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 : Agouron Pharmaceuticals (AGPH) -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Izzy who wrote (3067)	12/2/1997 12:36:00 PM
From: Steve Fancy	Respond to of 6136

Well, first word from analysts since earnings...too bad it's a downgrade. RESEARCH ALERT - Agouron (NASDAQ:AGPH) downgraded Reuters, Tuesday, December 02, 1997 at 11:38 NEW YORK, Dec 2 (Reuters) - Bankers Trust Alex.Brown said on Tuesday it cut its rating on shares of Agouron Pharmaceuticals Inc to market perform from a strong buy. -- Analyst not immediately available to comment further. -- Company said on Tuesday it agreed to end its collaboration with F. Hoffmann-La Roche (ZSE:ROCZ.G) in the field of cancer treatment and discontinue further development of its anti-cancer drug AG337, or Thymitag. -- Stock lost 7-1/8 to 32-3/8. Copyright 1997, Reuters News Service

To: Izzy who wrote (3067)	12/2/1997 1:42:00 PM
From: tommysdad	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 6136

Yes, the San Diego Union-Tribune article was fairly favorable, but it concentrated on a single individual whose tumor was (apparently) virtually eliminated by Thymitaq. But, the last paragraph noted that not everyone had responded, and the article was actually prompted by IDEC's (another San Diego biotech) recent FDA approval of a cancer drug. The point was Agouron had the first San Diego biotech drug (Viracept) and IDEC had the second {Rituxan (sp?)}. No one was duped here. "Effectiveness" and "response rate" are two very different things. The article stated Thymitaq was very effective in one guy. I too hoped David S. was wrong, but he wasn't.