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: Cacaito who wrote (6691)	7/15/1998 9:25:00 PM
From: Tharos	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 17367

Thanks Cacaito, for reminding me the body's defenses are not static, but dynamic and BPI is only a small part. BPI, LBP, LPS, Anti-CD14, and the relatively recent probes into what I will call (for simplicity) anti-BPI agents represent only the tip of human understanding into how the body's chemicals interact and react within the body. rBPI is a further refined product, derived from only a fragment of the BPI molecule. Our product is not unlike all of the other novel therapeutics being developed by many different biotech firms, consequently it is not unwise to approach Neuprex with a healthy dose of skepticism. The product could still fail to gain the FDA's approval for any number of reasons; however, the evidence to date suggests this novel therapeutic has far reaching possibilities. Using the analogies that some people entering an emergency room are automatically given a bag of saline. And it is not unreasonable for a person to walk into a hospital with a 38C fever to be given antibiotics long before the culture tests come back for review. And a conscious or semi-conscious person with a bad cut is routinely given extra blood (and what are the odds that the saline bag accompanying the blood bag has a wide spectrum anti-biotic in it?). And in trauma care there are even more "automatics" in the process as the attending medical personnel do everything they can to save an individual's life. In some cases it is even hospital policy to administer such agents automatically to preclude lawsuits. Given this environment, it is not unreasonable for us to be hopeful that Neuprex, used either as an antibiotic, an antibiotic synergist or as an anti-sepsis agent, will also find itself in a similar "automatically prescribed" situation. This type of process in and of itself negates the "it only works if you give it soon enough" argument. Yet the fact remains that Neuprex is unapproved, and therefore unproven. So why should someone invest in the company? Some of my fellows on this thread like the concepts behind rBPI and are willing to provide venture capital in the form of share ownership (we are providing capital to an unproven product, venture capitalism at its core definition). Some of my fellows view biotechs with avarice in their eyes. Some of my fellows fit in both categories. If a person had a family member die from meningitis, or had seen the widespread effects of a meningitis outbreak in a second or third world country, then they may wish to make a philanthropic investment in Xoma--in the hopes Xoma's Neuprex can be brought to market to stop the disease from crippling and maiming its victims. If a person has a family member with CF, the same may hold true. The same could be said for AIDS. If a person likes the idea of Neuprex but does not want to take on the risk, wait for approval. If a person is afraid of "missing" out on the initial run-up in price if Neuprex is approved, then they have identified one of the four primary factors that cause investors to lose money and I suggest reading up on investor psychology. If a person only wants to invest in a sure thing that gives you immediate gains upon investment, please share with us the secret, once you find it. If you only want to invest in a sure thing with minimal risk, then perhaps you should buy an Index Fund.