SI
SI
discoversearch

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 : Introgen Therapeutics -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: Jibacoa who wrote (773)5/28/2008 6:08:30 PM
From: tuckRespond to of 802
 
Although officers may claim success according to the protocol, I still wonder if the protocol is acceptable to the FDA and an ODAC. Remember they don't really have an SPA (and the FDA finds reasons to ignore those when it wants to, anyhow). ADVEXIN did worse than methotrexate in non-p53 favorable patients. So the FDA has to be willing to take the plunge here on two fronts that it is still cautious on: 1) personalized medicine; and 2) gene therapy. Seems like a long shot in the current environment, but if the FDA statisticians give it the thumbs up, well maybe. I personally am not betting on it. Certainly not without more data.

I'd forgotten INGN had splutted below $2 previously . . .

No position, but obviously, still negative on the stock. I doubt shorts are wrong for this long a time.

I might consider investing in INGN again only if ADVEXIN washes out along with current management (major credibility issues). I agree with you the other programs have a better shot.

Cheers, Tuck



To: Jibacoa who wrote (773)5/28/2008 6:20:25 PM
From: former_pgsRead Replies (1) | Respond to of 802
 
>It seems that the PIII met its goals, but the shorts still have the upper hand.<g> <

Oh.

My.

God.



To: Jibacoa who wrote (773)9/2/2008 3:49:39 PM
From: tuckRead Replies (3) | Respond to of 802
 
Shorts have upper hand because they are simply right, Bernard:

Message 24901947

Good thing you're a good trader and have a negative cost basis.

Cheers, Tuck