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.

Technology Stocks : Long Term Investors' Outpost -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Arthur Radley who wrote (389)	8/16/2002 4:37:18 AM
From: Seeker of Truth	Respond to of 562

A few days ago Paul Philp explained that the great tech bubble while it reduced our net worth by a painful amount, nonetheless did a service for posterity. The economy is quite stronger with the internet etc. In the future when the optics revolution is complete then long distance communication costs will decrease greatly, another great advantage. A very similar thing could be said about biotech. Please note that a lot of us, definitely including me, held our shares as they went into and then crashed out of the stratosphere partly because information technology was our professional game. So we couldn't see the fire approaching the forest, so enamoured were we with some particular trees. Now TexasDude is very keenly aware of the growing need for better ....drugs. Alas, pure dude, that emotion sets you up for error, IMHO. The entire biotech industry is a losing proposition for investors, a great step forward for mankind to borrow Paul's paradox. 19 out of 20 of the little firms never develop a saleable product. It's a long way from the theory to the chemical that works in vitro, another long distance from in vitro to in vivo in mice, then another long distance to establish that there are no significant side effects on the test animal(s), then an excruciating long distance through the abyss of Phase III trials, which most putative drugs don't cross. Even if the drug gets that far, it often is not significantly better than a drug already on the market for the same purpose, to which the doctors are already accustomed. The doctors stick to what they have found successful. I really hesitate to post this because I'm so aware of the benefit to humanity, but texas dude is a real person and if I discourage him about his dream a real person is aided. What a moral dilemma! A possibly bureaucratic point. Even a successful drug doesn't give a company a sustainable advantage for developing the next one. When the patent expires the company is again toast, burning through its cash. So biotech doesn't belong on this thread.