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 : VD's Model Portfolio & Discussion Thread -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Biomaven who wrote (6188)	12/28/1998 12:20:00 PM
From: scaram(o)uche	Respond to of 9719

Peter: Not much here, but........ exchange2000.com They're (very) local to me, so I could go visit. Rick

To: Biomaven who wrote (6188)	12/28/1998 12:46:00 PM
From: Vector1	Respond to of 9719

Thanks Peter I will take a look. With some luck we have a shot at finishing the year with a triple digit return. without any internet stocks. V1

To: Biomaven who wrote (6188)	12/29/1998 2:02:00 PM
From: aknahow	Respond to of 9719

I am interested in the opinion of others related to the change of domicile for potentially profitable biotech companies which may also have a significant, future, foreign revenues. I refrained from raising the issue earlier as it might have seemed related to a specific company. That company, today, saw shareholders approve the change. This leads me to believe others will follow suit. The issue took on a lot of the emotional baggage of the shareholders of the specific company and this probably would be true of most companies, except CORR, where few shareholders post about anything.<g> Proposed domicile change may unsettle shareholders and provide an additional, buying opportunity. Given the problems biotechs have with cash burn and cash flow, domicile change is something that can reduce burn and enhance cash flow once profitability is attained and a significant portion of revenues are from outside of the U.S. There is a lot of information on this issue available but I am not sure anyone has paid much attention. Most of you will know where to look for it if interested. I have not mentioned the biotech that just changed since I am only interested in discussing the issue rather than any specific company.

To: Biomaven who wrote (6188)	12/30/1998 12:22:00 AM
From: SnowShredder	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 9719

Peter, Here are some links to some 411 about SUPG... I looked @ it over a year ago and thought that they had people to guide them to the next level (founder of Amgen & Ellison). I beleive that they are involved with generics as well as "block buster" type drugs. I think they are doing generics to generate some revenue to help offset the cost of putting their "block buster" hopefuls through trials. It has been so long, so don't quote me, do your own dd. I currently have no position in SUPG...too busy tradin the inutz. Best of Luck, Where'd He Go? Message 2513354 Message 2566369 Message 2571047 Message 2583665

To: Biomaven who wrote (6188)	12/31/1998 8:59:00 AM
From: David Cathcart	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 9719

Peter, You first referenced SUPG on this thread and some MOGN fans have been looking into their RFS 2000 drug, which is in P3 clinical trials for pancreatic cancer. It is a serious drug and will likely raise the bar of efficacy for pancreatic cancer with a median survival of 16.2 months among responders (33%). That easily beats Gemzar and looks like a score unless something derails it in P3. RFS 2000 is also interesting in that it is being tested on virtually the same cancers as those targeted by MOGN for MGI-114. See this graph: supergen.com The strategy of the company is virtually the same as that of MGI Pharma and their EVP & Chief Scientific Officer, Rajesh Shrotriya, M.D., once worked at MGI Pharma as Vice President and Chief Medical Officer. I like the prospects of the company and its stock looks attractive at the current market cap. I hope discussion of the company on this thread will continue. David

To: Biomaven who wrote (6188)	1/4/1999 8:23:00 PM
From: Vector1	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 9719

Peter, Been looking at SUPG at your suggestion. Strange little company. Do you know who is underwriting the equity line? Pancreatic cancer is a killer. There is very little info I could uncover on the phase III or the phase II results which do not provide a lot of information. do you know where the sites are? Comparing to Gemzar for efficacy is troublesome. The problem with Gemzar is that it does not work. The theory is that all you have to do is show results that are as good and you get approval. The problem with that is that Gemzar is an embarrassment within the FDA and they know they made a mistake approving it. As good as or slightly better than Gemzar might not cut it . The FDA may also want to see comparable data with FU-5. V1