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 : Ligand (LGND) Breakout! -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Andrew H who wrote (11387)	11/18/1997 10:11:00 PM
From: Hippieslayer	Read Replies (5) \| Respond to of 32384

Andrew, If the articles Henry is talking about were submitted to specific journals(which Henry confirmed in his post to me), it's my understanding the info in them is given to a peer group to evaluate. It is also my understanding that the info in the papers are usually not open for discussion by the company until the data in the papers are deemed significant by the peer review. Therefore, until the papers are published, the info is deemed useless to the general public. But becuase we have no idea what will be released if anything is released at all, it's innapropriate to throw out as henry did especially how he did it by telling us "this weekend' or "soon." Andy, you write that we have no idea how the info came to be. Exactly my point!!!!!! We don't know! Do you think it is ethical to post something that can not be confirmed without a doubt? As far as inside information is concerned, your stepping into territory I didn't venture into. I don't know if what Henry put out constitutes II. But, please direct me to another source either on this thread or in another arena that can verify that in deed there are three article to be published about lgnd? There is a reason why drug companies don't announce information about papers in review. Because it would start speculation on a matter that hasn't been fully evaluated. And besides, I question Henry's act of using heresay as fact. READ HIS POSTS!!! And what is <<Are you the self-appointed arbiter of what is suppose to be known by outside public>> suppose to mean? BTW, next time you post send me a copy. I have my black pen handy to cross out what ever I deem inapropriate. Maybe I should change my name to BIG BROTHER!!!! And, Andy? Should everyone now be able to post detialed info that no one can verify. Would you have also been so quick to defend someone else if they had posted that same info yet not have it materialize? Honesty tell a lot about a person. So does humility. And don't twist my words to say that I'm accusing Henry of not being honest. I have the decency to not characterize him because I don't know him. But you and other sure go a long way to defend his every act with out a word of question. That frankly scares me. Either I'm not making myself clear or you are taking a giant leap in thinking that I wan't to censor Henry. Henry can say what ever he likes, but if I think he's stepping out of bounds, I call him on it. JUST LIKE YOU WITH ME! Are you the self appointed arbiter of what or what can't be asked of Henry, ANDY? I don't know about you, but I like to be able to verify what I read on this post. We can hypothesize all day long about what the price will be in a day, month, etc. We can quess as to how much a certain drug will make or for what it will be used for, but don't tell me that you honestly want someone to give you "my secret source tells me......" line and take that as "valuable information". <<Henry is communicating info that he believes is valid>> What Henry believe is valid, without any means of verification in our instance, does not mean that he has to print for others to read. He could have easily waited for the articles to come out and then posted them. Being that he is a professor with ties to LGND, could we not rule out that he would have been floated the journal articles before the publication date. I know they exist. My experience, you ask? Doing undergraduate research for a highly published vascular surgeon at UCLA Med Center and being involved in the early process of putting together a paper for journal submission. Your statement of <<He (Henry) communicates it to us in that fashion, so we know it is not a verified act....that often his "information" does not quite mesh with the standards held by a professor. Especially when a professor is posting faceless on a thread. All I can say is that Henry has every right to say what he wants as you and I do. But, I would hope that there are others, either passively scanning this thread or actively participating to weigh in on this matter (other than the usual characters). If I'm out of line with my points, tell me, but give me good reasons as to why Henry was responsible in posting what he did, not the "Well, he was right about X, therefore we'll believe him on Y"