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: aknahow who wrote (403)	7/31/1998 1:51:00 PM
From: Don W Stone	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 507

george: Jesse Eisenger did do as you say in this article . He did present a particular limited version of both sides of the argument. But it hardly represents the whole story. It is a peep, perhaps directed at a portion by those interviewed. On the bear side he quoted those who can not be held responsible for their comments. Evan Sturza as usual, and Mike Margolies of Avalon Research , two very hardened bears. On the bull side he had two unknown investors and two Company spokesmen, the latter being highly accountable for what they say, but i weigh what they did have to say very heavily. Yes i am bias and I have a lot of respect for both of the Company spokesmen. The focus here seems to be about marketing. Dr. Steven Keith has met with a lot of success in his various marketing careers and I don't expect it will be any different here at NVX. When I read this report I think it important to consider the source of the quotes. I would say Jesse did the best he could on getting this information. I do not hold Jesses responsible for quotes from critics that contain information that is not absolutely correct. There are a few as you mite expect. The article does represent some of the points of differences in opinion but it is what went unsaid that is what this whole thing is really about. What is amazing is the shorts still are basing their whole commitment on Abbott failing in the market place with CERTIVA. They argue that the DTaP market is a commodity market when it suits them and switch to a non commodity market when it doesn't. As a bull i do not see it as a commodity market and the differences go way beyond the introduction of a simultaneous delivery of the Hib vaccine. Enter Abbott with CERTIVA and the DTaP market is a whole new ball game with different rules , etc. What isn't brought up here is NVX's successes in Europe. How come ? Don't they count ? the market is as big if not bigger than the U.S. market. Why won't NVX dominate that market as the sole provider of an approved DTaP-IPV vaccine? I saw an estimate recently that had NVX earning a $1.00 a share on that business alone within two years and at least covering the burn rate in the first full year. Why is it the shorts never bring up the 15 other products in NVX's pipeline ? Many are in Phase III trials and address "blockbuster markets". And why don't they bring up NVX's unique capabilities in combination vaccines and conjugate vaccines? As i say George: It is what is left out that distorts the picture. It is like looking thru a microscope and someone else has selected what you are allowed to see on the slide.. That is what bothers me about this type of article. It appeals all to often to the less sophisticated and they get misled. A one liner at the conclusion of the article would help point out the limits to reporting a story. For a man with your apparent incite and knowledge not to worry. Thanks for putting it up here. ONe more question: Why is it always the same two shorts that make it to the media? Are there really only two out there and the rest are their followers? WOW! That though is scary.

To: aknahow who wrote (403)	7/31/1998 3:22:00 PM
From: Cacaito	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 507

Abbott's Ross the best marketing machine in the pediatric field. They are a leader in infant formula. And they have the most successful pediatric product: Survanta for premature newborns respiratory distress syndrome. "Small incidence of paralysis" not with any of the DTP vaccines, not even the old whole cell, maybe they are talking about the Hypotonia-hyporesponsive episodes clearly a complication of the old whole cell vaccines, less with the current DTaPs and none so far with Certiva. This is a clear advantage to Certiva. Every pediatrician nightmare is a vaccine side-effect of this kind. Forget the "small incidence". For example, with the oral polio vaccine the incidence of permanent paralysis is 1 in 700,000 for the first dose. The debate ended with the use of the enhanced intramuscular (IPV)vaccine for the first two doses. When it comes to normal infants becoming affected by a vaccine the dominant view is that small is not sufficient, due to the almost compulsory nature of vaccine programs. The use of combination vaccines is a temporary disadvantage for NVX, in the last two doses of the regimen, this is compared to DTaP-HIB combination. But the DTaP-IPV from NVX already in Europe (at least in Denmark) could lesser the disadvantage. Especially, that the combination DTaP-HIB is so far proven very poor responses in less than 6 month/old infants. If DTaP-IPV proves itself a better immune stimulator, then NVX could win the battle. They do have the chance, since HIB is a very complex product, IPV is less so and give better response than HIB on its own. Here NVX has a good fighting chance. Both DTaP-HIB and DTaP-IPv could be use to decrease one shot to the infants at the same schedule of 2 and 4 mo of age. Certiva is recommended for 3 mo, 5 mo, 1 year in Sweden, this avoid the 6mo old DTaP. It could be an advantage or not. This is a point that Sturza stresses, but NVX has a fighting chance. Sturza claims that the effectiveness of Certiva is 71% vs the competitors 80% to 85%. This is easily dismiss, first compared to the old whole cell vaccines 50% to 60% in the best preparations (some were cero %, could you believe it? but real truth) it is very good. 2nd the difference with the current DTaPs is not relevant. 3rd the Sweden-Danish experience is top rate quality, so clinically and epidemiologically Sturza's efficacy argument is moot. Recently, Abbott got a supplier agreement with Columbia Health Care, the biggest and richest hospital chain in America, I am sure Certiva will be market to this private provider. Columbia do not have the same strength in the outpatient clinics markets, but it is introducing itself as their avenue of expansion. The market value of NVX is hefty. But accumulation is clearly ongoing. I am still not a long, not a short.

To: aknahow who wrote (403)	7/31/1998 6:16:00 PM
From: Don W Stone	Respond to of 507

George i am being blasted bby many for being to kind in my response. Now you think it to bwe "a superb piece" of jounalism. Is this guy your son in law? If he is not held responsible for the gross inaccuracy of the comments made by the shorts/bears to include most all of the numbers that were reported as fact. If they believe their numbers to be accurate than that would account for how they arrive at such "ludicrous" statements. That word 'LUDICROUS" is what I am hearing most re the article and its content. What can i say. Sometime I'll put up the correct numbers but for now i like the fact that the shorts don't have a clue as to what is going on so I'll rwelish my upper hand for time. I am referring to simple plan old facts. Oh! I made a mistake in one of my opost >There are 4 shots of Hib so the last shot we are talking About is the 4th not the 5th. and the market that the competito gets doesn't approach what the shorts are trying to convey. Way out of line. Pure BS. see ya.