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: manfredhasler who wrote (14755)	9/19/2000 5:22:20 PM
From: Bluegreen	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 17367

Manfred, I really don't consider Baboons genetically that different from humans. Keep in mind you are talking about a peptide that crosses most mammals. As a matter of fact the peptide Neuprex is produced or was produced by genetically altered hamster ovarian cells. The Baboon study has to be taken in context with the Phase II and now Phase III trials results. Now if this was some off the shelf chemical based drug I would wholeheartedly agree with you. BOTH Baxter AND Allergan struck deals with Xoma. WHY??? After they saw the Phase III results, why?? In my opinion they came to same conclusion as I did just by the Baboon study on need to give Neuprex IMMEDIATELY. Then they added in all the other studies and of course the trial results on Meningo. and Trauma. 100% sure? Of course not BUT look at the amount of money time and energy spent by cerebral scientists from BOTH Baxter and Allergan. No offense but Cacaito and yourself are bush league compared to the teams at Baxter and Allergan in my humble opinion. In Biotech investing I try to follow the big guys like Allergan, Baxter and Genentech. Their top notch guys do the heavy lifting and I try to grab on to their coat tails and of course the gravy is Piper coverage. Once again just my opinions. BTW, when can we see an example of Swiss humor from you?

To: manfredhasler who wrote (14755)	9/19/2000 6:16:59 PM
From: Cacaito	Respond to of 17367

Manfred: Prospective Methods: Expected reduction in mortality from 25% to 10% N 200, Power 82% , two tailed, alpha 0.10 DSMB recommended to increase N to 400, to mantain "power and odds ratio of 3" Criteria for severe sepsis patients showed 20% mortality, but not enough "N" for any meaningful analysis, plus most of the deaths and most of the lack of appropriate completion of rbpi21 were there. Some patients received other experimental drugs for prevention of amputations: antithrombin III, and Protein C.