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: Bluegreen who wrote (13993)	7/5/2000 1:56:08 PM
From: Cacaito	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 17367

Gw, My apologies, that day I only read quick over the yahoo-xoma club posts. I got the wrong impression of the purpose of the post about the "bias" in publishing research results. But, even if true that there was a 50% decrease in events (complications)in the trauma pIII this is NOT the reason for the suspension of the trial, it was LACK OF EFFICACY even in the one and only point that showed apparent effects in the pII: pneumonia/ards, and this was not so much a surprise, xoma got the good numbers post completion of pII not planned ahead, and that was a clearly bias result! The premise of trauma/hemo trials both pII and pIII was wrong all along, that endotoxin is the major cause of damage when one lose blood, the damage is from poor oxigenation/poor perfusion of tissues, it happens with or without bugs, and looking at pII numbers all the complications were low 5% to 7% range except for pneumonia/ards combination 32% (but,pure ards alone was only some 4% !!!!) so pneumonia was like 28% on its own! The decrease has a clear reason: xoma's trial centers got better!!! after doing the strict protocol with 400 subjects they went on and repeat on 1000 subjects!!! a research pro-patient improvement is a clear sign of the excellence in research, xoma must have that into account before the trial, they are not stupid, nobody believe the 50% excuse, look at the stock price from $8 to $2 at the time. Do not count on that 50%. I am more into counting as possible the Blueg theory, it does make sense that if not as an antishock drug, rbpi21 could end up being an ANTIBIOTIC!!! but that will cut the price, but depending in manufacturing cost could still bring profit. xoma is looking at eye,ear,lung infections and especially the first two are very cheap markets!, so they must have an idea of how inexpensive the factory costs must be. And if one wants to be fair on pricing xoma for the future,let everything out as a freebie and just count anticd11a for psoriasis (do not include transplant, too early to value, the dose will be higher and so will be the side effects, high side effects and it will be just one more on the transplant field). So long.

To: Bluegreen who wrote (13993)	7/5/2000 4:42:53 PM
From: Robert K.	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 17367

Then perhaps we ALL (all) agree. In hindsight the p3 hemo trauma was not good. Of course hindsight is easy. Nobody saw that the placebo group would get bpi too. That study I post was out well after p3 trial underway. Thats why they has studies> trial and error. On another note natural bpi is not stable in vivo due to inactivation. I think half life is like 4 minutes. In either case, did you ever hear of a trial where the placebo group perhaps wasnt? Incredible if that the case. They might have been comparing lesser drug arm to greater drug arm? I cant wait till bax reveals their intentions. Standard K