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 (14096)	7/12/2000 9:41:20 AM
From: Bluegreen	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 17367

Cacaito, once again you know I was kidding!!!

To: Cacaito who wrote (14096)	7/12/2000 10:04:26 AM
From: StockDoc	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 17367

Thanks to you and Blue for the thoughtful analyses. Just a few more notes and I'm out of here. First: reality. Cost of treatment does matter even if it is about life and death. If you knew anyhting about medical practice you would agree. People die because they don't get the best and most expensive treatments available. Lilly might have said 500,000 for septic shock but that's marketing BS. No decent (and independent) MD would ever say such a thing. Septic shock (the end-stage of but not equivalent to sepsis) carries a high (>50%) mortality rate. Where are those >250,000 dead people? Marching among us? Again, Lilly clearly indicated that there are easy lab tests that can select for the patients who are very likely to benefit from APC. E.g., those with acquired antithrombin or PC deficiency. Thus hospitals don't have to treat every septic patient with a $10k infusion. On the other hand, those already in septic shock might not respond to treatment and they might need some other new modality. 50 thousand septic patients at risk of septic shock and treated with APC could still provide a neat revenue of 500MM. That's very good for a single indication. Total market potential for all indications is probably over several billion dollars. We agree on the Baxter business. They're silly. Others might jump in though. Keep up the good work here and enjoy the ride.

To: Cacaito who wrote (14096)	7/16/2000 10:29:33 AM
From: Robert K.	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 17367

Cacaito> i seems you have a change of heart. Your comments> >>>>>>>>>.>>"But,the products could save ICU time, post surgery time, and money, it will not be a hard sale. The insurance companies are going to be lucky since it looks like three good products are coming: zovant, pafase, tifacogin, rbpi21 (well 4, ok), and there will be competition as years past by. rbpi21 if ever demonstrate the animal results in humans should have the advantages in the market since is a real killer of bugs, but this is a big IF and I am not betting on it (I can wait for the facts, no rush)." My comment> I tip my hat to you for having the guts to come to grips with the facts. Facts are bpi is unproven in human testing according to fda standards thusfar. But bpi is not proven not to work as you have previously claimed. There is a big difference. All IMO.