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 : Agouron Pharmaceuticals (AGPH) -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Bhag Karamchandani who wrote (5048)	7/31/1998 2:36:00 PM
From: scaram(o)uche	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 6136

I believe that investing in biotechs, essentially on the basis of "good science", is on the decline No question. That's obvious. "business plans" can be as "dressed up" as one wants Bull. "markets they address" -as in the case of AIDS attract a lot of duplicate or overlapping therapies, often confusing to investors. Yes, that's a trend in pharmaceuticals. I consider it a big part of the opportunity in biotech. Conclusion: Biotechnology ventures, increasingly like technology companies, even when they have a successful product, face product obsolescence ( e.,g. Crixivan). Bad example. Crix is facing difficulties because it had distinct deficiencies with respect to competition that was contemporary. But, thanks for mentioning a Merck product in the context of biotech. That's a point that I've tried to make repeatedly..... the biotech industry that most investors identify with is not today's "little pharma" sector. In the case of technology companies, there is, at least, the potential to upgrade one's product. Barring exceptions this is not the case for drug companies. The most they can do is try and develop new drugs, which hopefully are an improvement over existing ones, usually at enormous costs with erratic predictability for success. Largely true. Good biotech investors find the exceptions when they're discounted due to your logic, when logic similar to yours has become dogma. The one major plus biotechs have going for them is that in the absence of cures, diabetes, Aids, Cancers, and other conditions will, in the near term, become chronically treatable conditions requiring 'combo' therapies. That's one of them. However,I continue to believe that what AGPH needs to deliver to the longs, promising results from AG3340. Otherwise it would mean two strikes against the 'merits of their science'. In fairness to AGPH they are not the only one with prospects of strike outs- but this happens the thread to discuss AGPH prospects The vast majority of developmental-stage projects don't make it to approval. I haven't heard Peter Johnson give a date where he expects to start selling 3340. The question is, discounting the pipe and the patents to the degree to which you are comfortable (make it zero, if you like, Bhag), are Viracept, the sales force, and the research infrastructure worth more than the current market cap? I was trained in the Bayer organization, and I am confident that the answer is yes. That's my opinion. If it bugs you, O.K. So far, very little is known, except for the few words, posted on this thread, about how AG 3340 is of better design (science) than Mrimastat. If I had a publication to cite, I'd do such. All I have is data from the H&Q lunch meeting. You haven't noted, I guess, that I have consistently said to keep an eye on the results from Chiroscience, and their claims of a preferred spectrum of enzyme inhibition relative to both AGPH and BBIOY.