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 : Pharma News Only (pfe,mrk,wla, sgp, ahp, bmy, lly) -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Anthony Wong who wrote (1488)	3/3/1999 6:33:00 PM
From: Anthony Wong	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1722

New York Post Editorial - A Thank You for Pharmaceuticals March 3, 1999 Psychiatric patients aren't chained to walls anymore, thank God. And that's largely due to the anonymous researchers at America's pharmaceutical corporations. Thanks to drugs such as Prozac, millions of depressed and anxious Americans can now function in society. So the revelation that New Yorkers in charge of testing new drugs on mental patients get payments and honoraria from the drug companies doesn't disturb us. Many psychiatrists and researchers in charge of testing drugs on state mental patients routinely receive speaking and consulting fees from firms such as Pfizer, Eli Lilly, Glaxo and Bristol Myers-Squibb. Many critics label this a conflict of interest. They're right only if you assume that they should be in a distanced or adversarial relationship to these companies - and that assumption smacks more of anti-business bias than it speaks to scientific independence. Look, leading scientists and researchers are in demand, their services sought by universities, government and private industry simultaneously. They are routinely paid for their time and expertise by all of these institutions. Severing the relationship between these fields in a quest for purity would be counterproductive. All such outside income must be disclosed, which is indeed how it came to light in the first place. Most of the researchers do work for many different companies, all of which are in competition with each other. The Food and Drug Administration ultimately passes on all drugs put on the market. The last thing a company wants is bad data that can't be replicated and won't pass FDA scrutiny. And a scientist who compromised his integrity in that way would soon find his reputation ruined. Finally, given the liability climate in this country, does anybody really believe that a drug company would try to play games in order to put out a harmful product? "There is no shortage of scientists who seek to find flaws in each others' work," says Dr. Fred Goodwin, a psychiatrist who formerly headed the National Institutes of Mental Health. "If somebody was putting out biased research, it would become evident very quickly." Pharmaceutical companies do the overwhelming majority of drug research in this country. They have done wonders - literal wonders - for people. They should be celebrated, not demonized. And the doctors and scientists who help them deserve a lot of credit too. nypostonline.com

To: Anthony Wong who wrote (1488)	3/5/1999 11:28:00 PM
From: Mick Mørmøny	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1722

Celebrex Alone Can't Cure Monsanto A BLOCKBUSTER DRUG isn't what it used to be. Not too long ago, even the rumor of a billion dollar pill was enough to send a pharmaceutical firm's stock price soaring. And once that company won approval for the drug, investors were almost certain they had struck gold. Case in point: Pfizer's (PFE) Viagra. Times certainly have changed. Just take a look at Monsanto (MTC). After only seven weeks on the market, sales of its arthritis drug Celebrex have surpassed Viagra in generating a record number of daily prescriptions. And most of this happened before its marketing agreement with Pfizer kicked in. Experts now predict Celebrex is likely to generate $2 billion this year. It now holds 20% of the arthritis-pain market. And yet, Monsanto stock is still lurking in the shadows like a depressive without his Prozac. The stock still hasn't rebounded after its fall last October when Monsanto's proposed merger with American Home Products (AHP) was called off. The company's shares dropped from 50 3/8 down to 34. In August its shares reached as high as almost 64. But the failed merger isn't the only issue investors have on their minds. In the past year the company has leveraged its balance sheet with $8 billion of debt to buy seed and other agricultural-biotechnology companies. Also, a couple of promising new cardiovascular drugs were abandoned after clinical trials proved disappointing. These new drugs could have generated up to $750 million and ended the argument that Monsanto is just a one-drug company. Some investors may also be worried about Merck's (MRK) competing arthritis drug Vioxx stealing share from Celebrex once it hits the market next month. The good news is that analysts believe all of these uncertainties are already reflected in Monsanto's share price and that it's unlikely the stock will drop further from here. Keep in mind that since Celebrex hit the market in January, the company's shares have jumped 18%. This is consistent with Warner-Lambert's (WLA) performance after it first launched its blockbuster cholesterol drug Lipitor, says analyst Richard Stover of Arnhold & S. Bleichroeder. After four months of Lipitor sales, Warner-Lambert stock jumped 60%. In Monsanto's case, it may take more than $2 billion worth of Celebrex sales to boost its stock price further. Investors are waiting for positive news from the company's new-drug pipeline. Monsanto is now pinning its hopes on second-generation Cox II inhibitors, the same class of drugs as Celebrex. Investors are also waiting to see how long it will take Monsanto to cut costs. Donald Carson of J.P. Morgan Securities says he expects to see progress in 1999 and for earnings to pick up in 2000. He points out that Monsanto is significantly downsizing its administrative staff; eliminating a number of ancillary corporate initiatives, such as R&D into what is known as nutraceutical/functional food; and is selling off noncore businesses. Finally, if the rumor that Monsanto and DuPont (DD) are planning on merging either proves false or peters out, some investors would also be pleased. "This is a depressant on the stock," Stover says. "If you bought Monsanto for the upside Celebrex can give you, a transaction with DuPont would bury the upside." The sad truth is, Monsanto shares aren't likely to revisit their August highs anytime soon. But new investors face little downside risk. Celebrex sales are soaring and eventually the company's agricultural business will be a power to be reckoned with. Monsanto stock could trade back in the 50 to 60 range over the next year.