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: enervestor who wrote (2792)	2/3/2001 1:09:40 PM
From: Biomaven	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 52153

enervestor, I still own a little CBST (I sold part at higher levels) and think Ms. Wong is wrong (sorry about the pun). From what I can tell, with the new dosing schedule the muscle tox does not seem to be a significant issue, at least based on what they have published to date. one wonders why they’re still pursuing daptomycin when Eli Lilly dropped it years ago From what I heard a year or so ago, Lilly was grumbling about making a mistake in giving up dapto. CBST seems to be making a fuss in their presentations about dapto being bacteriocidal rather than bacteriostatic. I suppose this might offer the possibility of a quicker response, which could be significant in a life-threatening infection. I don't know enough to judge this issue, however. The shorts pounced on CBST after a warning letter from the FDA a while back. However, the letter was from the FDA advertising police bureaucrats and IMO doesn't mean anything. (Going after a pre-approved product is unusual - usually these guys jump on you only after approval). Here's a link to the FDA letter, and more informatively, some of the dapto poster presentations: fda.gov fda.gov fda.gov Unfortunately some of the poster presentations aren't reproduced too well and are hard to read. In particular the presentation about once-daily dosing to reduce toxicity was hard to make out. Peter

To: enervestor who wrote (2792)	2/3/2001 1:32:05 PM
From: rkrw	Respond to of 52153

<<Cubist is in question, because one wonders why they’re still pursuing daptomycin when Eli Lilly dropped it years ago.>> This is such a shortsighted and simplistic remark from Ms Wong. LLY didn't give the cpd away either. I've heard LLY gets a heavy royalty on dapto sales. Many ex-big pharma cpds have driven some opportunistic biotech companies to massive gains. TTP, CVTX, CBST, ITMN, AGPH, FRX. Celexa I believe was an ex-PFE cpd. PFE dropped it due to tox in beagles. Unless I'm confusing that with another big pharma blunder :-)

To: enervestor who wrote (2792)	2/3/2001 6:32:40 PM
From: scaram(o)uche	Respond to of 52153

enervestor: I've sort of moved away from a focus on anti-bacterials, so, no, I don't follow them. That said, I try to listen to their presentations and keep an eye open. My opinions continue to be favorable, but I can't comment from a "valuation" stand other than to say that downside risk seems to be substantial. I avoid one-product companies unless the capitalization has failure built into it. Yes, they're scrambling to look like something other than a one product company, but...... the pipe is early and poorly defined. The license for "oral" ceftriaxone seems a bit strange. Is composition of matter not an issue? What's the plan for marketing against existing oral cephalosprins? I'd love to get excited about a potential biggie in the pipe, if appropriate. Biowa was pounding the table over CBST at about $5/share, summer '99. It has retained more of its Winter '00 upside than most biotechs, which reflects a ton of analyst enthusiasm. I tend to avoid stocks that have attracted analyst attention (if positive). There's been both a ton of dilution and of appreciation since '99, and, you're correct...... I'm no longer contributing to the CBST thread. Wish them well, however. Rick