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 : XOMA. Bull or Bear? -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: opalapril who wrote (6505)	6/21/1998 10:47:00 AM
From: aknahow	Respond to of 17367

Opala, the so called unfavorable results were mentioned before and the XOMA FAQs deal with this incorrect view. The Trauma P II trial results were very encouraging. See the annual meeting graph for proof. If you look at the H & Q record of performance for the companies it has underwritten and recommended, I do not think you will be impressed. The footnotes disclose the existing relationships. I don't believe they recommend a single biotech they have not had in their stable. One of the reasons I like thestreet.com and Jessie Eisinger in particular is they always point out if the the recommendation for a stock comes from someone with an underwriting relationship with the company underwritten. If XOMA eventually develops a similar relationship I will find the underwriters recomendations interesting but I will not consider them unbiased. Eventually I would hope that someone like thestreet.com could do biotech confrences using other than underwriting as the basic criteria for who gets invited. While this would not mean XOMA would be invited, it at least would provide information on companies that were selected in a disclosed, impartial manner. TSC has already begun to rate mutual funds in an innovative manner but unfortunately they have no plans to take on the existing conference pimps.

To: opalapril who wrote (6505)	6/21/1998 11:47:00 AM
From: Robert K.	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 17367

Opalapril>"poor neuprex trial results" I disagree. If results were so poor then how come FDA allowed a P3? Two points. 1. Trauma results indicated efficacy in lung 2. Overall results indicated efficacy if only "surgical site" is removed. IMO they are learning how to use it. IMO they will demonstrate this in the P3. In the meantime we have a sepsis trial (meningococcemia). Will results prove positive? I cant say. We have to wait and see. All discalimers always apply.