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 : SIBIA Neurosciences (SIBI) -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: scaram(o)uche who wrote (135)	12/7/1997 6:00:00 AM
From: Jongmans	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 579

Is it now the right time to build long term positions in companies like ARIA, MCDE, SNAP, SIBI, VICL....? The valuation of these companies seems low, their scientifical base strong and you can expect a flow of positive news and developments next year. Martin

To: scaram(o)uche who wrote (135)	12/7/1997 1:45:00 PM
From: Courtney Willfore	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 579

Same ole... In my humble opinion: This time I'll respond directly on the appropriate thread. And this time my response to the Rick and Peter show is different: where in balooki are you coming from Rick? You turned Peter's statement inside-out and upside down to suit your own approach to the biotech industry. And I know you're sorry I feel this way. My reading of Peter's statement is that it has absolutely nothing to do with all the financial 'crap shots' and market cap stuff you're referring to. The most cursory glances at most of his posts, especially on the 'bash' thread, indicates his interest is in the benchtop, not the accounting office. Needless to say, even a naive undergraduate understands the incredible risks involved in the biotech industry; this is implicit in discussing these companies and is certainly incorporated into Dr. Dale's posts. You clearly indicate you want Peter to stop lecturing you about the biology, eh? Well, here's what I see: 1) I first read his post about 24 hours ago and have spent a decent amount of time deciphering it. My point: he was not being overly pedantic nor was he trying to dis or belittle you (and don't tell me your response didn't intend to imply this) since his statement ASSUMED YOU ALREADY PROCESSED A HUGE VOLUME OF THE REQUISITE KNOWLEDGE. There are abbreviations/concepts/late breaking data incorporated into a very concise statement. 2) There is at least once participant on this thread who has become, let's say, aggressively frustrated, with your inability to discuss the science of neuroscience. Well count me in too. Once again its your language that's so bothersome, and the lack of either follow-up or qualification. You state in post 133 that a Sibia/BMY research program "..addresses the underlying organic loss" of Alzheimer's. Well I too would have gone totally stratospheric if I would have seen that statement. Half the time you indicate your lack of training in the field...but then feel no regret at posting these distinctly poorly informed messages. TELL ME, DR. HARMON, HOW DOES ONE ADDRESS THE UNDERLYING ORGANIC LOSS? Fact is, NO ONE KNOWS. Lots of leads, some very strong. If I'm wrong, you have my permission to slam my poor, dysfunctional brain to the wall. Fact is also that you have demonstrated poor judgment in your choice of language and/or selective use of sources; and I'm also definitely NOT convinced that Peter wasn't telling you something you didn't already know. For instance, how do the secretases and the presenilins interact? Do they interact (since their subcellular localizations in neurons appear to be different)? Even at a crap shot level, is there a BIOLOGICAL BASIS for going after the secretases versus the presenilins? What role do caspases have in activating the presenilins? And don't you dare tell me to go do my homework (I've been doing it) nor post me references. These are honest questions I have that will help everyone understand these issues and demonstrate you have a clear grasp of Alzheimer's biology. And I feel absolutely no regrets at the tone of this post, regardless of my previous posting on the Univec thread. Dr. Dale's post WAS the epitome of constructive criticism because it was made in EXACTLY the appropriate context - the biology of AD. And the only worthless comments appeared subsequently in a response that did not address the issues that were raised. Rick, did you really think you could get away with that with me lurking in the wings?CW