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 : Ligand (LGND) Breakout! -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: tonyt who wrote (15082)	2/14/1998 5:36:00 PM
From: jayhawk969	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 32384

If any of Ligand's drugs prove to fractionally as successful as an antagonist as you are, this stock is worth a $1000/share.

To: tonyt who wrote (15082)	2/14/1998 6:06:00 PM
From: Andrew H	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 32384

>>"It always amazes me that people can get excited about rat data since it is not really predictive of how a drug will work in humans," said analyst Charles Engelberg.<< You posted that once already. But then you never have anything new to say, so it is appropriate that you continue post the same old drivel again and again. It always amazes me that people respond to your irrelevant posts, but just as some people will write anything, there are others that will respond to almost anything.

To: tonyt who wrote (15082)	2/14/1998 6:32:00 PM
From: squetch	Read Replies (4) \| Respond to of 32384

I was curious and thought others might be. Here is a link to another quote by Charles Engelberg on GLFD/AMGN. I only found one other expired link. nytsyn.com Americal Securities Inc. 290 7th Ave., 2nd Fl San Francisco (415)666-0633 I didn't find a lot on this firm either.

To: tonyt who wrote (15082)	2/14/1998 6:54:00 PM
From: Andrew H	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 32384

"The pigs, led by Napoleon, became more and more pig-headed. As these pigs milled down the fundamentals of Animalism - the 7 Commandments - life for the rest of the animals grew steadily harsher. Others were cooed into dormancy by the brainwashing of Squealer the pig." From Christopher Young, writing about "Animal Farm."

To: tonyt who wrote (15082)	2/15/1998 2:04:00 AM
From: Torben Noerup Nielsen	Read Replies (5) \| Respond to of 32384

>"It always amazes me that people can get excited about rat data since >it is not really predictive of how a drug will work in humans," said >analyst Charles Engelberg. I have difficulty taking anyone who makes such blanket statements seriously. It really needs to be qualified quite strongly before it makes sense. Consider what happends if you make a rat breathe cyanide gas. I can promise you that it will die even with very low concentrations. So will a human (Tony, if you do not believe me, you might try it... :-)). The reason for this is that evolution tends to preserve fundamental processes - such as breathing - as much as it can. And I believe that when it comes to breathing, all mammals are pretty close (let the real biologists correct me if I am wrong; there might well be exceptions). This is true for a lot of processes at a cellular level. As far as I am aware, the basic energy transport systems are just about identical in all mammals and so are a lot of other things. I may be wrong, but I believe that differences in basic cellular processes are more the exception than the rule when it comes to mammals and it is such processes we are talking about. Or isn't it? No, I am not trying to say that rat results will always translate directly to humans, but I strongly believe that rat results will at the very least provide a strong starting point for rational drug design; i.e., tailoring a drug that is known to work in very well in rats to make it work very well in humans. Note that it is my understanding gleaned from one of Henry's posts that the rat tumors exhibited the same mutation in their ras gene as that found in the human equivalent. Henry, didn't you quote that from an article? As a side note, it never cease to amaze me how hard a time we have finding drugs that will consistently wipe out fairly simple prokaryotes without harming eukaryotic cells. Yes, I know there are rational answers to this, but I am still amazed. Cheers, Torben