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.

Microcap & Penny Stocks : NEOTHERAPEUTICS (NEOT) (NEOTW) -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Joe Bz who wrote (472)	6/9/1998 12:23:00 PM
From: NeuroInvestment	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 705

I rarely waste my time responding to posts whose sole motivation is to provoke, but I will make a couple of comments here for others reading this thread: 1) My view of the comments reported to have been made by Glasky was detailed in a previous posting. 2) There was nothing misleading about my post. There was beginning to be a blurring on this thread between what Glasky said and what another poster alleging contacts in Canada had said. Anyone paying attention would have noted that my intent was to quiet some of the hype that has too frequently been attached to NEOT by its more ardent fans. 3) If you want to make a cogent rather than superficial comment about NEOT's financing, please make the effort to do so rather than asking others to do your work for you. In my opinion, NEOT is no better or worse off financially than dozens/indeed hundreds of small biopharm firms: dilution is inescapable, and built into my model for NEOT. They have the advantage of being able to control the timing of the dilution that they incur. If there is some aspect of their credit line that you find particularly onerous in comparison to their other options, please describe it. The $15million allows them to take their clinical trials far enough along regarding 'proof of principle' that they would then (if the results are positive) have much more leverage in negotiating a corporate deal. This is a strategy being used more and more frequently by small firms, trying to complete PH2 before signing a deal. It is the difference between 8% royalties and 15-20% royalties later on. 4) NEOT does have a long way to go, and much cash to spend, before 'marketing a drug.' However none of its competitors are even this far ahead in this particular strategy of addressing Alzheimer's. Thus the first fact must be weighed against the second. NeuroInvestment (www.neuroinv.com)

To: Joe Bz who wrote (472)	6/9/1998 2:05:00 PM
From: Marty	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 705

Joe, You and IMPRISTINE are off point and confusing who said what. I originally copied a post from another board from somebody who said they heard some positive results in individual episodes from patients in the Canadian trials. NeuroInvest wrote and said that they (either the episodes or the original poster) may be dubious. I wrote and asked how so, because they sounded authentic to me (a layman). IMPRISTINE interjected and first wrote that the tests have to be double blind, controlled, and so forth. In another post, IMPRISTINE quoted me, and NOT Dr. Glasky, when I wrote that the episodes the first person made sounded authentic to me. IMPRISTINE then went on to describe the differences in the types of memory that were lost in AD patients (but cited examples that were not in the original post). He mistakenly went on to comment about Dr. G not following scientific methods and other remarks indicating he was doing it for marketing and fund raising purposes. NeuroInvest wrote and agreed with IMPRISTINE about the different types of memory restoration but corrected him by pointing out that it was NOT Dr. Glasky who made any such remarks AT ALL. Now you jump in about something completely different concerning what Dr. Glasky said in Italy, which has NOTHING to do with what NeuroInvest was talking about in his post. And you go on, incredibly, to accuse NeuroInvest of making false impressions and making unfounded and unsubstantiated statements! You guys are always so quick to make strident wild accusations based misunderstood and misinterpreted information. NOBODY ever said that we could rely on these reports or the test results so far. NOBODY ever said that there it wasn't still a long way to go. Nevertheless, I submit, management, shareholders, patients and their relatives, other interested organizations, and the scientific community are entitled to be enthusiastic about what has been discovered so far in the preliminary tests. We all want the positive results to be confirmed with further tests and analysis but we are happy and some of us are thrilled with the results so far and the other possible applications. NOBODY has asked you to share that enthusiasm. If you don't like the stock just don't buy it or short it. If you are going to criticize, try to get your history and facts straight first. If you have an issue, like the interview, state EXACTLY what it was IN THE INTERVIEW and the clarification that offended you so much. If you think the financing dilutes the stock too much or is bad in some other way, say EXACTLY how and why.