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 : Microcide Pharmaceuticals (MCDE) -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Pseudo Biologist who wrote (140)	2/2/1998 12:52:00 AM
From: Larry Liebman	Respond to of 186

I bought in at $13, sold at $12 as biotechs withered. That being said, I like this company. When I spoke to a rep. they refused to hype MCDE. Trading at $9, it's at 2x book. Company is looking at beginning trials this year. The problem in this market is that it steadfastly refuses to recognize "technnology" as it has in the past- although, watching GERN may indicate that the will is still there. With the big pharma express in gear, I wonder if they will capitalize on their fortune by investing/picking-off biotechs.

To: Pseudo Biologist who wrote (140)	2/2/1998 8:11:00 AM
From: jackie	Respond to of 186

Pseudo, I've often wondered if the use of bacteriophages against bacterial infections would be a viable option if we were to lose antibiotics. There is a wonderful introduction and discussion of bacteriophages in the book entitled Viruses, part of the Scientific American series on various science topics. It discusses the early work of Felix d'Herelle and Frederick W. Twort. These two gentlemen are generally credited with the discovery of bacteriophages. d'Herelle in particular pursued the idea of using phages in fighting disease and the idea was under intense study during the twenties and thirties. Of course the development of penicillin brought an end to the work. However, there were other problems. As the book points out, "bacteriophage therapy failed to show efficacy in curing diseases. The reasons for this failure remain unclear." It would be interesting to see what approach these other groups you mentioned would have in dealing with these difficulties. Regards, Jack Simmons

To: Pseudo Biologist who wrote (140)	2/2/1998 11:28:00 AM
From: Mark Adams	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 186

Not knowing the exact bacteria, instead patting the patient on the back as they leave with their antibiotic prescription only to return for another if the problem doesn't clear up has led us to this point. Lab costs to identify the exact problem take time and cost money. I would say we've counted on antibiotics as the silver bullet for too long. BTW, in watching CNN last night, re vacciniations in the third world, it occurred to me that there is a real disconnect between 'excess capacity in SE Asia' and the dirth of vaccine supply in the third world. Clearly capitalism has a flaw or two if not tempered by intelligent spending by a central authority. MCDE down over $1 on double normal volume- ouch.

To: Pseudo Biologist who wrote (140)	2/5/1998 12:36:00 AM
From: Larry Liebman	Respond to of 186

In the "Why not at this price?" mode, I returned to MCDE at the close, to the tune of 7 9/16. I re-read the H&Q report from 12/2/97 where they issued a "buy" at $10+, and the 9/97 "strong buy" from Cowen at $13+. The stock is roughly 50% of its IPO in 1996, while having made significant progress in its R&D in the interim. From talking with a company rep. it was clear that they are "motivated" to move their first antibiotic into the clinic this year. He also stated that they have significant interest from large pharma in their fungal program. I don't profess to know when MCDE will rise again, however with a market cap of <$85 million, and 1/2 of that in cash, in an area with a worldwide market of $23 billion, MCDE seems worthy of consideration. I assume the risk-reward to be quite favorable at this level.