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: Pancho Villa who wrote (913)	12/1/1997 4:30:00 PM
From: NeuroInvestment	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1359

Now there you go again.... 1) Re: your previous comment about the DLJ analyst being 'irresponsible and/or ignorant' and needing to speak to a product liability attorney, I suspect he has, I know I did. I discussed the Redux issue with an attorney who was very involved in the breast implant case, and came away with the same conclusion as the DLJ analyst, regarding a lack of significant liability on IPIC's part. Have you spoken to a legal expert in product liability law, and if not, where does that place you on the I and/or I scale? 2) Re: IPIC running extra studies....they started a supplemental Phase III examining MRI documented changes in infarct size back in 1996. They are not adding any new studies, and the NDA will not include final MRI data, since the study is still in progress.My non-company sources in the stroke research community have commented that they have heard that citicoline MRI data has looked good...but I doubt that they have seen any of the actual Ph III sample. 3) Re: the Phase III results for citicoline: Janssen's Ph III data was much weaker than IPIC's, which is why they pulled it from the AC. 4) Please do inform us just what these generic drugs for the treatment of stroke sequelae are, there are a lot of MDs who would like to add to their current armamentarium of t-PA. Speaking of which; I have three extra copies of an guest article I wrote in August on 'the next generation of stroke drugs' for NeuroPractice, which is a Lippincott-Raven publication sold to neurologists....since the neurologist who edits that publication saw fit to disseminate it to his 8000 neurologist subscribers so that they would be updated, perhaps there are three members of this thread who would like to see it.I do not have copyright permission to duplicate it, so it is limited to three. 5) Re: my sources of information: I speak to IPIC management just as I speak to the management of virtually all the companies I cover. The preliminary plan for an October NDA had been discussed in an analysts conference call, by the CEO. Receiving information from a CEO/CFO of a company does not make me, or anyone else, a 'spokesman' for the company. Indeed I have consistently refused consultation contracts with companies that I cover because of the conflict of interest such agreements pose, a boundary that many newsletter writers do not observe. Speaking with sources within and outside companies allows me to provide informed opinions...which are not as ubiquitous as one might hope. My comments a few weeks ago regarding cognitive dissonance as a factor affecting everyone should not be interpreted as meaning all opinions are created equal and carry equal weight. Some are more informed than others....so if you have really done your homework on product liability law and current stroke treatment options, please share that with the thread, in addition to opinions. NeuroInvestment

To: Pancho Villa who wrote (913)	12/1/1997 4:46:00 PM
From: WeirdPro Randy	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1359

Pancho, your reply to NeuroInvestment is really ridiculous and condescending. The only positive point would be if it garners a response from this learned Ph.D in neurology, which it really doesn't deserve ( Although now that I have checked, I see he already has). Your replies from today talk on hypothesis, without any significant reasons behind your words. When you write<< IMO, this Mr. Frankel does not know much about the potential liability that IPIC faces.>>, could you please elaborate on your take on the potential and/or probable liabilty facing IPIC?