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 : Biotech Valuation -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: gcrispin who wrote (16935)	5/26/2005 10:01:27 AM
From: DewDiligence_on_SI	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 52153

EYET’s apples-vs-oranges assertion is not entirely valid because 75% of the patients in the phase-3 Macugen trials had the same kind of disease as those in the Lucentis trial that just reported data. Moreover, it’s amusing that EYET CEO, David Guyer, is forced to resort to this argument. When EYET thought that Visudyne was the main threat, Guyer argued that the various subgroups of wet AMD (predominantly-classic, minimally-classic, occult) were artificial distinctions created for photodynamic therapy that had little or no relevance to treatment using the VEGF pathway.