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: Torben Noerup Nielsen who wrote (17027)	3/10/1998 8:23:00 AM
From: Wallace Rivers	Respond to of 32384

Just my measly .02. Ladies and gentlemen, this is an internet bulletin board - traverse at your own risk with caution and a jaundiced eye. I was, and still am to certain degree, skeptical of Henry's posts. They are, however, by and large informative, if a bit lengthy. Because of my skepticism, I had no (nada, zilch) intention of investing in LGND until they had their blowout Q Feb. 12 (fortunately I bought near the low!). Now I believe, for that reason, and because of their numerous alliances with major pharmas, this stock has the opportunity to be a very big winner.

To: Torben Noerup Nielsen who wrote (17027)	3/10/1998 8:25:00 AM
From: Henry Niman	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 32384

Torben, I'll try clarifying one more time as a summary, I did dig out supporting posts, but the number was so large, that I figured no one would read them, but can give them if asked. I did receive additional info on the small molecule. The reliable source gave me the info in part because of our nay sayers posts, which had already misrepresented my posts many times. The reliable source did not have kind words for our nay sayer. Here's a summary of what happened before and after I received info from the "reliable source". The series began with FUGAZI's two sets of questions. As noted by others, the question on the LLY option was really a rhetorical question. I ignored it because it was rhetorical, I had already posted what I knew (a press release would be coming out "soon", but it might just be an announcement of an extension), and someone else had also said that a press release would be coming out soon. Instead I focused on the second question, which concerned LGND's price. I thought that LGND's chart looked good, the news that was out was positive, more good news was coming, and I expected the small molecule to be discussed at length over the weekend. All of the above would place upward pressure on LGND's price on Monday (yesterday). I also thought that the CPQ news was a non-event for LGND, although it might convince some that it was time for a rotation out of high tech and into biotech. The list of misrepresentations include posts indicating that my "Watch what happens on Monday!" referred to the LLY option, the small molecule news was not major, the news had already come out last week in Science, there would be a press release on Monday (yesterday), and the "reliable source" was concerned about what I said regarding the above. In fact I was talking about LGND's price and the small molecule. I was initially posting on fragmentary evidence (the news would be published soon in Science and the news was about STATs). A reliable source clarified those two issues. The small molecule targeted the receptor itself, it was mouse specific, and the news would not be out for a month or two. Most of my posts over the weekend focused on the small molecule mimic. I knew that the news would be viewed very favorably by those in the know. I clarified my statement several times and the misrepresentations were repeated over and over.

To: Torben Noerup Nielsen who wrote (17027)	3/10/1998 8:59:00 AM
From: tonyt	Respond to of 32384

>>As I said earlier, I can't publish what some have said about our >> favorite nay-sayer, although misreprentation was a concern. > you are accusing someone of misrepresentation while also stating > that you are not willing to provide the evidence. As ususal, more 'un-named reliable sources' are used as 'evidence'. And as usual, should we really be suprised?

To: Torben Noerup Nielsen who wrote (17027)	3/10/1998 9:06:00 AM
From: Henry Niman	Respond to of 32384

My "very reliable" source was very reliable (even used a real name). No one has posted any contradiction of any of the details, and I would be EXTREMELY surprised if they did. Biotech Jim is somewhat familiar with the presentations and he concurred with what I posted after I clarified the details. Thus there are at least two sources, one who has posted here and one who contacted me privately. If someone has any information suggesting that the details were incorrect, I would hope that they would post them. At this time these facts seem very solid. The mimic is small (about 500 daltons), it reacts with the receptor itself, it is mouse specific, and it is a VERY big deal. As far as the misrepresntations are concerned, I have summarized them: Message 3658275 others have commented, and they have been posted again and again.