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 : Celgene-CELG -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: John Bloxom who wrote (260)	2/10/1999 11:50:00 AM
From: Biomaven	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 804

John, The NY Times today quoted BMY as saying the problem was largely production, and implied efficacy was inconsistent. Sounded like they believed the molecule worked, but was currently impractical. I lightened up my MOGN holding this morning and switched the proceeds into increasing my CELG position. I'm assuming Thalomid sales will still be pretty small, but I'm prepared to look further than the current quarter. Only issue for me was whether to wait for their results in case I could pick it up cheaper then. Peter

To: John Bloxom who wrote (260)	2/10/1999 7:59:00 PM
From: Miljenko Zuanic	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 804

John: What am I missing??? <<It is true that in the angio deal BMY acquired a right of first refusal on intellectual property rights acquired by ENMD from Childrens (and elsewhere) relating to anti-angiogensis technologies in general, but such a right is not an option to acquire - it the right to trump a competitor's bid if, and only if, the grantor of the right decides to sell. ENMD chose not to sell. >> I didn't read contract between ENMD and BMY, but if you have right of first refusal of something (who has second right, third,..and so on???, actually who needs first right to refuse), than there is option (under certain condition) to buy the same. I do not buy story that ENMD chose not to sell, if there was financially and materially attractive bid. Also, ENMD was not in position to pick and chose freely. Why they will refuse BMY offer for Endo, when they were more than happy with Angio and Thalido license? Because BMY cancel Thalido??? Or Children's was not happy with BMY (or other pharma) offer? So, they went for technical and financial support at NCI, the last resource for compounds and company!!!! Bottom line is (IMO), BMY did pass on Endo. Simply because: 1. they are unstable proteins, and 2. there are small molecules, or their combinations which can successfully mimic action(s) (???) of the An/En. Also, Childern's satisfaction with ENMD cancer plan and programs, including license to third party, (however they did make nice bucks selling ENMD holding) suggest recent collaboration between Child and GZMO. Miljenko

To: John Bloxom who wrote (260)	2/10/1999 8:32:00 PM
From: scaram(o)uche	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 804

John: Please accept my apologies for implying that you might bullshit on occasion. I mistook you for the other John Bloxom, the one that used to tell the great tales in the early days of the ENMD thread. However, that John Bloxom added a trading position for ENMD to his long-term hold position at the end of August, 1998. There are also two Richard Harmons that post here at SI, so I know what you must go through. The other Richard Harmon is a gold freak, fortunately, so we never come close to crossing paths. I should have known right away that you weren't that John Bloxom when you said........ "BTW, no vested interests here. I owned ENMD before the run and sold every share the day of the run" and "I haven't owned the stock since May". Again, please accept my apologies. Let's hope that we can keep that other John out of the CELG thread. Rick