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 : Lidak Pharm. [LDAKA] -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Red Dragon who wrote (804)	1/5/1998 9:59:00 PM
From: luis a. garcia	Respond to of 1115

Red We will find out the protocol details of the study as they are published.. all 150 volumes at 200 pages each...( no doubt they had "this page left intentionally blank on all pages" but the question comes to mind What sort of strict protocol was used to validate acyclovir which by many accounts in this thread is extremelly inefective ???? what is that all about? And never mind the secondary endpoints demostrating that in many cases the outbreak was stopped alltogether from occurring if Lidakol was applied during the tingly phase.....SURELY That was pure fabrication as well another batch of lying patients...no doubt.. all 750 lying cheating dishonest bas...ds... luis

To: Red Dragon who wrote (804)	1/5/1998 10:36:00 PM
From: Henry Volquardsen	Respond to of 1115

Red Dragon, I wasn't suggesting that it is ok to compare the 4-5 days of healing with Lidakol to 8-10 days for untreated lesions. I was trying to deconstruct the sentence in your post that posited that if Lidakol and the placebo both showed the same results it meant that they were both ineffective. I was trying to indicate that it depended on what the results were for both compared to untreated lesions. I agree that direct comparison could only be made as part of a clinical trial that compared Lidakol, the placebo and an untreated group. I believe the phase 3 was constructed that way but since we are all dealing with the limited information released we are all reduced to conjecture. As far as the inclusion of people with compromised immune systems I would think that would complicate the analysis. I would think the study would be conducted on people with no other complications and the comparisons would be to similar groups. I agree that it is very odd for the placebo to have been active. It was clearly a major blunder. But I find the explanation plausible. The design of phase 3s are done in consultation with the FDA. I can see how they would want a placebo that would be indistiguishable to all senses from Lidakol. Lidak clearly blundered in designing the placebo. Is it possible this story from company sources is a lie. Yes it is. But then you would have to consider that they are perpetrating a fraud. Dr Katz would have to be involved. Considering the size of his holdings and his very recent decision to spend his own money to increase his stake, do you think Dr Katz is involvd in fraud? I don't. RD, I understand your position and am in the same boat and am just as concerned. But as messy as the Lidak story is, I find the only alternative explanation even harder to believe considering Dr Katz's exposure to this equity. Henry

To: Red Dragon who wrote (804)	1/6/1998 9:46:00 AM
From: MCorbley	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1115

The suggestion that Lidakol and/or placebo has been ineffective is simply wrong. In both the 1996 phase III study and the study in Belgium/Holland, there was a sizable group of patients who applied Lidaol or placebo in "late stage"--that is, 1 to 2 days after a cold sore episode began. Late stage application of Likdaol or late-stage application of placebo always produced healing times in the range of 7 to 10 days. These were always indistinguishable from untreated cases and always significantly longer than cases where application of the cream began immediately. Several people have mentioned the 1996 results recently, so I will copy that press release into the post following this one. Note that in that study, the "untreated" data were taken from the same patients who participated in the clinical trial. The results of the Belgium/Holland study can be found in a university science library: Acta Derm Venereol (Stockholm) 1996; volume 76, pp. 479-481.