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: IRWIN JAMES FRANKEL who wrote (2290)	12/12/2000 9:05:52 PM
From: keokalani'nui	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 52153

MAXM and me. First, me. I'm not the kind of guy who presciently sells before bad news and posts about it. Instead, I like being different and cheerfully admit to my investment getting imolated by half. OK. Now, could someone weigh in on my consternation about MAXM? I am (was) wholly prepared for debatable issues about statistical significance, efficacy, therapeutic doses of IL-2, subpopulations and so on, and further prepared to misunderstand those risks and nuances. In fact I was prepared to be labeled foolish and hopeful and naive about that stuff. But....Grade 3-4 toxicities in 62% of patients with liver mets, the only possible label? I am surprised at this and feeling, what is a kind word...underinformed? So my question is where did I go wrong on toxicities. From the company's publications, did anyone expect this bit of bad news prospectively? Isn't a mere Grade 3, much less a Grade 4, toxiticity by definition a lousy quality of life? I'd be happy to take this elsewhere, but you guys are, you know, smart. And I am trying mightily to get smarter without first running out of money. (Actually, I had a low basis.) I have no ego. Go ahead...use the CAPS key. --Wilder