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.

Strategies & Market Trends : Bill Wexler's Profits of DOOM -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Bill Wexler who wrote (17)	2/21/1998 3:43:00 AM
From: Jim Roof	Respond to of 4634

<<However; IN MY OPINION, I think that management has taken selective data out of context to make it appear that hextend has therapeutic properties which it really doesn't. I also believe that management is falsely trying to establish some causal relationship between the addition of electrolytes in hextend and these therapeutic properties.>> Please tell me the context in which the data should be taken. The company released the results of the phase III trials and in order for your assesment to be correct they would have had to release faked data. I have not heard the company make any statement about the results other than that the Hextend patients bled less than the hetastarch group. The data supports their claim. Of course, I expect your argument will be "No it does not". I have stated my case from the numbers directly while showing the mechanism (broadly, not on the molecular level by any means). You are just being contrary for the sake of your short interest. <<It is also a fact that Josh Steinberg (from Individual investor) was selling the stock at the same time he was urging his readers to buy.>> Check your timeline. His buy recommendation was when BTIM was in the 40's and his selling was in the 70's. Besides, he shorted against the box and maintained a large long interest. Additionally, your argument here treats Steinberg as if he were an insider. He is not. Insiders are officers of the company, not fund managers. Frankly, as a fund manager he did the exact right thing and you can search for my posts on this months ago when I said the very same thing. <<You are jumping to conclusions here. There is absolutely NO scientific evidence that this is the case. You can't establish a causal relationship just because you wish it to be so.>> I am simply letting the numbers speak for themselves. I have yet to see you present the numbers or any other data that refutes my interpretation. Your accusation that I am jumping to conlusions is overly assumptive. I am simply reaching a conclusion based upon the data presented from phase III. I have also been honest enough to remind my readers that some of this data is not from a large enough group to be conclusive (as has Biotime, Inc.). The results from phase III trials are there for all to see. No careful reader of the data can come away with a negative sentiment unless they start with a negative sentiment which is stubbornly lodged in the intellect. <<I see. So YOU are the sole arbiter of truth regarding this company. Bravo.>> No. I am not the sole arbiter of the truth. The truth is in the trials and I am just stating the results as accurately as I can. You, on the other hand are simply being contrary with no factual support. Jim