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: axial who wrote (12147)	2/24/2003 1:21:11 AM
From: russet	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 14101

I have little to say here on this subject except that J&J was one of the big experimenters with DMSO in the sixties,...reflect on that and realize that DMSO mixed with a pain killer may be as effective as Pennsaid,...the Pennsaid patent cannot protect against many similar mixtures being developed and marketed. You should think long and hard as to why J&J does not take out DMX right now for peanuts given what the projected market penetration and sales are for Pennsaid if they could capture 5% of the known market,...it makes no sense that the stock trades at its current level. This is for Claude,...imagine a 1 million oz Au/yr mine with $60-100 total cost per oz. Reserves are 10 million oz and open in all directions,..Europe, Canada etc,... The major could pick this up for $100 to 200 million or $10-20 per oz and capex is a couple of hundred million,... Now they tell me that no mayor is interested enough to make an offer, and no one really knows why??? C'est la vie!

To: axial who wrote (12147)	2/26/2003 1:51:14 AM
From: russet	Respond to of 14101

Bioequivalence was proved in the 1960's, by several big pharmas including J&J. They didn't need the other ingredients then, and they don't need them now. Any results from then, preclude and wipe out any patent protection that DMX could claim for Pennsaid as the sole DMSO based transdermal drug delivery system,...ask someone familiar with patent law,...DMX would be treading on thin ice, to try a stop a competing DMSO/NSAID mixture with slight alterations in the stabilizer or transdermal efficator (even one containing Diclofenac) from entering the market. That probably includes most of the other patents you have listed in your search. If another active drug and adjuncts could be substitued for the one listed, the patent could be useless. It is akin to a beer mash,...the only really thing you can patent, is the yeast, and only if no one else has made one with the same genetic blueprint. Safety and efficacy can be proven in a few months with one big trial,... Mark has bitched about this several times with Celebrex etc. DMSO is a delivery system,...you can argue all you want, but the future will determine whether I am right or not,...you were warned though. DMX can extend the patent for their particular mixture maybe,...if they could extend it to all mixtures of DMSO, J&J would have taken it out already. You can believe this or not,...it's up to you. You have been warned though. I am going to ignore WF10 for now. Past results in my opinion, are statistically insignificant because the sample size was far too small and insufficiently sampled the general population. Not sure that the current Phase 3 will work out much better (pretty small samples here too but who knows what the FDA will say,...I know what I would say),...I do not believe that if the results were indisputable, we would still be waiting for them one year later. I think I already said it,... you have been warned. Jim we are arguing in circles,...I think we said it all a year ago, and now we must sit back and see what transpires. Cheers, and good luck, with all your investments.