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 : ATIS is on the move! -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: David S. who wrote (1270)	1/7/1998 2:58:00 AM
From: Rick Strange	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 2205

David, Talk about a hype job...you offer nothing but glittering generalities unsupported by any substantive data. There have been over 1200 post on this thread, both pro and con ATIS, one common denominator is that all have tried to add to the picture by filling in details or offering information. All you offer is noise.

To: David S. who wrote (1270)	1/7/1998 9:48:00 PM
From: Marshall Teitelbaum	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 2205

David, Okay, I've read all the negative opinions, although not with factual info. to back it up. Am I missing something in your posts? Are you trying to say that ATIS management has really been misleading, or are you saying that the claims of major breakthrough potential for organ growth by people with such poor reputations in the tissue engineering community such as Gail Naughton(sarcasm intended, and for those who don't know her, she is the coo and a major player in this scientific community) are totally off? Based on what info? I haven't seen them say that they have done everything there is to do, just that the potential to go so far is there......does the Easter bunny have the credentials to dispute this? I was really interested in hearing the concerns about dermagraft from a while back about the product being like "tissue paper," but I never did.....the problem of being effective and safe must not be important.......now it's not the product but its potential market...which is it? Not a good product which won't get approved or a product which won't have good sales but will be approved? You have to make a decision here, as I interpreted the "tissue paper" analogy reference to being a "heads-up" for us as a sign that this product won't make it. We all get strong feelings about companies, some right and some wrong...I'm sure even you can't be right all the time....I'd settle for 60% most of the time. Nevertheless, if you want to contribute here, it would be nice if you actually did, rather than just throwing opinions without facts or even logical reasons. I have rarely heard an answer to any questions I have posed to you over the months, and that makes your stong opinions less credible, and it is not because I have had or have any desire to insult you in any way. You do have the valid point that the market likely won't be as large as the worldwide 2 billion potential for diabetic foot ulcers, but does it have to be? Could it potentially also get other uses which could generate income over the next 1-2 years...maybe? Will it make major market penetration immediately..probably not? Does it have to? When looking at its hefty market cap, than looking at the potential for its products, is it really so out of line? How much does Merck go up for a product with potential sales which are a miniscule part of its market cap? What does getting a major product approved mean to its credibility, as well as its future prospects,, which are still factored in to any biotech company? Ultimately, the fda will give us many answers, as if it doesn't get approved, ATIS will be hit hard, but that is the nature of the beast. I have seen management here which has been up front and honest every step of the way without all of the game playing of most, so I take your claims toward this very lightly. Even the issue about misleading data with the original data isn't exactly accurate...only people's interpretations of it...I had spoken with the company the day it came out and got the details just as they claimed, so it only took interpretation of the details to figure what was meant, which they were more than helpful to explain. BTW, what would any of the factors you expressed do if a short squeeze were to occur? Would they stop the price from rising? Per ViWes, the 12/97 short % was up to 4.113 million, which is over 10%of the float. Volume is up these last couple of days vs. december, and the price has been gradually rising. Of course, it could go up in advance of the news, have good news, and still get knocked back immediately after, but time will tell, as will how far it goes over the next few weeks. Gee, I'm vicious, huh? Take care, Marshall

To: David S. who wrote (1270)	1/7/1998 10:49:00 PM
From: Bruce Long	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 2205

David, I have to agree with the popular opinion here. Your critique of ATIS is very general. I think we all know what the market cap is and what the future prospects of the diabetic ulcer market is. I would be more interested in a scientific arguement as to why ATIS may or may not be approved, and any clinical arguement as to why ATIS may or may not be a successful product if it is approved. Thus far, Marshall, Rick, and Bill have posted excellent findings to this board, and way in advanced of any other source I have access to. I, too, would like to hear you elaborate further about the "tissue paper" analogy you posted a little while back. Regards, Bruce Long