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 : IPIC -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Todd N. Weisrock who wrote (835)	10/24/1997 11:47:00 AM
From: Pancho Villa	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1359

Todd, my advice to you: stay away from biotech's until you do some deep studying. Casual investing in this area can be very harmful. Regards, Pancho

To: Todd N. Weisrock who wrote (835)	10/24/1997 3:15:00 PM
From: WeirdPro Randy	Respond to of 1359

Todd, The WSJ article is a fascinating read, the flurry of legal activity is heavy monetary speculation in a "possible case", necessitated by the need to get your foot in the door quickly and in a significant fashion because as the article describes, a legal steering committee will at some point in time decide which lawyer groups get which part of the "settlement pie" (my term). All the legal wheeling and dealing, pitting the individual plaintiffs lawyers vs. the class action lawyers has created this media circus so far. Your points are well taken but the FDA is fairly insulated against legal attack.......however this battle, if it is fought, will take years. More information is needed and will be coming, some soon (ie issue of causality) and some not for a while (ie true prevalence of damage, and the future course of the process as patients are no longer on the drugs). I remain long in IPIC as this issue is likely years from any form of resolution which could even have any bearing on IPIC revenues, although it may come to surface the true part that IPIC (esp. vs. AHP)plays in this scenario as far as the potential liabilty involved for IPIC individually,................ this case has very strong points of defense and defendants willing to fight.............and while one needs to valuate the loss of Redux revenues to the picture currently, this companies has some true blockbusters products to be excited about. The most common cry from the plaintiff lawyers in their press releases has been the companies knew or should have known these problems could happen..........total garbage, and goes to question of MOTIVE.....would IPIC have placed its future in jeopardy in a product that was estimated to worth about 5% of total future revenues in the year 2000 by not disclosing knowledge of potential valvular disorders? The legal issue has done its damage, today, the stock is not even flinching on this front page feature article.....right now there is just too much more to boost the stock coming soon, and too little to damage.......invest on the pipeline in whatever way you see fit (ie if you like it, buy it...if you don't short it).

To: Todd N. Weisrock who wrote (835)	10/24/1997 8:46:00 PM
From: WeirdPro Randy	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1359

Todd, An interesting place to visit is the "diet pill" portion of the web page of the main lawfirm mentioned in the WSJ article at: rheingoldlaw.com It is interesting to see the bias they have towards AHP, and rightly so when one looks at the size of AHP, the prevalence of fen-phen prescriptions over Redux, and knowing that marketing was carried out by AHP almost exclusively. It is also interesting to note their concern over PPH,............ as a known risk of the fluramines, what is the problem? Certainly the companies reported on the increased prevalence of this disorder and is contained in prescribing literature HIGHLIGHTED IN BOLD PRINT......maybe a prescribing physician concern, but not the company's. Also an interesting resource is the PDR information on Redux accessed at: rxlist.com

To: Todd N. Weisrock who wrote (835)	10/31/1997 11:50:00 AM
From: margaret foley	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 1359

Dear Todd, Sorry about this delayed response. Take a look at WSJ article today, Oct 31, 1997. Title of article is: Diet Drug Mystery Grows as New Data Emerge (pages B1 and B10) The data emerging from the new data from doctors is showing lower abnormality rates than what has been found in the past from the small sample. What surprised me was that the reading of echiocardiograms is extremely subjective. I am in Boston and have read and watched the recent murder trial of the au pair and am rather shocked at how credible the medical doctors can be---each with contradictory interpretations of the medical data. Is this all subjective? There must be a probability factor that we should be aware of , otherwise everything seems to be opinion. Why have the tests? The article is worth reading, IMHO. This does not do much to soothe my empty pockets but perhaps this will give some space and time to the companies involved to finish the long term studies. Mrs. IPIC always learns the hard way. All the best, Margaret Still holding some but can't afford to buy more and sure wanted to today.