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 : North American Vaccine -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Mama Bear who wrote (400)	7/31/1998 10:49:00 AM
From: aknahow	Respond to of 507

Barbara, you asked a question and got an accurate reply from Don and also a correct detailed reply from Andy. People sometimes get upset with anyone that shorts stock in a company they like. This gets a bit silly but at times when the shorters have clout, like letter writers do they seem to be able to get others like Dorfman, Ableson at Barrons to repeat their view. This IMO would be o.k. if if the facts were clear cut and the short side was quickly proved right. But as it goes on and on for years even in the face of the short case being wrong, a certain amount of venom develops. Im most cases I consider the expressed hatred against the, "evil shorts", to be a a sign of a weak stock but when one sees time after time what looks like an attempt to drive a stock down by using ones media connections or even just repeated post without content by those of us with no connections, it gets a little old and the longs fight back and at times say things that don't compute. But it is understandable that they would be upset.

To: Mama Bear who wrote (400)	7/31/1998 10:52:00 AM
From: David Bogdanoff	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 507

To BP; I did not think that AH's response showed that he was upset; he was only giving an interesting and factual response to your own comments. At least I found it interesting to see how such a large short position developed in this stock which does not seem to merit it. I got interested in it about a year ago when it was highly rated as a strong buy by 4-5 analysts, with possibly one dissenting analyst, according to info on one of the Yahoo sites. Currently, it has one analyst rating it a strong buy and one a strong sell. I suppose that I should thank the shorts for creating a window of buying opportunity for me (following Warren Buffett's thinking), but I must express dismay at excessive hype of either kind and there is certainly that in this stock. The fact that Dorman panned the stock says alot to me. The reasons for shorting that I have read from postings from shorts are superficial and show a lack of understanding of the industry. Also, I think that the company is addressing a very important social need (i.e. the need for safer vaccines at a time when antibiotic treatments are being challenged by new strains of resistant bacteria) and its business prospects should not be so challenged by negative hype. Many children today are not being vaccinated because of the ignorance of their parents who think that vaccination is not safe; these parents are mislead by groups who advertise the rare serious adverse effect from vaccinations with current vaccines. Thus NVX's safer vaccine is especially important ,a point I have not seen properly understood by the shorts. Instead, they seem to make a sort of game of beating down its stock. A low stock price can adversely affect the ability of a company to bring its products to market, and in this case that would mean many lives lost while this game is being played. All in my opinion of course. I have two disclosures to make. 1. I have a small long position in NVX. 2. My wife's brother died from diptheria, a formerly common childhood disease rarely seen today because it is typically prevented by a combination vaccine for diptheria and pertussis, the NVX product approved the FDA. David