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 : momo-T/FIF -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: former_pgs who wrote (1891)	2/7/2005 7:09:58 PM
From: zeta1961	Respond to of 12215

good points f_pgs..I didn't think of those possible scenarios..I was actually more interested the mo'!..a quick trade! but, I suppose the markets have had sufficient time to calculate and respond to what you proposed... I'm not in either company..personally, was not sufficiently impressed to invest.. I believe the landscape will be changing in a couple of years when other studies in this space mature..for reasons in my post to Erik, I sure hope so! Zeta

To: former_pgs who wrote (1891)	2/7/2005 9:13:35 PM
From: IRWIN JAMES FRANKEL	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 12215

I had written this privately to zeta, but it fits so well with pgs's comments that I will post it: The problem with Iressa is that toxicity builds up too rapidly and often before EGFRi reaches theraputic levels. Tarceva is better as is Erbitux because they reach theraputic levels with lower tox. I would look for both of these to eat away at Iressa EVEN if it is left on the market. (I would favor leaving it on the market from a science point of view.) AZN may pull it regardless. It will never make them money and could cause legal exposure. ij