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 : MedImmune -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Pseudo Biologist who wrote (108)	4/20/1998 10:45:00 AM
From: bill small	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 416

thanks Pseudo, I have read the Medicine Man blurb. I think many of the leading biotechs are 10 baggers from here. This is one of few undervalued sectors left in the market IMO. I look forward to attending the MEDI annual meeting again this year. Will post following the meeting. best of luck.....Bill

To: Pseudo Biologist who wrote (108)	2/23/1999 10:01:00 PM
From: scaram(o)uche	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 416

Damn...... exchange2000.com Not only is BGEN committed to more clinicals for anti-CD40L than MEDI is for 507, they're already thinking ahead for meeting the huge demand. Again I ask..... is it time for MEDI to sublicense 507 for indications that they just can't bite off?????? We could win all the battles and lose the war. I spoke with Dr. Patrick Trown at ONXX over a year ago about the induction of tolerance to adenovirus, and suggested that he contact BTRN. When I spoke recently with Dr. Ali Fattaey, Vice President Discovery Research, he indicated that they were interested in the concept, but that they were focused on anti-CD40L. Given, there is no data that I know of to indicate that 507 inhibits antibody responses, or inhibits them to the degree that anti-CD40L does. However, why do I get the idea that this product does not have an effective champion????????