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

To: Darrel McPherson who wrote (265)	1/31/1999 3:40:00 PM
From: QuietWon	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 810

why not a cocktail drug - did it with AIDS, but whether chemically they would bond/negate/additive would need to be determined. If no 'cocktail' would have to wait until one 'clears' to try the other, and even then, would there be residual amounts that would react positively or negatively. Aside from above, would appear would need to select one drug vs other. Not short, not trying to short. When researching sectors, techniques, co's look for several things including leadership in the area. Researching meaning more in depth DD than typical DD. If that's done you lessen the risk fundamentally. Like many not aware of ONXX, many not aware of IMCL. The two happen to be working in a similar area of development so it's totally coincidental. But, one would expect (eventually) that the 'better' of the co's would do better in price appreciation. Key words eventually or some point. Other key word is 'better' which here defined as: sooner availability (ie stage of FDA approval), efficacy of results, speed of results. Hope we agree on one thing - these two co's doing work on humans whereas enmd on mice, could reproduce their results a while back, and enmd is not as far along as onxx, imcl. So, why are onxx and imcl still where they are? Rodney Dangerfield syndrome.