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 : HEB, Hemispherx Biopharma (AMEX)NEW -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Graham Marshman who wrote (126)	12/9/1997 9:43:00 AM
From: F. Jay Abella, III	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 857

Linda: Good question. For the record, HEB came to our June 1997 BioMedTech conference. That service has been rendered. What I choose to write, the frequency, and the content, remians my prerogative. A company like HEB rarely knows if a piece on them is coming out, or what it will say. Companies on whom I pick up coverage, rarely know I am doing so - I select THEM. At biotech, the ideas I like best are the ones that DON'T tout their stock. They are relatively unknown, with no analyst coverage, that meet my widely published analytical criteria, and are on the brink of rtealizing their business plans. For example, I am interested in HEB because of my background as a drug developer. The Ampligen/HEB case symbolizes the best and worst of the approval process. In addition, as is something I have always known, to be successful in the business of biotech, one must be able to combine sound science with financial acumen. While very few people know how to do this, Carter is a pro. HEB may yet succeed, but, as was the purpose of the interview, only time will tell. My approach with them is therefore with cautious optimism. Personally, the HEB case allows me to continuously challenge my assumptions, and hopefully, once these issues are resolved, make me a better, more credible analyst than before. That way I can build credibility and relationships with company management and my readers at the same time. If Pluvia has a problem with this approach, that is his prerogative. In fact, I enjoy his style, and emulate it whenever I see something that doesn't appear aboveboard to me (like my piece at today's biotech interpreter). However, as far as being a paid tout, I can tell you that in trying to make a name for myself as a researcher, without having a brokerage or corporate finance interest, associating myself closely with illegitimate companies is suicide - and I don't ever do it knowingly. If something appears out of balance, I either expose it to my readership, or ignore the company altogether. If you have read my work, you may agree that I point out the positives and the negatives with the companies I follow closely. No one is perfect. Hope this helps, FJA