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 : Biotech Valuation -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: greedsgd_2000 who wrote (1636)	9/14/2000 10:19:58 PM
From: PuddleGlum	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 52153

I keep thinking that ARIA has potentially disruptive technology, but the market doesn't agree with me ... yet. Other possibilities (IMHO): GERN, ILMN, ABGX, CEGE. And doesn't MYGN have some claim to fame here, in the same categories as NMPS? I thought that MYGN basically owned the breast cancer field. I wonder if most of the disruptive biotechs will be drug makers or picks & shovels plays? Peter, Biocosm discussion might get in the way of biotech valuation. Do you want this stuff on your thread? pg

To: greedsgd_2000 who wrote (1636)	9/15/2000 9:44:58 AM
From: tom pope	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 52153

NMPS: impressive results, especially if one thinks early detection is important: From PR newswire >>Blood specimens from seventy-eight women have been tested using Matritech's proprietary specimen preparation and mass spectrometry procedures. Forty-five of these specimens came from women diagnosed with breast cancer in various stages of the disease and 5 were from women with Ductal Carcinoma In Situ (DCIS), a condition that can progress to cancer. An additional 28 specimens came from women who had no breast disease or had been diagnosed as having benign breast disease. NMP66 was found in the blood of every woman who was diagnosed with cancer and was absent in all of the 'normal' specimens<<

To: greedsgd_2000 who wrote (1636)	9/15/2000 11:09:39 AM
From: Biomaven	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 52153

greedsgd, "DISRUPTIVE BIOTECHS" I only have a cursory understanding of what this means, but I'll just take it at face value for now. Of course to some extent the entire biotech industry is disruptive from the point of view of the established big pharma. Less bureaucracy, greater willingness to embrace new methods, to overlook the current bottom line and to spend more on R&D, combined with (on average) probably smarter scientists. For the purposes of this discussion, it is probably good to divide the industry into two parts - the new drugs it makes and the methodology it uses to make them. Now a new drug or class of drugs clearly has the potential to be disruptive. Thus say the COX-2 inhibitors (Vioxx and Celebrex) were clearly disruptive to the existing class of NSAIDS. However, my sense is that this is not the sort of disruption that would catch the Biocosm eye. Perhaps a better example would be the forthcoming "non-toxic" anti-cancer drugs as replacements or supplements for the existing chemotherapy drugs. Another example is the slew of therapeutic Mabs that are arriving. My guess is that the mouse-Mab companies (MEDX and ABGX) are good candidates for what would be called a disruptive technology. (Although of course the "old-fashioned" PDLI is doing just fine.) On the methodological side, there is clearly a lot of disruptive stuff, with the genome-related area being a big driver. Perhaps MLNM is the best example of a "genome to drug" company. Perhaps VRTX's methodology can also be viewed as disruptive - the survival rate of their compounds into Phase II is amazing. I guess I remain to be convinced that this is actually a useful way of figuring out "objective" valuations, but to the extent it drives subjective valuations I'm certainly happy to play along. Peter