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 : Pharmos (PARS) -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Ariella who wrote (444)	2/3/1999 1:30:00 AM
From: Rick Strange	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 1386

Ariella, Since I've been involved with both companies, I'll take a shot. Sepracor has done very well with their ICE (improved chemical entity) technology. They take a chemical compound (read blockbuster drug) and tinker with the molecular chain to either enhance performance or eliminate side effects. Sometimes it's a racemic (sp) or a single isomer version that does the trick, like Allegra to replace Seldane or the new and improved version of Claritin and Prozac. In each of these examples they have cut deals for up front payments and royalty payments with the firms that have these blockbuster drugs. Eli Lilly for example will be able to extend patent protection another decade and offer a new and improved version of its multi billion dollar drug Prozac. On a small scale PARS has done this with Lotemax by eliminating IOP usually associated with steroids. The problem here is that are no blockbuster steroids for eye use. Ditto HU211, PARS has eliminated the high associated with marajuana but there are no blockbuster marajuana based drugs approved by the FDA. I get the impression that you are begging the question: "shouldn't we use this technology to create new and improved versions of established blockbuster drugs rather than exploring what might prove to be a undeveloped wilderness."

To: Ariella who wrote (444)	2/3/1999 7:42:00 AM
From: crysball	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1386

Thinking Caps Ariella, good thought, but Human and Organizaional Behavior can limit logic. The Adage "We do what we like, we do what we know best and then finally we do what needs to be done" seems to apply to PARS. As previously noted, PARS went throgh a period of the 'Scientists in the Candy Store' and made thier choices, then proceeded to run behind schedule and over budget to arrive at their current state of affairs, which has severely limited their options going forward........for example they haven't even brought Tamoxifen forward. Given their limited financial and human resources they are managing them well.........but the strategic errors were made some time ago, and management must work through the current resouce limitations imposed by those choices. My greatest concern is that once a strategic partner is signed up for HU-211 and they finally become profitable (in 99), they will lose foucus and staff up and resume the 'Scientist in the Candy store approach as resource limitations ease up.