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 : Ionis Pharmaceuticals (IONS) -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Micawber who wrote (2524)	3/12/1999 10:56:00 AM
From: sds	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 4676

Once is luck... Twice is co-incidence... Three times is a trend... That's why 2933 doesn't matter in the sense of "proving" antisense technology. Just by statistical luck, you can come up with a compound that will work against something -- that's the bear-side argument against antisense (and Isis). There is big-time skepticism about antisense in the investment community. A good 2302 result is, in my opinion, essential to turning around that view. Let's hope it works! sds

To: Micawber who wrote (2524)	3/12/1999 2:22:00 PM
From: Edscharp	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 4676

Brian, The indication wasn't big enough. In my original posting I did place the word "prove" in quotes. I know it was proven in a clinical sense. What I meant by "prove" is; could and would the antisense technology successfully be used in other applications cost effectively with dramatic results. Other reasons that I qualified myself were because CMV retinitis affects a very small group of people and if my memory serves me correctly I don't recall any large scale remissions or even "vast" improvements in the condition of patients using Vitravene. I do understand that Vitravene was tested clinically and achieved statistically significant results and I don't doubt that many patients do receive relief from their symptoms, but I never read anything that made me think that the "overall" results that were being achieved were in any way dramatic. Also, the cost of Vitravene was steep. I have a rudimentary lay understanding of things that are bio-tech. Before I put big money down on a company I would like significant reassurance that their product(s) will have a dramatic impact on the patients it is destined for. Drugs that have moderate impact may be all too easily be superceded by more efficacious drugs from competitors. Isis' work on Crohn disease on the other hand is quite impressive. This is crucially important since Centocor has been approved for remicade and several other biotechs are also working on indications for Crohn disease. Not only must Isis' drug work it's going to have to be better than their competition. I am a huge believer in the future of biotech, but I am also a skeptic. Based on the recent comments of the CEO concerning Crohn's disease I have recently increased my holdings and upon final approval of this product will do so again