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 : Texas Biotech (TXB) -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Bill Wexler who wrote (443)	12/26/1997 6:26:00 PM
From: X. Fang	Respond to of 834

Thank you very much for the quick responding. I still have a few more things to be clearfied. 1. Where is the TBC11251 from if they don't do in-house research? 2. I can't agree with your explanation about analysts at Lehman. As sell-side analysts, all they rely on is the good relationship with their top clients, in other words, their ability to sell IPOs. Lehman made less than $2 million on TXB 2nd offerring. Why does an analyst risk his raputation, which is the most important thing to his career, on a scam company for only bringing in $2 million which is probably less than his annual salary? 3. Could you give me some hard evidences on which you think Novastan Phase III trial was faulty and not statistically significant? From the company press release, those numbers looked to me very significant. Novastan has been successful in Japan for over 3 years, how could it fail in US? I will do more studies on ZONA and ARNX.

To: Bill Wexler who wrote (443)	12/26/1997 7:20:00 PM
From: Bharat H. Barai	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 834

I want to correct your impression about Novastan trial results. Novastan (chemical name; Argatroban, research of Mitsubishi chemicals, sub licensed by Texas Biotech in USA, with rights to Smith Kline Beecham now) is a synthetic compound with small molecular weight, that is a direct inhibitor of Thrombin. Heparin acts as anti coagulant by acting on Anti Thrombin III, which inhibits Thrombin and prevents coagulation. Novastan trials have been conducted for Cardio vascular applications, since Novastan has much shorter half life than Heparin. Those two trials were presented at the 1997 meeting of American College of Cardiology. One of them showed positive trend but did not show statistically significant difference (I think that is the one you are referring to in your post). The present Product Licence Application (PLA) filed with FDA is NOT for Cardio Vascular indication but for Heparin induced Thrombocytopenia (HIT). This multi center trial showed highly statistical significat dfference (This trial data were presented at International Hematology meeting in Milan, Italy in June, 1997). It is well known that 3-6% of patients treated with Heparin develop reduction in platelet count (Heparin inducedThrombocytopenia). Studies show very few, if any develop platelet reduction with Argatroban (Novastan). There is no viable Intravenous anti coagulant to replace Heparin if patient develops Heparin induced thrombocytopenia at present. Since Argatroban (Novastan) is already in use in Japan for 3 years without any problems, there is no viable alternative for HIT and the multi center trial showed very highly statisticaly significant benefit,it is my opinion that FDA will approve Novastan on fast track basis. N.B. Texas Biotech is developing two new products, for Asthma and Congestive Heart failure. Smith Kline is their partners in development of these two compounds. Novastan will have modest market but it is these two drugs under development that are POTENTIAL jackpots for TXB, if successful. B.H. Barai MD Hematologist

To: Bill Wexler who wrote (443)	12/26/1997 10:13:00 PM
From: Brander	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 834

Mr Wexler: Concerning your statement "Because TXB's clinical trails were faulty and results were not statistically significant." To make such a statement, I certainly hope that you have evidence to back it up, becuase you might need it. All the information I have seen and colleagues I have talked take a contrary view to yours, and they have ween the evidence and have the training to understand the science. Brad Anderson, MD

To: Bill Wexler who wrote (443)	12/26/1997 10:24:00 PM
From: Brander	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 834

Mr Wexler, this statement: "It is 100% certain that Novastan will not be approved as an alternative for heparin. " Is 1000 % irresponsible, misleading, and false. It would not be this far with the FDA, if it were 100% certain. They have looked at the clinical information, and they have the background to understand the data, unlike you, a CPA, or so you say. I am sure the the FDA, TXB, and SEC would not enjoy reading such slander posted on a public forum. Brad

To: Bill Wexler who wrote (443)	12/26/1997 11:00:00 PM
From: DZOO	Respond to of 834

OFF TOPIC: > Name one.< I did!!!!!!! You didn't reply. Maybe a finance rag wasn't good enough. How about some technical publications? I chose the following because they were online: 1. JOURNAL: BLOOD COAGULATION AND FIBRINOLYSIS B.E.LEWIS, E.D. GRASSMAN, L. WRONA, Y. RANGEL Volume:8 Issue:1 Pages:54-58 2. Roque Pifarre, MD Loyola University Project: 7754 HAVE YOU VISITED THESE DOCUMENTS. HAVE YOU LOOKED AT THEIR CREDENTIALS? ( thrombolytic references only others provided upon request )