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 Stock Picking - 2003 -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Harold Engstrom who wrote (50)	1/3/2003 7:21:33 PM
From: scott_jiminez	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 383

<<Many companies in this biotech forum are not biotech...>> Absolutely correct. We are now two to three decades since the inception of the space and the definition of the term distills to the eyes of the beholder. A non-trivial cadre of followers could mount a legitimate defense that Lily, Pfizer, Merck, etc are now functionally biotech companies. And we've all heard the well founded claim that AMGN is now simply a big Pharma, and not a biotech. Your contention that SEPR is not a BT would meet stiff resistance from the 30-50% of participants in last year's contest who included it in their portfolios. And 'cells' have been used by pharmas decades before the word 'biotech' was even coined. IMO, your definition does not define the field...simply because the field is indefinable rather than any lack of effort on your part. UNVC qualifies as much as SEPR does as much any company distantly related to biomedical practice since, to repeat, the field is defined subjectively, to suit one's personal preconceived ideas.