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 : EntreMed (ENMD) -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: LTK007 who wrote (1391)	11/12/1998 8:10:00 PM
From: Mr. Miller	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 2135

From my experience in research, you don't go around telling just anyone that your assay is not working to the press. It is most likely a distortion of the truth since Wallstreet knows nothing about science. When I did protocols that others had done, it often failed until you were discipline enough to do the assay in the EXACT same way as the originators. Assay is a generic name for procedure. What is happening here is this. The assay is completed. It is published and others are expected to follow it to reproduce in their own lab. Number one. What is the model being used? Are we looking at skin cancers, lung cancers, liver cancers, what? Then what animal is being used? Mice or rats are usually the best for ease of space and quantity at cheap prices. What is the living conditions and/or diet. I ask these questions because even the smallest detail could throw the experiment. Number two. What is the assay? What is to be done? How does one get the product into the animal? What is the vehicle(ie. is it oral administration, intravenous, etc.)? Is it dissolved in water, acetone, ethanol? Number three. Question of the lack of reproducibility: how many times has it been done? Once? Fifty times? I am sure ENMD got it wrong alot until they nailed the right procedural technique. this is why ENMD needs to walk the newbies through the assay, which is being done some time this month from what I read out of a press release. It is common for other labs/new people to just pick up the published paper, and not get it right. It is like the difference between a first year CT surgeon and one who has practiced for 50 years. That old guy knows the pinch of this and the dab of that and the hesitation before the thingy. It is experience that will make the experiment work. Those at ENMD stand by their work because they have repeated it enough with statistical significance. That is that there is a very low probability(less than 5%; ie. p<.05) that the positive results were by chance alone. I see no reason for such well-positioned, world renowned researchers to jump the gun with this data knowing what they were sitting on could be huge. It is important to realize how science evolves and what it takes to get assays to work at the bench. Could have been a bad batch of angiostatin or endostatin. Could have been given at the wrong times. You have to realize that it is not like they toss a pill at these animals anytime and see what happens. The tumors have to be "grown" in a specific way, usually a carcinogen(chemical-type) is given to induce the tumor. The animals have to be watched carefully by technicians. Then the tumors have to be treated in a specific way, and watched carefully. Those who have never done what ENMD has done will not know the exact details of this care. I will bet that the CEO will emphasize that many times in their past they could not get it right until they came upon the right assay. I am sure that the people who now say they have not been able to reproduce it, have not been able to reproduce it yet, and also that someone overheard something they ought not have and reported it. Researchers do not make a point of holding a press conference outside their facilities at the end of everyday to update the media. It is also unprofessional. If he/she thinks that the assay is not working, then the proper way to proceed is to contact ENMD and find out what is not being done correctly. If, after several tries, the researcher could publish the study if he finds it necessary. Sometimes it is necessary to publish results that do not jive with anothers. It does not mean the original team made up their research. There is no such report pending. All we have here is a scoop that has blown the whole situation out of proportion. Why? Because Wallstreet does not realize how difficult assays are and what it takes to perfect the technique. The lack of reproducibility is most likely due to lab, human error and not the product at this point. It is too early to check reproducibility. These other labs who are doing the assay on their own need to conduct better communication with ENMD before running(assuming this was done) to the media with screams of yellow gold! I do not think the stock deserved such a run back in Feb, and I do not know where fair value is, but if we dropped all this today based solely on the article, and I think that was the case, then I see a rebound tomorrow. In fact, with the CEO appearing unscheduled like this, we may see a big rebound if he dispels the fear and provides more gold nuggets that get investors and wallstreet in a momentum again. Backing by the NCI is very big. There is no hoax here. Just a distortion of what is happening. Some have not reproduced it yet, while others have. Noone has said it doesn't work. The big difference is phrasology. Miller