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 : ArQule -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: StockDoc who wrote (300)	12/18/1998 10:56:00 PM
From: Miljenko Zuanic	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 399

On several points I strongly disagree with your view. <<Hunting at night in sunglasses for flying birds with a new shotgun. This is where this company is. This is where almost all random drug discovery companies are. Selling High throughput screening, unlike experimental research, has the disadvantage of eliminating intelligence from analysis of information.>> CC and HTDS is far from * eliminating intelligence from analysis of information* . Even statistical molecular library generation, combined with computational chemistry and screening info has logic and reasons. The point of CC is to generate statistical variation on existing or predicted structure. You, like many other forgot that 95% of the past drugs and ~80% of today ones are discovered by ACCIDENT. << Accordingly, it has never produced anything useful. The discoverer randomly digging in the desert might come across something interesting. The chances are slim. The shovel is patented, OK. >> There are many examples that you are wrong and I will give you one: Ask Novartis Clozapine and Schizophrenia project leader how he/she filled when LLY stole drug by simple and minor change in one of the ring in Clozapine structure, generating Olanzapine (Zyprexa)!!! Hoopla, LLY invested few bucks in CC, generate statistical compounds library on Clazapine structure, got hit, and developed BB drug with +40% grow today. Or, maybe future example: VRTX tried to cover as wide as possible Cyclosporin A moiety structure (immunophilin ligand), but not enough wide to protect their ass from competition. GLFD generate (again) small variation on pyrimidine ring from basic structure, got patents, got AMGN bucks, and maybe huge BB drug. Why? Simple because VRTX was not able to make so many possible variation from basic compound by classical chemistry. VRTX now can only pray (and bite nails) that GLFD compounds do not work well. Today, many play GENERAL on field rule regards the SEPR, MEDI, AGPH, PGNS,...but there was very few SOLDERS (btw, great solders) for this companies 3-5 year ago. Yes, I am Solder of the companies which can play good chemistry in house (PCOP, ARQL, TREGA, SUGN, OSIP, NRGN,....) My point: It is not digging in the desert, it is more like searching for gold in Aljaska! I will agree that ARQL was overvalued at +20, but it is even more undervalued at +5. Good luck to you. Miljenko