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 : IDPH--Positive preliminary results for pivotal trial of ID -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Gregory Rasp who wrote (1455)	1/28/1998 10:34:00 AM
From: Bob L	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1762

Your message really isn't off topic. There has been considerable discussion, or speculation, here about the rate of sales we can expect for Rituxan. Your comments about skeptical views of new cancer treatments are right on point. Thanks.

To: Gregory Rasp who wrote (1455)	2/3/1998 6:04:00 AM
From: Maurice Winn	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 1762

Thanks Greg for your comments. We are going to do some real life market research and clinical experimentation. Which it seems every single person is doing all the time. Until cloning gets better press I suppose we are stuck with the current heterogeneous morass of random DNA with all its foibles interacting with a billion variables from viruses with their own infinite variations to nutrition and gamma ray impact rolls of the dice. Personally, I'd love to have 100 clones of me running around. I'd have no identity crisis at all and the benefits to "us" would be amazing. But that's another story. It's funny that Clinton and other autoreaction Luddites see only the ghost of Frankenstein in the possibility and they immediately make it illegal to allow a mother to save her child by having a clone which would enable blood transfusions, transplants of marrow and even [gasp, horror] a baby with no brain which could be used as body parts. I'd watch with interest as Clinton made his moral contortions to justify to the desperate mother why she should watch with equanimity while her child died. He thinks he knows best what she should do. He should control her body and life and that of her offspring? Well, I'd better stop there as that is almost off topic, though quite relevant as a potential competitor to IDEC's approach. Back to the market research on Rituxan. Tarken and I are going to see whether clinicians think it a useful adjunct to CHOP in his particular case. So we are going to San Diego to find out. I'll tell you whether IDEC makes a sale which might help understand what might happen to sales overall. But back to your comments Greg. Using Rituxan would be as an EXTRA treatment in my understanding, not replacing treatment. So not unethical. Insurance companies and their customers can make whatever deals they like. The results of Rituxan will determine those contracts. There might be a delay in them accepting proof of efficacy, but it shouldn't be long coming. The fact that promising drugs have been failures [I guess thalidomide would be a spectacular example] doesn't mean the next one will be. Of course as you say, most people are conservative - and will refrain from gambling. But when the risk is low and the other choice is death, there is quite an impetus to overcome conservative stick in the mud attitudes. Even medical malpractise laws would impel adoption of valid technology pretty quickly. A doctor would have a weak defense if they were the last one to recommend penicillin instead of leeches on the basis that leeches were tried and true and the new-fangled penicillin was only a decade or two in use. But points taken - investors are often overly enthusiastic about their products and imagine that everyone in the world will leap on it and pile money up at the shareholders' doors. It never ceases to amaze me how slowly people adopt things. But there must be substantial pressure for Rituxan to get a fairly quick thumbs up or down. From what I know, it looks like a thumbs up. $7000 for another 6 months of life is not to be sneezed at, though most people on this little planet can't afford that. There are other products coming up, so Rituxan doesn't have the field to itself. Maybe only a 3 year opportunity. Bexxar, Oncolym, Antiangiogenesis, telomere blocking, Yttrium 90, vaccine and other tricks are all looming. Anyway, must away, have to play another day, without delay. Maurice

To: Gregory Rasp who wrote (1455)	2/4/1998 4:20:00 AM
From: Maurice Winn	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1762

Greg, You said: "Lastly, I agree that in a 2cm node the use of Radiation (XRT) is probably not indicated in most cases." Well, that isn't what they think for Tarken. They say radiation is necessary [with some dissenting opinion] to back up 3xCHOP. Based on a recent study called "SWOG" which was reported in abstract by the American Society of Clinical Oncologists [ASCO] which said that 3 doses of CHOP plus involved field radiation is as good as 6 doses of CHOP alone. We have not been able to get hold of that study. Do you know the one I mean? Can you give me a web reference? We couldn't get into the web site as it is accessible only to oncologists. Actually, best of all would be a copy of the abstract. Or full article/study if available. Please drop it in here for the IDPH crowd to see what the competition are doing, or email me, or drop it here: Subject 3190 Thanks if you are able to help. Maurice PS: I guess that fairly soon, standard treatment will be 3xCHOP, 40 Gray of short wave emr, Rituxan, I131, TNT and some vasopermeation. As cancer cell targeting accuracy goes up with newer techniques, CHOP and 40 Gray will go down.