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 : Paracelsian Inc (PRLN) -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: John Lacelle who wrote (3391)	11/1/1997 5:56:00 PM
From: paul goldstein	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 4342

JOHN, excellent post. yes in deed, the company tried and the government said.. no thanks, at this time. so they have to face sevral choices in this climate find partners go on alone look for some business arrangements that will help them go foward it appears they have cut costs, cut overhead, and are exploring their alternatives will they succeed? i have no idea.. i hope they do as i like this company and what they were working on. cancer and aids the future? i leave that up to wall street for now

To: John Lacelle who wrote (3391)	11/2/1997 12:09:00 PM
From: Jonathan Schonsheck	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 4342

Dear Threaders, I could not disagree more emphatically with portions of the analyses of John and Paul. In my judgement, neither "undercapitalization" (John) nor "government" -- i.e., the FDA (Paul) prevented the launch of Paracelsian's first product -- though management would love to have you believe either hypothesis. The FDA did not prohibit the launch of AndroCare. The FDA prohibited Paracelisan's making the claim that AndroCare "cured" some specific disease (e.g. AIDS), and prohibited Paracelsian's marketing AndroCare exclusively to a population afflicted with a particular disease (e.g. AIDS). However, it was perfectly permissible for the Company to market AndroCare to the general population as a dietary supplement. And it was perfectly permissible for the Company to publish the results of scientific studies of AndroCare -- even if all the subjects in the study had AIDS. (If those two things would have happened: how long would it have taken for the AIDS Community to add one plus one?) In the context of the Smith Barney Conference, the Company announced that East West Herbs would handle the production, distribution and marketing of AndroCare. Turmoil at Paracelsian ought not have had any effect on the launch, as it was to be put in the hands of East West. And remember, East West markets in Britain and Western Europe, well outside the jurisdiction of the FDA. Why was there no product launch? According to the letter from Keith Rhodes, at the beginning of the 1996 Annual Report, the launch was stopped by the FDA. But: 1. Read the excerpt carefully. The launch is not prohibited. (And again, the FDA has jurisdiction only in the U.S.) 2. According to Karen Jackson, a Vice President of the Company, the FDA letter excerpted is dated April 4, 1997. The Company issued a Press Release on April 23 -- nineteen days later -- blaming resignations at Paracelsian for a delay in the launch (but see above), and claiming that the Company still intended to launch its first product, and that it expected to do so before September 30, 1997. The Company's statements are deeply inconsistent. The world-wide market in nutraceuticals exceeds $8 billion. Why has our Company failed to find a way to enter that market? I believe that current management would love for people to believe that they tried, but failed: they ran out of money, or were thwarted by the FDA. Then investors will go away, blaming their own greed, or their own government. They won't demand answers from the Company, won't insist upon further investigation. I am wholly unpersuaded. It was not greed that led me to Paracelsian, it was their promise to market products: first as dietary supplements, and then later as "drugs." They have broken that promise, and what they have offered as excuses make no sense. We should not go away. We should insist upon a clear, coherent -- and true -- explanation of their actions. Jonathan

To: John Lacelle who wrote (3391)	11/2/1997 6:38:00 PM
From: paul goldstein	Respond to of 4342

JOHN, I JUST REREAD YOUR NOTE AGAIN. IT SEEMS TO TELL IT ALL. yep, greed does it to us every time. they were under capitalized they did ,and do, have novel appoaches to serious illness, they do have to make decisons as to the future of the company and its direction. so i will look for the direction to show up in the price or a news article from the company. when? no idea, but, as the year ends i think we will see some indication . stock price can go down further, indicating its bad news stock could pop if good news is coming out stock could just stay where it is. but, we should see something happen before year end. lets watch it play out to the end... at least i plan to stay the course. since i have little choice in the matter. could take the loss against profits elsewheres,but so far, i have made no decisions..