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 : XOMA. Bull or Bear? -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Cacaito who wrote (10016)	5/16/1999 10:46:00 PM
From: Bluegreen	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 17367

You said>>>>>>>>>>>If the drug does not decrease mortality I am saying good bye to this one, even if FDA approved.<<<<<<< How will Neuprex be approved by not decreasing mortality? How could of Xoma told you possible early halt with zero deaths in treatment group IF they knew of mortality requirement? From the looks of your post also it appears that you think endotoxin elimination is what might be the BIG DEAL in Meningo. battle. E. coli study in Baboons says you are wrong. The FDA went to Xoma for its possible ANTIBACTERIAL effects of BPI NOT antisepsis per se. You know I have contended all along that rapid AND effective killing of gram neg bacteria in Meningo. is the BIG DEAL. LBP is the BIG DEAL in sopping up endotoxin in my opinion. Less bacteria to offend LBP means less kickoff on CD14, right? How would one get less gram neg bacteria? BACTERIAL LOAD FOLKS, BACTERIAL LOAD. In my opinion as soon as national media figures out that Neuprex might be a very potent antibacterial agent with synergistic effects with conventional antibiotics and if it gets approval we may have a very valuable stock on our hands, especially in this type of market. Murphy has said target of 45 dollars a share! Look at the prices of some of the internet stocks! Pure speculation on my part and only my opinions. Standard K disclaimers apply.

To: Cacaito who wrote (10016)	5/16/1999 10:58:00 PM
From: Bluegreen	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 17367

Notice the word POTENT being used>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Ann Surg 1999 Feb;229(2):262-71 Protective effect of bactericidal/permeability-increasing protein (rBPI21) in baboon sepsis is related to its antibacterial, not antiendotoxin, properties. Schlag G, Redl H, Davies J, Scannon P Ludwig Boltzmann Institute for Experimental and Clinical Traumatology, Vienna, Austria. OBJECTIVE AND SUMMARY BACKGROUND DATA: The recombinant fragment of bactericidal/permeability-increasing protein, rBPI21, has potent bactericidal activity against gram-negative bacteria as well as antiendotoxin (lipopolysaccharide [LPS]) action. On the basis of these activities, the authors sought to discover whether rBPI21 would be protective in baboons with live Escherichia coli-induced sepsis and whether the potential protective effects of rBPI21 (together with antibiotics) would be more closely related to its antibacterial or LPS-neutralizing effects. METHODS: In a prospective, randomized, placebo-controlled subchronic laboratory study, the efficacy of rBPI21 or placebo was studied over 72 hours in chronically instrumented male baboons infused with live E. coli under antibiotic therapy. RESULTS: Intravenous rBPI21 attenuated sepsis-related organ failure and increased survival significantly. Bacteremia was significantly reduced in the rBPI21 group at 2 hours after the start of the E. coli infusion, whereas circulating LPS was less affected. The in vivo formation of tumor necrosis factor was significantly suppressed by the rBPI21 treatment regimen. Microcirculation and organ function were improved. CONCLUSIONS: In baboon live E. coli sepsis, the salutary effect of rBPI21 results from a more prevalent antibacterial than antiendotoxin activity.<<<<<<<<

To: Cacaito who wrote (10016)	5/17/1999 12:03:00 AM
From: PrometheusTex	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 17367

Wow...thanks for the complete response C... It will take some time to go through all your references. Thanks for the lesson; I need to catch up again. Your references for the lack of change in mortality were appreciated; however, aren't these all examples following the achievement of some marker event. My impression was that the extreme aggression of the critical care docs toward meningio., as well as early recognition, had changed over the last ten years, and that it was this aggression that prevented kids from progressing to/through the markers of impending mortality. Kind of heading off the disease before it got out of hand. If this has not been borne out in the literature, I might have to abandon this notion. Again, thanks; perhaps we will meet on the ALLP group too. ProTex