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 : Imclone systems (IMCL) -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: IRWIN JAMES FRANKEL who wrote (2042)	2/16/2002 10:42:03 AM
From: Cacaito	Respond to of 2515

IJW, do not BMY, Gw has same problem with me for years!

To: IRWIN JAMES FRANKEL who wrote (2042)	2/16/2002 12:18:23 PM
From: Cacaito	Respond to of 2515

"how do you see litigation by BMY against IMCL getting BMY their investment back?Where will the money come from?" Bmy will must probably not recover their investment back. The right down of $730M is a clear sign of their expectations, it is the begining of recovering from the ashes: clean the books, some tax benefits. Near term, Bmy need to avoid further investment in Erbitux, the $800M must not be paid. They want the ability to sell shares freely, that could bring some $100, if good theater up to $300M in next 2 to 3 years. Just in case that the drug reach commercialization (I strongly doubt that, erbitux problem is intrinsic, not just the faulty trial, my view), Bmy is asking for double their take, of course pie will be much smaller. Bmy will not pay for new trials, they will demand Imcl does pay, but run by Bmy, this is like a contract service, Imcl has $350M, good chunk could go to Bmy, rest to the class action lawsuits. The intelectual property is worth $50 to $100M in books, and could probably be the basis for new drugs, then full value could be real and more. To see Bmy heavy hand attempts as a wounded beast crying for its rights, NO , it is a wounded beast fighting for its life, respect and dignity will be lost if Bmy does not prevail; WS, biotechs,analysts will laugh more, big pharma takeover of Bmy is on the air. " A question for you – if you were on trial for your life, would you want a judge who reached absolute conclusions as easily as you do? <g> " NO WAY!

To: IRWIN JAMES FRANKEL who wrote (2042)	2/16/2002 12:52:35 PM
From: Cacaito	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 2515

"Avalon and one other broker in Florida were advising shorting IMCL." Avalon is advising it since October 2001, Sterling from earlier than that !!! "I have no doubt that many people who read the Cancer Letter shorted IMCL. It was out early and credible." The Cancer Letter came out on January 7, 2002, the selloff was already full on its way since 12/27/01 clearly in TC2000 bop indicator. I have no evidence to say that anyone shorted before The Ca Letter published the Shareholders information. Even if they shorted past 12/31/01 when Imcl gave the information, and before Ca letter publication on January 7, it is not wrong, cause the company was already public on the RTF, not the bits the company did not like. But it is Imcl selective disclosure problem, not Ca Letter. Imcl wants the "bad bits" private, and the spin public? Well, The RTF is one document ones is out is public, anyone can act. Heavy shorting did not happen until past 1/7/02, there was a lot before but coincide with the RTF bad news of 12/31/01, no one could act during the weekend past the 12/28/01. Interestingly, late November and early December 01 the Bop indicator showed heavy selling, it match the Mercky selling of its 3% stake (20% of that went on the BMY tender offer) and the november selling by sam. Source of the RTF alleged leak? Check inside Imcl first.

To: IRWIN JAMES FRANKEL who wrote (2042)	2/16/2002 1:09:49 PM
From: Cacaito	Respond to of 2515

"FDA has given mixed signals." Hearsay, and false reports! FDA Courtesy is not "mixed signals". Fast track, acceptance of trial design, Rolling BLA all have been used by posters to show "mixed signals", they are business as usual. "within the FDA there were warring factions that wanted different results." Hearsay, no evidence, probably from the same group of yahoo hypers, and the "blame the FDA" crowd. FDA policy is not to comment about any of the "mixed signals" and "warring factions". Everyone could invent what supposedly happen and Fda denials are not available by policy. Talking about the same judge, how will he accept the "warring factions" information, without the cross interrogation of the alleged source? "people have is that they often believe what they want to believe. If the signals were mixed, humans being what they are, they could have picked up on the affirmative and dismissed the negatives. It happens. Perhaps, I have too much confidence in BMY." Maybe, too much confidence in Erbitux, paragrah above is why the FDA will now reject Erbitux again, and sent the company to do rigorous phase III trials. The current ongoing pIIs and pIIIs will be highly scrutinized, even more than the "faulty, screwy" one was. The blame the FDA has been so idiotic and widespread in this case that the WSJ editorial talk about "Fda pressure on Imcl to have placebo control subjects in trial" HOW STUPID !!! Both Imcl and mercky ARE running ongoing placebo control trials! The FDA will be appropriately stringent with this company, BMY knows that, the delays will not be months, will be YEARS! Even if commercialize each year is $1B down to Bmy (if one is to believe the "blockbuster" hype).