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.

Strategies & Market Trends : YEEHAW CANDIDATES -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Brander who wrote (3456)	10/25/2003 10:59:44 AM
From: Arthur Radley	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 23958

Brander, the cost factor IMO is why it will be a big issue on the plus side for DSCO...if efficacy is equal to the animal derived products. To quote from the recent Brean report..."Even if Surfaxin had similar efficacy and safety to current market leaders, its lower manufacturing costs and greater supply alone would double the RDS market to $300M, in our view. The current $150M surfactant market is dominated by animal-derived surfactants having major limitations including supply constraints, high manufacturing cost, low purity, and low quality contol." It is my understanding the animal derived producers have a major problem in getting consistency in their production runs. I guess one cow's lung isn't as good as the next! As for not meeting positive Phase III results....tell me!!!I've had a few of them and they hurt.