed when Genentech licensed it to Eli Lilly. Almost all drug research performed today has something to do with human genome data. Whether you're introducing new restriction sites into plasmid DNA for recombinant proteins, or genotyping patients for inclusion into the latest clinical trial, or putting OJ Simpson on trial - everyone stands on the shoulders of this data. Has cra or glgc sold data that has resulted in a drug? No. But science, like art, is an interconnected web of ideas and methods. All of it relates back on itself. Your fear of using biologic agents on ethnic groups misses the point. In our lifetime, we will clone humans. How should we feel about that? There are much larger political and ethical issues that have to be dealt with than the ones you propose. This to me is quite a rapid pace of development, not glacial. And last, as for an indicator for the recent explosion in biotech. I believe that it just simply achieved a critical mass; many things all came together at the same time. But comparisons of biotech to the internet three years ago are real. For long term investors, go with the companies that have products on the market. But for people who pay attention and can profit from market momentum, there is enough attention on biotech now to realise huge gains. Thanks for the discussion. Tony

To: Sam Sara who wrote (922)	4/10/2000 12:16:00 AM
From: wolfdog2	Respond to of 13572

Sam, I don't think the run up in biotech was mysterious at all. To begin with hot money flowing out of internet stocks was seeking a home. Biotech was until recently very undervalued. Second, there is a macro event that has been powering the rise. To wit, the large number of biotech companies that now have products on the market. The number of new drugs that get approval from the FDA is increasing at a rapid rate. The trick, imo, to investing in biotechs is to pick companies with products that have recently been approved. There is a marketing risk, of course, but there's better odds in that, I believe, than a science risk, which is what you get with a company just pushing its drugs through the FDA approval process. Before the recent explosion in prices, companies like CEPH and CORR were appealing values. DUSA and COB still are. I agree that a broad pipeline makes a company especially appealing. I like LGND for this reason. Moreover, LGND should turn profitable by year end.

To: Sam Sara who wrote (922)	4/10/2000 12:32:00 PM
From: Doug	Respond to of 13572

Sam: There is good merit in your analysis especially in light of the current response to Genetic modified food. In Phase 1 of the application of Genetics to Drugs, it is likely that the Drug Industry will play their cards differently. Currently in Phase 1 of Drug development, it is expensive to carry out the Toxicity studies and determine which proteins are acceptable. Using Bio-chips and Mass array techniques, researchers will be able to determine the Genes that offer the best response to the drug. Thereafter,using those Gene markers they will select other groups for the Phase 2/3 studies. These studies will proceed much faster because the Group is homogenious. That way drugs purporting to cure a disease for a select group of Patients with a particular set of Genes can be brought to market much quicker. It is the equivalent of Jury selection for drug studies. Once the drug is so marked, Doctors will ask patients to take a voluntary Gene test to verify if they qualify. That way the Medical Industry will covertly make all the patients take a gene test. Patients are likely to be most willing. The danger is that in each disease, Drug Companies will only cater to that segment where Numbers are substantial. Those belonging to small gene pools will probably be neglected. This in itself will lead to social Engineering where people with less favorable gene pools will become 2nd class Citizens & will be looked down on. The fact that twins with identical chromosones behave differently and respond to stress and diseases differently does raise some concerns about the reliability of Gene based therapy. In brief, there are some excellent opportunities in Phase 1 for long term investment. It will be a turbulent ride because of the issues involved . As for Phase 2 and 3 , our Social development on a global basis is too primitive to safely handle these tools.