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 : ArQule -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Dr. Voodoo who wrote (278)	8/4/1998 1:47:00 AM
From: ahhaha	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 399

I find this is jibberish(sic): "The more you can make, the more you can test, the closer to an ideal fit to target you can get." If you know where you are going why are you trying to look for the way? It begs the question. I also stated that it was possible to find similar compounds that are cheaper than a valued compound, but to develop that into a viable alternative is plenty expensive. Who bears that cost? Someone else and you don't care who. That won't wash and it won't work. If you want to share in the returns, you have to share in the risks. That isn't in ARQL's charter and that fact tickles you no end as you have stated on this thread. You called it, "win-win". You can't be in that camp now. Gordon isn't. The big pharmas have put out on the market thousands of questionable drugs whose effects we don't yet know. They were never adequately tested except on the human guinea pigs that unknowingly bought the official pseudo-science line. In the future there will be many major lawsuits levied against all of these companies and they will follow the lead of the silicone implant precedent. You have no idea how bad the situation is because it is being closely guarded by responsible people who should know better. They're covering up the truth because they aren't sure if it's true and they are fearful for many reasons. Eventually the negative effects will be impossible to hide and they will be much better documented in direct linkage to the poorly understood poison dumped on the market. Rapid drug discovery in the ARQL mode promises to accelerate the poison parade. Thus, I, a scientist, am claiming, you, whatever you claim to be, don't have any idea of the chemical structure of what you are making. That is, you may know what shape its in and what constitutes its structure, but you sure don't know the only thing important to know: what it does to humans over the long run. A drug becomes established after 80 years of human use, but all that means is no short term significant effects have surfaced. When it was discovered, no one knew what the implications of its use would be. All that is known is that it is logical that it could work and we are desperate for something, anything, to work. To assert the opposite to any degree proves you're no scientist because you assert the validity of the conclusion before the facts are weighed. The biotechs, the small caps, and your dog have discovered the bear. They won't be coming back anytime soon.