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: Hippieslayer who wrote (26605)	11/18/1998 10:41:00 AM
From: Mudcat	Respond to of 32384

<What is worse? A drug that doesn't work and is rejected or a drug where the intended group is told by one of their members that it isn't worth shit? > If your asking me which is worse, I'd have to say both scenarios are disasters from a stockholders perspective. Although the second one to me appears slightly worse because it makes the company look like its unrealistically hyping its product and calls into question their creditablity.

To: Hippieslayer who wrote (26605)	11/18/1998 1:19:00 PM
From: Cheryl Galt	Respond to of 32384

Steve >>What is WORSE? A drug that doesn't work and is rejected ---or a drug where the intended group is told by one of their members that it isn't worth shit? << Without a doubt, the first is worse. Nothing is worse than a hopeless situation. As to the second scenario: I'm not overly concerned about it. Sure it's unfortunate that this panelist gave a negative -- and irresponsible sounding? -- response. He may contributed to more days of "buying opportunity" for us. (Tho my hunch is that the LOW revenues for 1998, major dilution, the expectation of ongoing dilution, and concern about the 5-month Ontak delay (manufacturing problems at Marathon??) are closer to the reasons for the Market's (and my) hesitancy over Ligand these days. I actually think this reasonably good panel rec mitigated the downside of a disastrous 3Q report.) But stereotypes aside, the "intended group" is not monolithic, does not speak with one voice, or judge from one perspective. I'll bet that panelist's remarks created just as much exasperation in much of the "target groups" as it did on this thread. (I know how exasperated I feel when people attribute some fixed viewpoint to women. As if all women have an identical perspective! Good grrieeef ...) I'm hoping final approval for marketing comes soon. I'm waiting to see how the gel will be received once it hits pharmacy shelves. Steve, you know I'm not a bull on LGND. I'm not a bull on ANY pre-profit biotech. You'll never catch me cheerleading for a short-term price pop, and I'm realistic about entry points. But now that we have a product soon to produce revenue, I'm cautiously optimistic for next year's results. And I'm optimistic about Panretin gel -- because the gel is the first time patients (and doctors, and health plans) have had the choice of a topical patient-controlled drug --- as an alternative to treatments that have to be administered at the clinic, and are far more invasive. ----------------------------- I think Dan Root's comment on the subject is the most useful thing said in all our ramblings the last couple of days. Message 6441098 I also think that much of the negatives seen by the panelist might likely be avoided by proper use of the gel -- which is not a simple matter, and takes guidance from the clinic. See again that note on the technique for using/misusing Tazorac psoriasis.org Just my .03 Cheryl