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 : Ligand (LGND) Breakout! -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Mudcat who wrote (24448)	8/13/1998 1:47:00 PM
From: Machaon	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 32384

<< The $1B figure is misleading as are most of your posts. >> I love you too. << The $1B is for drugs with large clinical populations >> Oh. I'm sorry. I thought that I made it very, extremely clear, that the $1 billion was an average of all drugs, successes or failures. You are totally wrong on this point. If you take ALL of the drugs, those that passed FDA approval, and those that failed, you get an average cost of $1 billion dollars. Why was that so misleading to you? I admit that SRGN didn't spend $1 billion on ONTAK. But, isn't it interesting that so many billions are spent just to get a few drugs approved? Hmmmmmm!? I've got to either accept your opinion that Ligand spend 16 "wasted" months of research and negotiations trying to buy SRGN, or accept Ligand's management's intentions as buying a good value. Hmmmm!? Who has better credibility, Ligand's management, or a Mudrat?

To: Mudcat who wrote (24448)	8/13/1998 4:23:00 PM
From: Torben Noerup Nielsen	Respond to of 32384

>I believe Robinson even stated that ONTAK was the only SRGN science >that was of value to Lgnd. I think we need to wait and see on that one. It is easy for us to sit here and speculate on this. But you have to remember that we do not necessarily have all of the facts. There could well be things we are not aware of. Robinson and company has a clear financial interest in LGND; they will be well rewarded if the company does well. Also, you are looking at a largish collection of people with a lot of experience in the industry. Apparently, they all decided that this was a good deal. I think we need a good deal more time before we can say for sure if this was a dumb move or a brilliant one. As to Robinson saying that ONTAK was all they cared about, I am still discounting that some. I find it hard to believe that this is entirely true. It's sort of like the G-CSF molecule that only works on rodents. LGND found it, published the result and then said something like ''gee, what a shame we had to help everyone else along on the search for finding something that works in humans by publishing this". I find this quite amusing since LGND has full control over what does and what doesn't get published..... Cheers, Torben