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 : Neuroscience -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: scott_jiminez who wrote (60)	9/26/2000 11:41:16 AM
From: aurileano	Respond to of 278

Hi, Scott. When will there be a good entry point for KLIC? Do you think that it will hold double digits? TIA. A.

To: scott_jiminez who wrote (60)	9/26/2000 8:38:07 PM
From: Jim Haynes	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 278

Scott, most of us investors, I believe, are not competent to judge scientific disputes between you and Miljenko - or Rick Harmon, for that matter, who somehow got snared in your dispute with Miljenko. I read your posts carefully, and am very hopeful of making some money by doing so. I have already made money paying attention to Miljenko, and quite a lot of money paying attention to Rick. They are both good guys, and I assume you are too. If there are to be factions, too bad. I will take advice from any source and weigh it as best I can based on my own DD. Jim Haynes

To: scott_jiminez who wrote (60)	9/27/2000 12:20:08 AM
From: Miljenko Zuanic	Respond to of 278

You sound to me (with all my non-neuroscience training capability) bit upset? Why? Also, why are you so ALERGIC when somebody mentioned name Rick? Sign, Son of Rick “Neuro” (here we go again, don’t be allergic) was more to tizzy him than to upset You. I will be careful next time. But, for the record I do value His (see, I will not mentioned name Rick) knowledge on bios (from science to finance) 100 times more than all your direct TRAINING in neuroscience. Period. So, if you have something to tell Him, be direct. I am sure that he will not object. This is about bios, not persons. Back to Zomaril. If you have something of substance on this drug, why hesitate to share with as? Let me remain you what you wrote first time: << Titan is reporting further evidence that Zomaril (iloperidone), their SDA for Schizophrenia, is a significant improvement versus current antipsychotic regimens. While we await publication of today's data, this SDA is now strongly suggesting a win/win scenario: a reduction in both positive and negative symtomology together with substantially fewer extrapyramidal, cardiac, weight-related etc. contaminating factors. While win/win may be the case, there remain few patients treated thus far with iloperidone, few published studies on the drug, and few direct comparisons to other atypical antopsychotics (clozapine, iloperidone, quetiapine, olanzapine, risperidone, ziprasidone etc.). Larger and more inclusive trials will be required to fully support any excitement today's news engenders. >> By another words: This paper is bright white. Hm, there may be few gray spots. Well, this paper for real may be gray. For sure, before someone eliminate that maybe few gray spots, it is gray to me. So, what it is: white, gray or black? All this based on pure knowledge about Zomaril and ZEOS program, none knowledge about Company, and general view about marketing issue for any me too or new drug on market. This type of the comment is equal to My Neighbor Cat respond. Next: 1. << But PII and preliminary PIII data is just that.>> Again, it was two (600 pts each) pivotal trials. After 18 months, I doubt that they are only preliminary. At least in that case NVS will not give green light for TTP PR. PII was completed +24 months ago. 2. <, I did my graduate work… >> and other crap about neuroscience training and experience, and knowledge,.. I don’t give penny for this staff of yours. I do not have any, so what? I can’t comment on topic and be right? Or any other bioscience topic? Who predictet Zomaril success in early 97? NON-neurologist.! Who predicted cyticholihe debacle in 97? NON-neurologist! Who predicted CLPA debacle recently? NON-oncologist! Who predicted LIPO’s doxy-lypo debacle in 98? NON-oncologist? Who predicted Thalidomide success in 96? NON-oncologist? Who predicted Enberl success in 96? NON-Reumatologist. Who predicted AGPH anti-viral drug success in 95/96? NON-virologist. Who predicted SEPR ICE-metabolite success in 95/96? NON-whatever! Importance of the EGF/VEGF as new cancer targets in 96? NON-… on and on. However, I was wrong on CNSI Cerestat in 96, and to optimistic about ISIP anisense technology (96 and 97), but change my view on time (98). And that is all! Believe it or not. Where were you all this time? Changing SI names like tree leaves in fall? Every year new one. BTW, what are you afraid off? 3. << Where the hell are you coming from anyway?>> CROATIA. They didn’t teach you geography in HS? 4. << Describe to me your training..>> Why? Do you have job for me? Thanks, do not need one. 5. << or that of Rick Harmon for that matter..>> Ask him. 6. << Do you even understand what make these a 'new class' in the first place or is the science irrelevant?>> I do not. Do you? You claim expertise on PD, A’s, neuro-degenerative, stoke, spinal injury, dementia, insomnia, psychotic, …so what are you doing here? Mast be painful. 7. << In short, I gave high praise for the promise of Zomaril. However, with a much clearer understanding of the history of antipsychotics than you display, I was logically and rationally hesitant to be blindly gangbusters about the data (like yourself) until a much broader population sampling is achieved.>> What do you know what did I display so far? You did ZERO so far, nonetheless. BTW, explain what is gangbusters in this my paragraph? << If NVS can show that Ilo have addition benefits (dementia, depression, ...) in three long-term studies, and there is good indication that it may have, than projection for 20-30% (and maybe 40%) of schizo market is warranted. All IMO only.>> 8. << And I challenge you to compare the publication records of Ariad and Regeneron. Not even close...but oops! I forgot...the science doesn't count (and it also doesn't count that I'm on public record on SI that I sold about 98% of my ARIA holdings about 6 months ago...but why in the <expletive deleted> should I have to explain this to YOU??).>> You are not serious about REGN’s versus ARIA’s in house science? If you really believe in this (you may be the only one) I am proposing bit different challenge. Let see (with appropriate bet) what will be science contribution to each company market value, said three or five year from now (or whatever you chose as time frame), measured as stock price. Whatever you bet, I will double if you win. However, If I win with X-time difference, you will pay X-time my double, and vice versa. 9. <<… What is this, the SI version of the Balkans??? …>> Leave Balkan in peace, when you know ZERO about, you <deleted>! It was US President, and Secretary and Government who DID give Milosevic and Serbia Government GREEN LIGHT, MORAL and FINANCIL SUPPORT to do WHAT EVER IS NEEDED (in 1980 and 1990) to preserve status quo in Yug. So, WHERE IS BALKAN??? 10. << I can't believe the tone and the personal nature of your post ..>> It wasn’t personal. It was related to post about Zomaril news, where you think that you know everything and better than others. Your reply confirmed my view. ARIA was just to point how quickly you change opinion! Today you sell position, tomorrow you recommend to others as buy. Just for the record. And also for record, two years ago I said that Ariad gene activated technology will not work in human and I still have some opinion. << Your tone was, and is, unnecessary especially since it reeks of the paradox that you have no training whatsoever in the Neurosciences. GO FIGURE THAT ONE!>> Simple. Paradox is fact by itself. 11. << No one on SI (or anywhere else) would or should put up with your tone; I can promise you your tone and approach will be met in kind.>> If my tone offended your ego and writing about bios investment (your neuroscience training), than I do not give <…> about it. I am so afraid that can’t stop shaking. However, if I did offend you as human been, my apologize. Miljenko PS: My apologize to others in regards this unwanted discussion.

To: scott_jiminez who wrote (60)	9/27/2000 3:39:50 PM
From: scaram(o)uche	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 278

Ron: Lots of thoughts....... 1. You brag about your neuro background, but..... in all of your history here, you've not made any neuro picks. You've just hung around under various handles and told us how lousy ours have been. Ours have been very profitable. Why does that disturb you so? 2. You brag about your track record being as good as anyone's here, as good as any portfolio. Are you only counting since you tried to sneak back as Scott? Are you only counting ARIA, KLIC and that diagnostic company? That's hilarious. The fact is that you have one of SI's worst records, if not the worst. 3. Does everyone here know who you are, despite the fact that I socialize with, for example, Jim? No. Why? Because, despite your paranoia re. my PMs, my policy at SI is to not accept them. There are numerous contributors lurking here who could verify that. I don't answer the majority of PMs that I receive, but I feel guilty about it and don't delete them either. I currently have 20 messages in my inbox, dating back to 8/29/99. If you can get Jill to do such, you are welcome to retrieve all of my PMs for years and to publish them here. There are no PMs that relate to you or your paranoia (post "Courtney days", that is). There are very few PMs, period. I don't do them, and you'd see repeated references to such. 4. You pick GLIA as my weak pick. I've been one of the most visible of online biotech proponents since Spring '95. That's over five years. You pick a stock where I (1) made a decent return, (2) exited well before crunch time, and (3) clearly posted at SI and Yahoo that I was exiting and my reason for doing such. I have no concept why our success ticks you off so much, but thanks for the indirect compliment. With respect to your making fun of Miljenko's English. He's a man. You have challenged me in public on one neuro issue. I was correct..... acetylcholinesterase inhibitors are selling well. Make some neuro picks, loud mouth. I wish you well. I wish you the marked success that we've, despite our horrendously weak backgrounds, had with ours. My god what a unfortunate - and disgustingly, sophmorically personal -reaction to what I considered quite positive comments to the TTP data. Couldn't have had anything to do with the little comments that you've peppered around SI since coming back, could it? You're such an innocent, picked-on guy. Not. Are we supposed cower under the likelihood, no the certainty, that Rick sends more PMs than Dear Abby ever would write to assure complete compliance with his view of 'acceptable' participants in SI biotech forums? Ron.... sincerely.... get SI personnel to post all of my PMs. Go back as far as you like. You're off in your imaginary world, making enemies that need not exist. You're correct, however..... I wish you weren't here, and, IMO, it would be best if you had never set foot in a lab. The only thing that "assures compliance" with content in any SI biotech thread is our track record. Without that, any attempt to control the content of certain threads would not have washed. What one sees in public at SI is what one gets of me. Your "assure complete compliance" is delusionary. I'm certain that, with your neuro background, you'll be aware of the correct drugs for extreme paranoia and fixed misconceptions. I wish that there was a drug that could induce, where necessary and appropriate, apology. I'll continue to communicate directly with you in the Fountain thread. Your track record as a stock picker is horrid, and it's appropriate that someone continues to counter your claims. I know, I know.... you have a cousin who does investigations for the SEC, and you've committed all your sins as part of a trap for the bad guys. Bull. Message #60 from scott_jiminez at Sep 26, 2000 4:24 AM <<Two 600 pts pivotal placebo and active drug controlled completed. Highly statistical significant, positive and negative symptoms, no safety issue! >> My god what a unfortunate - and disgustingly, sophmorically personal -reaction to what I considered quite positive comments to the TTP data. I will revise my wording to indicate the patient poulation was more than adequate for the scope of PII and PIII. I will reiterate my points, said up front and prominently, that Zomaril is likely to be a 'significant improvement versus current antipsychotic regimens', and 'strongly suggesting a win/win scenario: a reduction in both positive and negative symtomology together with substantially fewer extrapyramidal, cardiac, weight-related etc. contaminating factors. ' But PII and preliminary PIII data is just that. I did my graduate work with someone who was just entering the schizophrenia field and thus doing a substantial literature compilation. The field is fraught with reports of 'wonder drugs' only to be shown to be applicable to a restricted sub-group of the effected population subsequent to approval for broad use. And this <<Right! In your dream!>> crap! What the hell is that? Where the hell are you coming from anyway? Describe to me your training - or that of Rick Harmon for that matter - in neurobiology and thus having the proper background and perspective to judge schizophrenia pharmacology. I guess it's irrelevent to dilineate the 5-HT versus the DA synaptic chemistry in order to understand this relatively new class of of atypical antipsychotics. Do you even understand what make these a 'new class' in the first place or is the science irrelevant? In short, I gave high praise for the promise of Zomaril. However, with a much clearer understanding of the history of antipsychotics than you display, I was logically and rationally hesitant to be blindly gangbusters about the data (like yourself) until a much broader population sampling is achieved. And what the hell is this Ariad 'baying' nonsense? For someone who has 'Many semi-favorite, only one true love... REGN, REGN and only REGN' in their profile, you've got incredible nerve! What a friggin' hypocrite! And what about Rick Harmon's astute 'baying' of Gliatech (talk about a short!)? Your collective hubris is off-scale. And I challenge you to compare the publication records of Ariad and Regeneron. Not even close...but oops! I forgot...the science doesn't count (and it also doesn't count that I'm on public record on SI that I sold about 98% of my ARIA holdings about 6 months ago...but why in the <expletive deleted> should I have to explain this to YOU??). Are we supposed to be AFRAID of everyone Rick Harmon makes friends with? Are we supposed cower under the likelihood, no the certainty, that Rick sends more PMs than Dear Abby ever would write to assure complete compliance with his view of 'acceptable' participants in SI biotech forums? Is everyone outside his 'clique' open to absurd broadsides like you just unleashed while the 'insiders' are protected? What is this, the SI version of the Balkans??? Do you always follow so closely Rick Harmon's coattails, Miljenko, and do you remind him (and yourself) at every opportunity of the incredible 'baying' you two do of your own pet stocks? I can't believe the tone and the personal nature of your post - obviously based on encouragement from Rick Harmon - since we've had few, if any, exchanges in the past. If I misrepresented the number of patients that were appropriate for this stage of Zomaril's development, fine. I deserve to be corrected...in a dignified and intelligent manner. That's what SI is all about. Your tone was, and is, unnecessary especially since it reeks of the paradox that you have no training whatsoever in the Neurosciences. GO FIGURE THAT ONE! (but there I go again letting that silly Science creep into the text). No one on SI (or anywhere else) would or should put up with your tone; I can promise you your tone and approach will be met in kind. Scott