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: Dauntless who wrote (2090)	1/27/1998 9:43:00 PM
From: Dr. Voodoo	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 7041

>>Perhaps the reason most of the papers you're finding are by Imhof is he was at Ciba-Geigy & in that time period - say 1970 - 1981 - the patent was still valid & they were the only manufacturer - hence no one else cared. Later, when it came off patent, it had already been replaced by better drugs for its original indication as a vasodilator?<<< Good point, but I think this drug is pretty well studied. ~9000 references available with my search engine. I would be surprised if someone did not do a simple PK study of some kind. Maybe even before 1967(as late as the computer will go back--I'm to lazy to look further back, that's real work). Regards validated methods. I hope that I can get at this from a different direction. From Dr. Rubin's post, "Namely, the Imhof paper from 1975 does find that oral, commercially available (at the time) phentolamine given in doses of 20 to 40 mg did achieve maximum "unchanged drug"concentrations at 30 minutes. It states that they used both radioactively labelled carbon, and gas chromatography to obtain their results." From your post, "In the next day or two I will providing information on the 1975 phentolamine study on which Asensio based his attack on Vasomax. I have that study as well as a FOLLOW-UP study, done by the same group at Ciba-Geigy in 1981 - which tells a significantly different story." From my post, "There is alot of gray in all of this. For instance, in the J of Chromatography article, they mentioned that they had been using their method since 1974 . Someone pointed out yesterday that at the Phentolamine Workshop(London-1975), GC was used as the method of analysis. I will have to go fetch the text of this workshop. Keep in mind just because someone doesn't publish a method in a peer reviewed journal doesn't always mean that it isn't valid." Suppose we're all refering to the same method here. I don't know if everyone was in the same group, but I think it is logical to conclude that if they worked for Ciba, and referenced Imhof, that they at least knew about his work at the time they developed the GC analysis technique. Make Sense? Rob

To: Dauntless who wrote (2090)	1/27/1998 9:48:00 PM
From: Bill Wexler	Respond to of 7041

<<Of course, it works both ways & creates wonderful buying opportunities for knowledgeable investors.>> I think you misphrased that. What you are really trying to say is that by keeping new, potential victims in the dark about the fact that Vasomax is worthless...wonderful selling opportunities are created for insiders and their shills.