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 : XOMA. Bull or Bear? -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Cacaito who wrote (13948)	7/4/2000 8:59:35 AM
From: Robert K.	Respond to of 17367

"And, the current lasik techniques are used in MILLIONS of patients every year, and there are just few hundreds non manageable infections (requiring surgical intervention again)." exactly there cacaito, but perhaps a lot of credit should go to allergan ocuflox. Hey, isnt that the product that allergan wants to add bpi to? Someone ought to tell them than ocuflox works just fine and that there is no need to add bpi. And jeez. Why would then want rights to bpi as a standalone? After all bpi has been shown to be UNproven in 1800 you say for synergy. Go tell allergan your projections. And we really dont need another fungiCIDAL cause the world already has one. Its really cost effective too cause of lifetime dose limits. IE>you can only spend so much on it. I am sure HMO's love that aspect. But hey all that literature that bpi synergizes fungistatics. Unproven you say. And not enough literature on antibacterial synergy too. And geez who needs another tb drug especially in NYC. Do TB patients scare you? why is that? Yep we have a trauma trial that didnt meet endpoints and a meningo trial that needs more data. Bpi just doesnt work I guess. after all its unproven so it doesnt work. you have fortold. Amazing scientific prophecy. You have been right more than me though, so far. I guess my issue with you is that the facts surrounding bpi so far are to me considered preliminary and to you are considered conclusional. Thats my take Standard k disclaimers always.............