To: keokalani'nui who wrote (632 ) 8/13/2001 2:58:35 PM From: ChemistInvestor Respond to of 717 Thank you for the several responses on this board. It's nice to see people care to talk about PCYC in earnest again. :) My responses and thoughts: * PIII enrollment was not completed until this past March, which was slower than I had expected. Nevertheless, I understand that results should come by year-end. WE is correct about the co-primary end-points. * The comment referenced from Barron's was troubling, though I have felt that most criticism of Xcytrin has come from those who challenge it classically. This debate is really around mechanism, IMO, and the answer may be that Xcytrin operates with a mechanism currently not understood. On the other hand, if it does not operate with a novel mechanism, then I would be much more pessimistic about Phase III. * As to Harold's comments about getting products to market, where have you seen a failure of PCYC to do this? With the exception of the Gadolite fiasco, PCYC has maneuvered quite well IMO to prepare for commercialization of its products. They regained international rights to Lutrin, and have always had exclusive rights for Xcytrin. Optrin is on the other side of the fence, with Alcon having those rights. I don't fault PCYC there, though, as their cash position may not have allowed them to foot all of those bills. Finally, I have been told that PCYC has significantly ramped up their marketing and sales capabilities in anticipation of the Xcytrin Phase III. Given the nascent position of this company, none of us can really forecast the ability of PCYC to execute on the commercialization of their products in the market, but I have been pleased to see them properly gearing up. * I have been just as miffed as the rest here at the abject disinterest in PR by this company. ChemistInvestor