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: aknahow who wrote (13987)	7/5/2000 11:37:46 AM
From: Bluegreen	Respond to of 17367

George, where was the imaginary peptide blocker in Phase II Meningo. and Phase II Hemo Trauma???? Maybe it was in hiding and only decided to come out when N got larger???

To: aknahow who wrote (13987)	7/5/2000 12:10:49 PM
From: Cacaito	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 17367

Rk new the blood bpi (up to 15x), and xoma did not? WORST! xoma designed a pII and PIII, wasted many million$ just to find out now from RK that the blood transfusion mess up the study! Irresponsible at best, Stupid at worst from xoma not to realize that. Blue, yes reserve all your recommendations on xoma until the data is out! Gw, Do you still buy that bridge? that control group did "inexplicablly" 50% better! Were not you that post about "bias" in research publication in the yahoo xoma club right after the Lilly zovant press release? Does it apply to P. Scanon Viena pIII trauma presentation? NO, cause it does not fit in your belief in bpi!

To: aknahow who wrote (13987)	7/5/2000 4:33:07 PM
From: Oak Tree	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 17367

At the risk of being further blasted, (1) I understand that everyone got two units (2) I understand that therefore everyone got natural BPI and there was not control arm (3) I didn't understand that Robert was a BPI believer and thought that the trial failed because there was no true untreated arm. That issue is relevant also. I guess what some of you might not have understood (and perhaps I didn't make it clear) was that the inhibitor would support the utility of BPI in high dose. I think it is also relevant to note that the paper suggested that not only was there BPI in blood, patients who got blood did poorly. While this is almost certainly related to the degree of trauma, it does not support an advantage of BPI.