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 : Abgenix, Inc. (ABGX) -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: tom pope who wrote (208)	6/1/2003 1:54:34 AM
From: Miljenko Zuanic	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 590

Tom, F*** Feurstein. He was hyping ABGX two months ago. Erik, I am not in the mood to respond where I do not agree with your view. Do you really believe that those who are at ASCO will not find out what ABX-EGF data looks? I am pissed off because PR does not imply that for their pts population data actually may be very good??? I will not comment further until I have poster reprint available. Their 2.5 mg/kg dose schedule is established. They increased 50 pts for +1 staining. It is not clear that one need high EGFr expression for drug efficacy. There are other mechanisms. Because other will have similar drug on market, they can not get NDA based on PII. They will need PIII. However, 150 pts can generate good data for nice survival benefit (with ~65%). Also, ABX-EGF is not Velcade. Miljenko

To: tom pope who wrote (208)	6/1/2003 2:10:25 AM
From: ewolf	Respond to of 590

It's clearly premature to judge the drug on this release but the article chooses a negative by implication argument. He says "fund managers" are likely to be disappointed and then quotes only one who is no longer in the stock. Why quote an investor who has no motivation to want anything other than see the stock go down. Up would mean the fund closed out too early. True disappointment would be a few quotes from fund managers who are in the stock but I'm not waiting around for that kind of honesty. Or he could have sought a more unbiased source, a means that he has employed before with isis and imcl. He does quote the company in some gesture of fairness and then frames that comment as something close to self-serving drivel(which may prove to be true)But the article at this juncture is pure speculation about too little data, a fairly meaningless exercise that the street.com is all too willing to perform in the interest of which investor?