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.

Gold/Mining/Energy : Nuvo Research Inc -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Greg Spendjian who wrote (10504)	8/9/2002 2:08:13 PM
From: Joe Krupa	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 14101

Greg, "But what gives one a cautionary pause is that none of the big pharmas have jumped to the bait. Presumably the strategists at companies like Merck, Pfizer, or Novartis have looked at and analyzed all the information on WF-10. If that is the case, why aren't they banging on DMX's door (or previously on Oxo's door)?" I know Di7026 or Mark could answer this better than I, but it is important to remember that many large pharmas have staked their business and reputations on the current cocktail of antiretrovirals and protease inhibitors. These current treatments are very profitable for them and any perceived inclination toward the very unorthodox WF10 treatment would be almost an acknowledgement that they have been barking up the wrong tree for all these years. As well, the phase III results have not yet been released. I'm sure any curious parties will wait until the published numbers are out on the latest trial. Things may change after that point. ONC, ISA, VAS and BRA all have very promising drugs as well, yet nobody is taking aim at them yet either. Pfizer did not buy Pharmacia until it was 2 years into selling its "blockbuster" drug, Celebrex. Just my thoughts. joe

To: Greg Spendjian who wrote (10504)	8/9/2002 2:55:32 PM
From: axial	Respond to of 14101

Hi, Greg - You bring up a great point: some on this board know this has caused me many sleepless nights. Literally. "I'm just trying to explain how come we on this board are the only brilliant ones ... when it comes to seeing them." ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ I will try to give this the answer it deserves on the weekend. Regards, Jim

To: Greg Spendjian who wrote (10504)	8/9/2002 9:37:00 PM
From: Mark Bartlett	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 14101

Hi Greg, Joe has partially answered your question and I think he is right. There are many companies who produce anti-retovirals (most of them large pharmas) and if WF10 perform like we hope, then IMO some of those sales could be at risk. And there is also the possibility that WF10 may redefine the actual causation of AIDS. Joe touched on this with "barking up the wrong tree" comment, but I will expand a little. There is a core group of well respected researchers who are still far from convinced that HIV actually causes AIDS. Some say the HIV is there, but does not cause the pathology --it is guilty by association -- not by real proof. Then there are others who believe HIV is not even a real virus -- is it cellular debris and proteins that are actually nothing more that artifacts produced by the body when it is under a process called oxidative stress. The arguments and discussions around this issue could (an do) fill thousands of pages. I have read several thousand pages of information on the subject and frankly am more in the HIV does not cause AIDS camp. But I am not a researcher. I have a decent science background and it has helped me understand some of the issues that strictly lay people would have difficulty with (it is not a case of being smarter, just exposure). But I am certainly still open to being proven wrong -- but it would take much better proof that what exits today. I want to stress that my opinion in no way reflects that of DMX -- as far as I am aware, they adhere to the HIV = AIDS paradigm. So -- the key in grasping the potential significance of WF10 (at least as far as AIDS is concerned) lies in whether one really believes that HIV causes AIDS. If the establishment paradigm is wrong, then all the antiretrovirals are frankly not worth a lot. But another important issue is this -- AIDS is essentially an immune 'imbalance problem' that needs an immune 'balancing' solution. Even if HIV does cause AIDS, will ridding the body of it cure the immune imbalance? Consider this, the best anti-retrovirals that have apparently dropped viral loads down to nearly zero, have NOT cured AIDS i.e., have not rebalanced the immune system -- people are still dying. Personally I do not believe that ridding the body of every HIV particle will cure AIDS -- the imbalance will still remain -- hence the need for WF10. In addition to AIDS, WF10 seems to have potential in other immune disorders that are characterized by immune imbalance. What are some of these disorders -- well some cancers, hepatitis C, asthma, Crohn's disease, lupus, multiple sclerosis and severe allergies, all immediately come to mind. Why does WF10 show potential in these areas? How can one drug be capable of so much potential good? The answer to that lies in how WF10 works. Unlike many other drugs that target small components of a particular problem i.e., effect a solution to a problem, WF10 seems to have the capacity to rebalance the immune to effect the changes that cause many of the above diseases. How is this so? Because the root cause of these diseases lies in an immune system that has been altered so that it no longer functions correctly. Specifially WF10 enhances phagocytic macrophage activity and down-regulates the over-production of potent chemicals our own body's produce. These chemicals in balance are necessary and undertake important functions, but when over-produced they now turn against us and attack tissues that are otherwise healthy. They do this relentlessly because the immune balance is gone and the messaging system that would normally switch off these chemicals is no longer working. WF10 makes the switch work again. This does not mean that WF10 will cure all of these problems. Like most problems, solutions often come in degrees. But WF10 will, IMHO, have a significant impact on many illnesses where immune imbalance is the root cause. But WF10 research has done more than this -- but that is for another post. On a few other notes ..... I think that the best partner for DMX as far as WF10 is concerned (assuming they do partner) is a large pharma that is not presently in the HIV/AIDS market with and anti-retroviral drug. Wolf brought up a good point about the distribution required for something like WF10 and whether a large pharma would even be needed for the AIDS market. I tend to agree that for the AIDS side of WF10, DMX may be all that is really needed. Getting back to your main point about other large pharmas not "knocking at DMX's door". First -- do we know in fact that is the case? Personally I believe that it is NOT the case, although I have no proof of that. In addition, while there is some published information on WF10, there is not a lot. I suspect much of the data lies in the vaults in the former Oxo Chemie -- but it is ours now and in due time I think we will hear more about it. I could go on and do intend to expand upon some of the issues scratched over here, but that will be for another day. My final comment for now is -- if you have note already so, do some serious DD on the WF10 front. Best to all, MB