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.

Strategies & Market Trends : Value Investing -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: jeffbas who wrote (6833)	4/18/1999 11:43:00 PM
From: Michael Burry	Respond to of 78566

TwoBear knows as much or more than me in this area in terms of relevance to VAR. You know my views on this already, though. WOW. Compaq's two top execs are resigning. Neato. Mike

To: jeffbas who wrote (6833)	4/19/1999 10:15:00 AM
From: TwoBear	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 78566

There are similarities, but, different cancers arise from different celluar structures. What might turn on a mutation in a epithelial cell will not be the same catalyst for a glandualar cell. Each of these cells react differently to different types of treatment. Cancers such as kidney, liver, and melanoma respond poorly to radiation, whereas, lymphoma, Hodgkin's disease, and basal cell skin cancers respond greatly. I guess what I'm trying to say is there will be no magic bullet such as penicillin with cancer. As I'm sure you know, we are now running out of antibiotics to treat many infectious diseases due to their ability to adapt and evolve to such drugs as penicillin. Tubes crack due to high heat generated in the tube. When x-rays are produced they are only 2% of the product. The other 98% is heat. Often a machine's use is limited while waiting on cooling of the tube. Sometimes technologists don't wait and overheat the tube thereby damaging it. I will investigate this issue further. 2

To: jeffbas who wrote (6833)	4/19/1999 10:33:00 AM
From: LauA	Respond to of 78566

Jeffrey Bash - OT: cancer - The unusual thing about the antiangiogenesis strategy is that it is not a "cure" but rather a way to box the disease. It's built on the physics of the situation relating to the distance that an oxygen molecule can travel via diffusion in a biological matrix. It turns out that a cancer can only grow to be ~1mm in size without a dedicated blood vessel. (A basic element of the healing process is to grow new blood vessels to bring oxygen where needed - be it an infection, a wound or surgical incision, etc.) Unless the cancer is located in a strategic place, a 1mm space occupying lesion will cause little or no problem. (Curiously there is still some argument in the literature about how a cancer causes death/ it probably works via starvation, but that's another story.) To get big, cancers need to develop their own blood vessel conduit. With something that abrogates angiogenesis, blood vessels don't form. However, since this process is of central importance to the organism, you also won't heal wounds, cure infections, grow muscle, etc, etc. The sexy part of this story has been the lure of curing cancer. The productive part of the story has been the understanding of wound biology. For the first time surgeons can understand why their trade works. And vascular surgeons could be threatened by pills. How you invest in it, go to medical school I guess. JMHO Lau