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: aknahow who wrote (14576)	9/15/2000 7:26:22 PM
From: aknahow	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 17367

Wall Street Transcript, aka as WST by many, but not by all, has carried a new q & a. The question comes from an astue, exceptionally well informed investor and the answer comes from XOMA. Many of us have seen this q & a on the XOMA site in the FAQ section. qawire.com

To: aknahow who wrote (14576)	9/16/2000 1:57:16 PM
From: Cacaito	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 17367

Gw, Unaware of the low mortality rate? How quick did you forget all the talk couple of years ago when the argument was that the low mortality in all reports was due to "advances". You need to go back to the xoma club, is there inside the ton of links. "You keep talking about low mortality " BY GEORGE, xoma is talking the low mortality excuse, blue is, rk is , GW! is, Larry iS, even the editorial is, the underpowered statement came from XOMA! not cacaito. I am pointing to the FACT of the lack of report by different arms (and making clear I have not seen the Lancet yet!!!!) I have no time to get you the data, but it was also clear in previous xoma website FAQ. I will also has in hand the full Lancet. It is obvious that th pr report combined both arms data. You still do not get it, the placebo enrollment goes under the same conditions, same 6 hours, same IV access problems, same transport problems, same INFORMED CONSENT problems, and that is the BEAUTY AND THE SCIENCE of all of it, that it is REAL blinded, that the same conditions are operating, and there is not room for EXCUSES, except to market types that ridiculously call for the children (no bias here, but couple of xoma shares)and do not comprehend honest statistical science and the best evidence epidemiology can provide the true RAMDOMIZED PLACEBO CONTROL TRIAL. xoma did a wonderful job but they did not have another $100M to cough up, they were at the brink of dissapearance, they understood the high risk enterprise and they hold the numbers to get the MONEY and run with it via Sutro and now Pj. The subjects who died early and were not included ARE a source of distrust, not of excuses. xoma must,and I suspect they did, provide the Fda with the full account on all the non enrolled subjects, it is a very well known way of bias results TO AVOID THE HARD CASES, cause is easy, small invented excuse like "no informed consent was given" could tilt the hard case out of the trial. You are wrongly barking at the wrong forests the FACT that the study did not lower mortality is the proven result. Ask your darling prperson for the Glasgow numbers, or wait until I find then.