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 : Zonagen (zona) - good buy? -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: khrnyc who wrote (1988)	1/23/1998 4:06:00 AM
From: Michael Bidder	Respond to of 7041

Where do we go from here? MY OPINIONS Is this dog on its way to the sewer or back up for a 6 month run in the 20-25 range befor it caves in? Is it a long term short or can Asencio, Bill, etc crush it. Or will it be managements buyback program that finally snuffs the stock. Boy I hope I am right. These are my OPINIONS. (I wouldn't want to sit in court with the ZOna managment )

To: khrnyc who wrote (1988)	1/23/1998 4:10:00 AM
From: Bill Wexler	Respond to of 7041

<<Investor relations at SGP assured me that Zona's patent applications had been scrutinized by a team from SGP>> Who did you talk to at SGP specifically? By the way, you didn't answer my three other questions: Are you a member of the AMA? Where do you teach? Why the sudden interest in promoting Zonagen's stock?

To: khrnyc who wrote (1988)	1/27/1998 1:50:00 AM
From: Dr. Voodoo	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 7041

What the heck I'll give it a go.... I don't think anybody here('cept maybe Bill?) would disagree that SGP isn't stupid, that p values of .01 and .001 aren't significant, and that Asensio exploits numbers for his own advantage. So that pretty much wipes out 1,2,3. #5 is kind of subjective and kind of falls into the category of SGP isnt stupid, and I wouldn't venture a discourse on that one. So that leaves me with #4. Which I posted the question in a couple of different ways so far. If all I have to do is get phentolamine into the blood quickly and swallowing a tablet that dissolves quickly counts(remember this is a tablet that is swallowed). Why can't I just chew up a chewable? Take a shot in the arm? Put my phentolamine in a million different mediums that will get it into blood quickly? I will agree that the Zorgniotti patent is a good step, but what about the above? So how 'bout that meaningful discourse? More questions: Why would an undetectable amount of phentolamine(based on the mean average, according to the GC analysis) produce erections at 1.5 hours? Why would an undetectable amount of Phentolamine produce this data? "The time course of the increase in the heart rate and myocardial contractility was largely consistent with the calcd. time course of the plasma concns. Std. tablets produced their max. effect after 30 min and had a duration of action of 3 h." --1978 Imhof paper. Why would someone go to all the trouble to develop a slow release formula if there were no detectable blood levels? Interested in hearing your opinion. Rob P.S. I have found the UCSD libraries to be much more convenient. (No airfare, people speak my language etc...)