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: nestegg who wrote (5193)	12/28/1997 8:31:00 AM
From: Robert K.	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 17367

Wishing you all nice hollidays. IMO this isnt the 1st nor last time we will see the stock go down like this. You must ask yourself is it because a a fundamental change or not. Following is a article then a comment from myself. Chest 1997 Dec;112(6):1699-1701 Vasculitis and bronchiectasis in a patient with antibodies to bactericidal/permeability-increasing protein and alpha1-antitrypsin deficiency. Mahadeva R, Zhao MH, Stewart S, Cary N, Flower C, Lockwood M, Shneerson J [Medline record in process] A patient with alpha1-antitrypsin deficiency is reported herein; this subject developed aggressive bronchial disease and recurrent cutaneous vasculitis after pulmonary infection with Pseudomonas aeruginosa. Autoantibodies to neutrophil cytoplasmic antigens were detected, which produced granular cytoplasmic staining by indirect immunofluorescence with specificity for a newly characterized antigen: bactericidal/permeability-increasing protein (BPI). The bronchial disease and vasculitis improved, and the IgA anti-BPI titer fell after antipseudomonal treatment. This raises the possibility that anti-BPI antibodies contributed to both the bronchial disease and vasculitis. My comment----------is conversely, if anti-bpi raises the possibility of lung problems etc, then it because of a lack of funtioning bpi, therefore bpi may solve this problem, especially nonreactive bpi21. Of futher note, all indications seem to point to the lung as primary point with bpi. Normal disclaimers, value all I say as worthless. bob

To: nestegg who wrote (5193)	12/28/1997 11:46:00 AM
From: aknahow	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 17367

nestegg, remined me of a point from P I/II trial of 26 patients. BPI was not administered until patients were at 8 or higher on Glasgow scale. The average on this scale which goes up to 15 was 12 at the time of giving BPI. So even though given late in the open trials appeared to produce results. It is my understanding, from Biostock 1, who makes interesting informed post at aol, that P III also requires patients to be at 8 or higher on the scale for P III also. Must say I do not understand why the need to wait so long but if BPI worked in the open trial and the results were not a statistical fluke then one ends up believing thre is no reason it woul have stopped working in the blind trials. Also as a non professional in this field it would seem that in real life if approve for use BPI would be given early on without waiting for anyone to move to a higher level on the Glasgow scale and also closer to the time antibiotics were first administered. This would seem to be logical and IMO would seem to gve the sick kids a beter chance for survival. What am I missing here?