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: NeuroInvestment who wrote (1378)	10/9/1998 11:42:00 PM
From: Ariella	Respond to of 1491

It is comforting to think an alternation in press release headlines would have had a significant difference on the stock action this week, but I don't think so. ABTX, an American agribiotech company that has just cornered almost half of the turf and forage grass market, announced it had hired Merrill Lynch to advise on selling the company. Initially the stock sold off and rumors abound now that the shorts are coming to take the stock down further. ECI Telecom from Israel had a Robert Stephenson analyst come out today and point out that Israeli exporters benefit from the relative devaluation of the shekel -- this after the company beat Q3 estimates -- yet the stock continues to plummet. Ruder Finn used that lovely word "blockbuster" in a press release for NEO (NeoPharm) on September 22. Note the downtrend since despite the very encouraging news. Could go on, but you get the picture. I own a basket of Israeli stocks and whether they have pre-warned or come in on target, people are dumping them. Why should PARS be different? Besides we're quite a way from earnings contribution from HU-211 even if it does end up as a blockbuster. And people who read the Boston Globe article could easily come away dismissing the trials because of the doctor's comment in the last paragraph -- however unmerited in this situation -- something over which PARS had absolutely no control. Meanwhile, I think the progress management has made in its PR work since last spring should be noted and congratulated. Ruder Finn came into the picture very recently and when the good news starts to roll in 1999, they ought to have a better game plan in place. Regards, Ariella

To: NeuroInvestment who wrote (1378)	10/10/1998 12:10:00 AM
From: Rick Strange	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 1491

N.I. Let me take a shot at playing Madison Avenue: 'HU-211 triples the likelihood of returning to normal life style after sever head injury.' To paraphrase one of your comments: "Most people don't know what ICP is and don't care." They do understand a smashed head and the ability earn a living after a sever injury. PARs may have been playing to the balcony when they stressed mortality. You wrote 5/10/98: "The FDA likes mortality endpoints because they are admittedly very easy to measure, there is generally good interrater reliability when it comes to determining if a patient is alive or dead, and that kind of binary categorical measure makes the statistics easier." Since HU-211 addresses a previously untreatable condition would orphan drug status offer PARS any advantage either during trials and in the market place, assuming it is approved? Could treatment-IND status help lower the cost of trials? Is the ICP effect of HU-211 a valid "surrogate endpoint" that would allow the FDA to grant market approval? If the ICP effect and "good outcome" were valid endpoints and Phase III trials were limited to the more sever injuries (GSC 3-6 or 4-6) how large a patient population would you have to have, assuming a double blind placebo controlled trial? Same question but ICP only? I find your comments very valuable and will subscribe to your newsletter.

To: NeuroInvestment who wrote (1378)	10/10/1998 8:12:00 AM
From: Omer Shvili	Respond to of 1491

Neruoinv, I agree with everything you said, except the comment about the two cohorts. The 48 mg cohort included only 10 patients and so one death here or there could really have affected the results. I think it's still too early to say that there isn't a difference between the dosages. The third cohort will include about 20 patients, and the data will clear this up. However, you are right that PARS could start phase III before the data from this cohort is available. They can start phase III and if there is major news from the third cohort, change it a bit after 2-4 months (they don't have to give the same dose to all the patients anyway). BTW, I confirmed this with PARS, so it's not pure speculation. As for negotiations, PARS is allready talking with several companies, and I guess negotiations with others will begin shortly. I expect they sign an agreement by February. Omer