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 : Alliance Pharmaceutical -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: John R Resseger who wrote (223)	3/27/1998 7:10:00 AM
From: Bob Barels	Respond to of 548

John Your points are well taken this time. My comments are: 1. In the early 90's there was contamination in their emulsions. I don't remember if it was public news but I had information from Otisville, NY (you know what I mean). Keep in mind that perflubron is the same drug substance that is the active ingredient in both OXYGENT and LIQUIVENT. Thus, it makes no difference for which product we are talking about ( that time OXYGENT was hot). 2. I disagree that Boeringer pulled out for the reasons you mentioned and I have my own reasons. Also, Hoeghst "acompany committed to respiratory products" according to Duane Roth, would not leave if LIQUIVENT was so promising. By the way, I agree that SYBD are inferior to ALLP. 3. I have no reason to slam this company and I have no short position. Besides, I do not believe, I am that influencial. For what is worth, nobody has hyped and believed in this company as much as I did in the past. However, it is very dissapointing to see no real progress the last five years. Only major setbacks. I still believe that if they can prove that their products are efficacious, they will have no problem with the FDA since there no questions about side effects, toxicity etc. Few years ago FDA had investigated all these due to the application for IMAGENT and everything was OK and since all products are based on the same perflubron it should be no problem for the others. My source keeps saying that the company will do fine (he did not sell at 44 but of course he has paid only 3, before the merger in 1987, and that ALLP has a good relationship with the FDA. I just do not believe anything anymore. Again, that is my opinion only. I hope it works out for all of you. 4. I believe this is not a scientific site and we don't need to be very technical. If you have doubts about my education, no hard feelings. regards and good luck with ALLP.

To: John R Resseger who wrote (223)	3/27/1998 9:19:00 AM
From: Bob Barels	Respond to of 548

J&J got some bad news two days ago from CTIC. Lisophyline, their leading drug sponsored by J&J showed no positive results in phase III trials. Same story in the biotech industry just a different name.

To: John R Resseger who wrote (223)	3/31/1998 4:10:00 PM
From: All Mtn Ski	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 548

Wow, looks like I missed all the excitement on this Thread! I concur with all your fine points... To Bob: I don't think anyone expected Oxygent to be approved in 1994, and I don't believe Alliance has been anything but forthcoming in communicating the various stages of development its drugs are in. Someone must have fed you the wrong info. I agree if J&J pulled out this stock would tank, but I don't believe they will. J&J owns a lot of stock at 15 and has met all the royalty payments with each achieved milestone. For J&J, by investing in these Bio-Techs, they expand their pipeline at a much lower cost than going at it themselves... To John: Short position as of 3/13/98: 817,402, up 8.4% from Feb. Tom