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 (14571)	9/15/2000 3:49:57 PM
From: manfredhasler	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 17367

Cacaito, Re: ... the low mortality was a very well known feature and very well considered in the study design...as per xoma they were recruting about 80% of the subjects in this group... oviously a logistical nightmare and a financial imposibility for xoma... Thanks for this information. If it is true we have a management problem in our company. And in that I agree with you. Just sold my position. Regards, Manfred

To: Cacaito who wrote (14571)	9/15/2000 6:53:54 PM
From: aknahow	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 17367

Cacaito, why post vague data. Do you consider Glasgow 8 - 11 as low? The two treatment arms were 8-11 and 12 - 15. I was unaware that the mortality rate was only 5% for Glasgow 8 - 11. As a doctor and an honorable person is that your final answer? By the way XOMA will have hard copies in a few weeks, or you might want to request a pdf copy. On average it did take six hours for enrollment! You keep talking about low mortality and disregarding all the subjects that died before getting enrolled. This eliminated the weakest and made mortality lower in both groups and as the article explained reduced the bacteria load to 1/8 of what it was at its peak and much of the damage from the endotoxin had already been done. So Neuprex was of limited value at that point but still showed compelling benefit.