To: idahoranch1 who wrote (288 ) 12/18/2004 1:08:20 PM From: idahoranch1 Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 371 If there were no bull argument to this company, none of us would be here. The challenge is to identify the aspects that deserve the bulls support. The science is about all a bull can hang his hat on, and if the science can't be licensed or partnered, then the argument starts looking more like a baby calf. That is why I am more focused on the company doing a deal than I am looking at the science at this point in time. Don't get me wrong, I think the company is a leader in what it can do with antibodies, manipulating them to internalize, discovering methods to improve binding processes, using a pretargeting method for those antibodies that don't internalize or internalize slowly. The bull can argue that the 20 years worth of work is about to add up to deals that will come shortly. The bears can argue that management isn't capable of doing deals or that the products aren't worthy. Both have to be considered. I really do believe that Amgen had other products that significantly affected how they investigated E-mab. They didn't run a lupus trial that was ready to go in 2000. Enbrel was being looked at in that indication that year until the trial was stopped in 2002. Amgen did appear to want CD22 for WW rights but they never did run a trial that generated data that would prove the efficacy of CD22 compared to Rituxan, or even CD22/Rituxan compared to Rituxan. They did see clinical activity according to their releases, and the length of time that it took to get E-mab back from Amgen from the time Dr. Goldenberg announced that the company was negotiating to get it back indicates that Dr. Goldenberg really wanted all the data that was generated in the lab and it took a while to get it along with the rights. If the company does in fact start a pivotal trial with CD22 for lupus here in the US, without a single patient having been treated in the US for lupus to this point, then they have accomplished a significant hurdle, one that I would not have thought likely. It occurs to me that the reason is at least two fold. One is that over 300 NHL patient HAVE been treated and a lot of safety data is on record. Two, Amgen did a lot of lab work in addition to what we had done, and I think that Dr. Goldenberg was able to use a lot of that to support his request for a registration trial. I have to say that the trial hasn't started yet, so I don't want to suggest that it is a slam dunk, but the company has made it pretty clear that they and the FDA are in agreement as to getting that trial underway. CD22 does eliminate B cells, anywhere from 60% to 80% depending on the patient. Autoimmune disease is caused, most of the time (from what I've read) by defective B cells making antibodies that attach normal tissue, as though it were foreign. It stands to reason that if you can eliminate those B cells, or a significant percentage of them, then you should see the patient getting relief as the attacking antibodies decline in number. The unanswered question is, does CD22 take out a significant number of the B cells that are making the problematic antibodies. Larger trials should tell us. The bullish argument will be strengthened significantly if the company can get a good deal for CD22. Both from the capital a deal would give them and the credibility that a good deal with a good company would generate for the pipeline. I was mostly interested in the science for 10 years, but now I am focusing on the business end. I was slow in coming around to that, but I am there now. I do think the science is exceptional, but as others have said all along, it isn't enough. We have to have a deal, and if we don't get one in the next few months, it won't be pretty.