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: drsvelte who wrote (3869)	5/4/1998 11:35:00 AM
From: Dauntless	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 7041

drsvelte - c'mon, we can agree on more than that.... don't you agree with my oft repeated statement that Zonagen is a risky investment?

To: drsvelte who wrote (3869)	5/4/1998 12:08:00 PM
From: mc	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 7041

drsvelte, I'll concur with your South Park argument and your statement about poster sessions. However, I might suggest a change in who gets to play Kenny. How about ZONA stock? Keeps getting killed and always seems to come back. How? I don't know. Good luck, Gary

To: drsvelte who wrote (3869)	5/4/1998 1:08:00 PM
From: Linda Kaplan	Respond to of 7041

Dr Svelte: Do you actually think that the Zonagen poster is a cogent scientific report? I believe your background is not in science, but perhaps I don't remember that accurately. It was not a medical or science field, I believe you posted a note to that effect here in this thread? If you do think that the Zonagen poster is a hard scientific report rather than a soft one, are you planning to switch to a long position in the stock? I did notice a correction for Dauntless in your saying it's a component of MANY scientific meetings, rather than ALL of them. Since I attend many I know it's not a component of all of them. I do think that the lack of detail and lack of the full study makes it a far less valid scientific approach than what I'd like to see on any scientific subject. I do have high standards. It's not bad for a promotional effort but hardly compares to presenting a scientific paper. Linda

To: drsvelte who wrote (3869)	5/4/1998 1:39:00 PM
From: Brander	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 7041

I agree! Poster Sessions are a part of most large scientific and medical meetings. They are a very valuable component of those meetings. They are in no way an indication of poor or inferior science. Most scientists and medical professionals spend time at the poster sessions, and most scientists who are involved in research do poster sessions. They are a valuable source of information, and very respectable labs and scientists often present posters. Brad

To: drsvelte who wrote (3869)	5/4/1998 3:18:00 PM
From: Hank	Read Replies (4) \| Respond to of 7041

I think you guys have done an excellent job of misrepresenting my words once again. Having a poster at a poster session does not imply soft science. Many excellent posters are presented and they are indeed a valuable source of information. However, the weakest representations of experimental data are almost always found at poster sessions and not during the main presentations. Often the data is incomplete or only mildly suggestive of what the presenting scientist wants to conclude. That is why they have to relegate their work to a poster instead of a talk. Am I the only one that has noticed this or do the rest of you attend poster sessions with your eyes closed? That is why I said the Vasomax poster would fit right in. I didn't mean to imply that all posters where of a shoddy nature. The main advantage of a poster session is the opportunity to talk with other scientists in your field IMHO.