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 : XOMA. Bull or Bear? -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: aknahow who wrote (4984)	12/3/1997 2:57:00 PM
From: Andrew H	Respond to of 17367

>>Which is more interesting in the absence of news from XOMA?<< Guess you hit the nail on the head.

To: aknahow who wrote (4984)	12/3/1997 3:25:00 PM
From: Pseudo Biologist	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 17367

george, I read the AOL Xoma board last night and someone there has claimed to have had a reply to an e-mail to Giroir (or some other author of the Lancet paper). In this reply this author is alleged to have said to be preparing a "counter-letter" to Duncan's and to have also said that Dr. Duncan is mistaken (or something to that effect) in his comments. On the modus operandi of medical journals, and others like Science or Nature. Usually a small fraction of papers in each issue carries an accompanying comment, news and views or "editorial" piece; the author(s) of these pieces get advanced copies of the articles commented upon. It is not uncommon to see the accompanying piece appear one or two issues after the original paper was published (esp. if the publications are weekly or bi-weekly). I've noticed (and this is purely anecdotal) that the editorials/commentaries tend to be cheerleader-like in Nature or Science, but kind of skeptical in Lancet or New England Journal. PB (not an author)

To: aknahow who wrote (4984)	12/3/1997 11:29:00 PM
From: opalapril	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 17367

Gentlemen, gentlemen. What say we forget the business over my screen name, eh? When George cautions >>that would mean taking all post as true and that is something I know is not true<< he is perfectly correct even if his post, by that same principle, could be said to be untrue. Throughout the Web there is an awful lot of disinformation, wishful thinking, paranoid delusions, and just plain ignorance masquerading as wisdom and special knowledge. Thank goodness this is NOT a characteristic of the XOMA board, due in no small measure to the efforts of Andrew, George, and Robert. Nevertheless, one must always be skeptical. As for the speculations about my screen name, alas, they all have been flat wrong. The only reason I do not strip completely and 'fess up to the banal meaning is you seem to be having so much fun I am loathe to disappoint you.