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: Linda Kaplan who wrote (2590)	2/28/1998 2:45:00 PM
From: poodle	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 7041

Linda, you and Bruce ruined my life... Press is not always correct??? Oh... People have their own interests???Oooh, ... Not everyone is honest??... etc, etc, etc... It's so different from that I was told in the kindergarten!!! What you are discussing? Several mo longs are posting messages about "bad Asholio". I can't care less. They are very welcome to short him if he is publicly available, marginable and has no bodyguards. Last week we have got the point that Stephanie is not probably an angel and (ubelivable) is CPA! Well, you would expect to see anyone at the WS, sailors and sportsmen, prostitutes and automechanics, but CPA...? What really they are doing here...? Journalists that changing their mind because of facts aren't even worth the discussion . No one in the right mind does that. Ever. Some analysts are publishing their strong sell recommendations after "good news" from the company. Stupid, dishonest guys! They shouldn't wait until announcement and price increase, but to short and recommend to short before! May be we should discuss FACTS, not OPINIONS?Oh, well, who cares about facts? About opinions. Mine rose goggles were completely destroyed by Mr. Rosen. That's what I could see after (and only because) of that. You " take people at their word till proven otherwise". "till" is N/A to some of our long friends. Simplest example: If you are long, wouldn't you worry about the efficacy of the only company product? INTRACAVERNOUS INJECTIONS OF PHENTOLAMINE HAD SHOWN TO BE INEFFICIENT. HOW IS IT POSSIBLE THAT ORAL PHENTOLAMINE DOES WORK? I asked the same quest. several times. No one was frantic to answer. Why? I can see only two possibilities: 1. Someone can explain that miracle mechanism (please SHARE!). 2. There is no reasonable explanation, you have to sell the stock and not to bore the thread. Surprisingly there is the third one: someone has neither answer, nor stock but does post long messages, BTW ONLY on ZONA thread. Why? Linda, please, ask our long friends again. In the meantime, I would have to follow Mr. Rosen, who did find "sound scientific basis" on this thread. Last long's posts are extremely helpful. Let's try to understand the long's theory: Some people do BELIEVE that love is completely spiritual. Some cultures do BELIEVE that spirit is located in the stomach. Combination of these two statements is: digestive system should play major role in sexual life. ZONA patent is about transmucosal, and, of course, rectal routs of administration...But company suppose to use oral pills... Mr. Rosen can explain any WS event from one, simple, point... For example, Assensio was in bed with Fortune author... At the risk of being labeled "politically incorrect"... there is some strange smell from such long's theory... Interestingly, there is no female on the long side, but some on the short, including analyst... Linda, "short note", do not worry about typopopo errors. Who cares? Text of "Declaration of Independence" had mistakes. Did anyone bother to rewrite it? No, just crossed incorrect letters and wrote the right ones near by. Somehow document is still working. Probably some ideas were great. I would expect that in our microscopic business typo errors are even less important and your point should be well taken w/o any corrections. Good luck.

To: Linda Kaplan who wrote (2590)	3/1/1998 11:26:00 PM
From: Bruce Rosen	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 7041

Hi Linda. In your response to me, there were some misinterpretations of what I said that I would like to clear up. Speaking of the recent Fortune article you said: <<No, I don't believe for a moment that it was "timed" to coincide with a Schering event. Nor do I believe that Asensio was given more credence than any other sources. >> I wasn't saying that the Fortune article was timed to coincide with a Schering event. What I said was that the original Asensio report last November was timed to come out after the announcement of the Schering deal and his report was not unexpected to certain people. Regarding the subject of "consistency," it began with the following from your post: <<The fact that Whitaker has published a preliminary version tells me he's consistent and has been working on the subject for some time.>> I interpreted that to be an argument by you, that Mr. Whitaker's consistency was a positive thing and evidence of his credibility. I merely pointed out that Tokyo VD had stated that Mr. Whitaker had previously written a positive piece about Zonagen and thus, wasn't as consistent in his views as you had thought. You responded to me with the following: <<I think that's a sign of someone who is willing to think and to constantly review the data. I don't see that as a fault. >> On the one hand, you state that consistency is a sign he has been working on a subject for some time, but inconsistency is a sign of someone willing to think and constantly review the data. It seems whether Mr. Whitaker is consistent or inconsistent, you will view it as positive. I would like to know what happened between the publication of the positive article referred to by Tokyo VD and the negative one published in CenterWatch, to change his mind. I would also like to know whether Mr. Whitaker has or had a position in Zonagen. <<You are trying to say that all positive articles are objective and all negative articles are the result of a plot to destroy Zonagen.>> I didn't say that. What I said was that certain shorts attribute anything positive in the media about Zonagen to be the result of paid shills, but view anything negative about Zonagen to be undeniable fact. Despite the fact that I like reading positive stories about stocks I own, I always take what I read in the media with a grain of salt. That's it with the misinterpretations. Now let me address some other things you said: << I think the evidence against Zonagen has mounted to be voluminous and cannot be dismissed any longer.>> I disagree. All that has happened is repetition of the same thing. <<I think some longs are trying to shore up the stock with constant hype and that some shorts are also trying to down the stock with constant hype.>> One big difference is that the longs always admit that there can be no certainty of approval of Vasomax and acknowledge the risks. Bill Wexler and his friends have claimed absolute certainty and made irresponsible and unproven accusations. << I don't think either such camp has enough clout to effect the price forever without truth being on their side.>> We agree on that. In fact, I am counting on it. I would guess that the institutions who have bought Zonagen heavily also believe that. Such is the stuff of opportunity. <<I object to the idea of there being wealthy and well organized shorts attacking the stock without the acknowledgement that there are wealthy and well organized longs who are hyping the stock.>> You may have a point here, although I have seen no evidence of well organized longs hyping the stock. If anything, the longs reaction to the short attack of the last few months has been quite unorganized. As far as Zonagen and Joe Podolski are concerned, I have never heard him hype his company. Whenever he speaks on conference calls, or in the few individual telephone conversations I have had with him, he is always reserved in his claims and acknowledges the uncertainty inherent in the drug approval process. I guess, Linda, we will have to agree to disagree about Zonagen.