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.

Microcap & Penny Stocks : Pharmos(PARS) -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Ariella who wrote (1248)	9/17/1998 5:23:00 PM
From: Richard Huth	Respond to of 1491

Dear Ariella Thank you for your comprehensive report. I think you are right by saying PARS offers a good risk/reward ratio, but we should not expect too much within the next months - todays drop seems to reflect the reduced optimism about an assumed strong reaction on possible positive news about HU211. Actually the market in general (at least for biotech comp.) does look more on positive phase III data and earnings, so unblinding of HU211 might be without any positive effect on stock prices in the short run. Therefore I also agree with you that most important for PARS is finding new partners to reverse the downside trend or PARS. -- the niche audience that PARS needs to attract is investors who are knowledgeable about pharmaceuticals and biotechs, not folks searching for that 10-bagger in any industry simply because the stock is currently priced under $5. How about if we start a new thread under the pharmaceutical/ biotech section in SI? -- I only can support your proposal - but why not move the complete thread? -Richard

To: Ariella who wrote (1248)	9/17/1998 10:23:00 PM
From: NeuroInvestment	Respond to of 1491

Ariella: Your report was thorough and very appreciated. Apparently PARS management does play poker well, because they have indeed unblinded the data and have at least some of the findings analyzed in preliminary fashion.While Dr. Aviv is correct that there has been too much focus on the mortality endpoint (since with the small n, and small number of deaths, it would be hard to reach statistical significance)--PARS has only itself to blame, since they chose to publicize the 12.5% overall mortality rate, and its possible implications. Besides, the FDA loves mortality, because it is easy to measure. Since the Glasgow Coma Scale is such a time-honored medical categorical measure,those scores are critical--though this Phase II needs to impress corporate partners more than the FDA. The FDA is not fond of the kinds of functional measures involved in disability ratings--even though from a clinical/societal cost point of view, these could be the most important. I suspect that these more complicated datasets have not all been worked through yet. Thank you again. NeuroInvestment (www.neuroinv.com)