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.

Politics : Ask Michael Burke -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Ilaine who wrote (42740)	1/8/1999 5:41:00 PM
From: Peter Singleton	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 132070

thread, remind me not to cross Lawrence Kam! <ng> , oh what the heck, <g> Message 7161814

To: Ilaine who wrote (42740)	1/8/1999 5:57:00 PM
From: Merritt	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 132070

CB: ENMD had licensed the rights to thalidomide from BMY, then bought those rights in 8-97. They had clinical trials going for treating four different types of cancer (that I know of). ENMD must have felt that endostatin and angiostatin either had more promise than thalidomide, or that CELG could better proceed with its development. As to the birth defects, I seem to recall that a woman, I believe in Europe, who was a "thalidomide baby," gave birth to an infant that was also deformed. The story appeared several months ago, as I recall...but I don't remember where I read it, so I can't be sure that my memory's correct without a refresher. I felt at the time, that it would almost force the FDA to deny its access to the market if it could cause chromosomal changes. But I haven't read anything since, and it was OK'd for leprosy subsequent to the story, so maybe I'm wrong. I'd be curious if anyone else recalls the story.