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: keokalani'nui who wrote (2291)	12/12/2000 11:30:42 PM
From: Biomaven	Respond to of 52153

Wilder, First, I dodged a (small) bullet on this one not because of any brilliant analysis that I did figuring out that their data was no good. Rather, I encountered enough people who were uncomfortable with the drug and trial that I thought the risk/reward wasn't there. On the toxicities, I haven't yet read the medical review. I would have thought that most (if not all) of the severe tox would have come from the IL-2, not the maxamine. They were using a big IL-2 dose, and so toxicities were to be expected. Peter

To: keokalani'nui who wrote (2291)	12/12/2000 11:47:05 PM
From: Spekulatius	Respond to of 52153

Wilder, I have scanned through the statistical evaluation of the Maxamine application. I have only a basic knowledge about statistics but its clear to me that Maxim has bend the statistics to get more favorable results: 1) The evaluation of the subgroup was not intended and communicated with the FDA before the trial was started. MAXM "discovered" a statistical, subgroup (with liver tumours ) only during the trial. This however is flawed, since many subgroups could be constructed and there is a high chance of finding a statistical significant result in one of the many subgroups just by chance. 2) While the whole patient population appear to be sufficiently randomized, the Liver tumour" subgroup itself was not, which makes a statistical significant result for this subgroup very questionable. 3) That said,i don't think that MAXM can "prove" with the results of this study that Maxamine works it also doesn't prove that it doesn't work). I do not believe that the FDA will approve Maxamine for anything based on this study. 4) MAXM will have to start a new trial, to get Maxamine approved for Melanoma. I do not think, that data from this "flawed" trial can be augmented with new data to get Maxamine approved. 5) MAXM might be a good speculation if the stock falls close to cash value. They should have a reasonable chance to get Maxamine approved for Hepatitis C and this would be a real blockbuster. Hopefully, the result of this trial will be more favorable....