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: Robert K. who wrote (14044)	7/10/2000 11:01:40 PM
From: Bluegreen	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 17367

I can see where LLY may have trouble in the liability department by stating Protein C is more efficacious AND side effects less when given with BPI. How could they ever promote giving it by itself???? Shouldn't the patient be aware that LLY thinks combo is better AND SAFER???? Many ethical concerns need to be fleshed out also BEFORE Protein C can be given by itself in my opinion especially in a serious situation like Sepsis. HOW DO YOU MAKE PROTEIN C SAFER AND MORE EFFICACIOUS?????? ADD A SAFE PRODUCT LIKE BPI ACCORDING TO LLY!!!! FDA NEEDS TO STEP IN AND DO ITS JOB!!!!!!!!!

To: Robert K. who wrote (14044)	7/10/2000 11:35:46 PM
From: Cacaito	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 17367

Ctrx did not rob patent, but to use Winframe YOU have to pay Ctrx no matter how much windows is on it, and MSFT has to pay. Blue, patents usually have general sweeping claims to try to cover as much as possible years before future vision comes along as reality or not. Rk, bpi trials in humans in 1800 plus patients have NOT shown effectiveness, Hemo/trauma was ZERO efficacy. Meningo is not great either, a full 400 patients and FDA sent it back to MORE trials (or do you think that the hint for more trials made by ceoperson in the year meeting or something like that was of no value? Do you only trust him with positively bias forward looking statments? are the negative forward ones just for fun?. I do not consider that as rbpi21 proof of working, just the contrary. Your view is plain wrong at best. Rk, Lilly patent from 1990? is not just filled, so it was a clear intent on sweeping claims! NOT any evidence that they have any proven efficacy in the combination ( not that they so the "bpi data"). "Lilly saw bpi data" the baboon one? You have no proof that Lilly has seen the data, oh, maybe is Lilly one of the 7 pharma who refused to deal with xoma? so xoma was left with the bax! Even if Lilly saw the bpitraumameningo data, so what? how is that any positive for xoma? or for bpi-works theory? One could argue the exact opposite with more certainty since half of the data (the trauma one) is already recognized as FAILURE by DSMB, FDA and xoma! The other half? the meningo one? as per FDA: not enough!, if one believes xoma's pr since one does not know the exact communications between the two. Zovant is proven to work, by the same DSMB system YOU wish for to do the same for xoma's trials (I did at the time, in case now You do not remember that you did). I do not have any need to look for weird validations to Lilly's technology, is proven and has BIG chances of being in the market. I am not in Lilly at this moment, I am waitint for it to cool down is overbought! Blue,Gw,Rk: rbpi21 is not proven (if that rethoric consolates you)the chances that it will work are just that CHANCES, and probably fat ones!