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 : Welcome to the POTP board, the DPP-IV company -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: rkrw who wrote (48)	11/19/2006 10:17:02 AM
From: drbio45	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 90

Also I don't like the aggrastat inlicense. Recurring theme in bio is the small bio thinking they can turn others trash (this one has been through mrk, glfd and mogn) and turning it into gold. Good luck to them. Usually companies overpay for inlicensed products. In this case they paid 17 million for a drug doing over 10 million in sales with no sales force. It is the top selling drug in Europe in the space and there is tremendous data on it. They don't have to increase sales much to make it very valuable and if they don't increase sales it still reduces the burn and is a net positive. There is nothing not to like because they paid so little for it. I was in the stock for Mc-1 not aggrastat. Aggrastat just makes the story better because the same doctors in the mc-1 trials are potential purchasers of aggrastat. It is relationship building more than trying to sell a shitty drug. It is a good drug and guilford killed the product when they started a large trial in over 100 sites and decided not to pay the sites for the money they spent during the trial. These sites were not unhappy with the drug, they were unhappy with the company selling it.