SI
SI
discoversearch

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
Merck
An SI Board Since December 1996
Posts SubjectMarks Bans Symbol
1580 80 0 MRK
Emcee:  Alfred W. Post Type:  Unmoderated
Introduction Market Data Compact
Previous 25 | Next 25 | View Recent | Post Message
Go to reply# or date (mm/dd/yy):
ReplyMessage PreviewFromRecsPosted
1205 There was a large MOC(Market on Close-Buy) order from the NYSE today. It was foSabrejet-5/3/1999
1204 Hi, I might be buying some next week if it drops just a little more. BernieBernie Goldberg-4/30/1999
1203 Thursday April 29, 10:06 pm Eastern Time"MRK HAS EDGE" Merck says Vioron forgus-4/29/1999
1202 I think this cycling out of big pharma by institutional investors and fund manamuddphudd-4/29/1999
1201 Bernie, you have me beat. I bought St. Merck @ a split-adjusted 21 1/4 severalArdner Cheshire, Jr.-4/29/1999
1200 Hi, I agree 100%. About 4 months ago Cramer was saying that Merck was a stock Bernie Goldberg-4/29/1999
1199 George, I read Cramer every day; sometimes he is right, sometimes wrong. The iArdner Cheshire, Jr.-4/29/1999
1198 You might want to read Jim Cramers ideas on big pharmas @ TSC or thestret.com aknahow-4/29/1999
1197 No. I think you have the right idea. Big pharma is getting hit hard. I think muddphudd-4/29/1999
1196 Anybody besides me think that MRK is a real good buy at these levels? I added tArdner Cheshire, Jr.-4/29/1999
1195 I found MERK broker reports on www.nordby.com. See what the brokers are sayinjont-4/26/1999
1194 From Briefing.com..MERCK & CO. (MRK) 77 7/8. Value investors can now actualPlatter-4/23/1999
1193 Merck Q1 Dil Shr $0.54 Vs $0.47, Revs $7.54 Bln Vs $6.06 Bln I think MRK was rNick-4/23/1999
1192 I am a long term holder of Merck and wanted to chime in with a personal story tRavBruce-4/21/1999
1191 Thanks. That is what I was looking for. I saw a similar article on prnewswiremuddphudd-4/21/1999
1190 The Street.com comments on Vioxx---------> Vioxx's Victory Lacks Key SaWilliam F. Wager, Jr.-4/21/1999
1189 "So logically if the INDICATIONS are broader than Celebrex" "YoWilliam Partmann-4/21/1999
1188 "So logically if the INDICATIONS are broader than Celebrex" You meanmuddphudd-4/21/1999
1187 So logically if the INDICATIONS are broader than Celebrex, one would expect a bWilliam Partmann-4/20/1999
1186 MRK did more testing on their product with a much larger sample size. They didBrian Malloy-4/20/1999
1185 Thanks for the post Dan. Does this mean that a post-marketing phase IV trial wmuddphudd-4/20/1999
1184 The INDICATIONS for use of Vioxx are broader than Celebrex, but the SAFETY warnmuddphudd-4/20/1999
1183 Correct me if I am wrong but the Vioxx label is broader than Celebrex which wasWilliam Partmann-4/20/1999
1182 As I predicted; Cox-2 drugs need to be proven before label changes... My earliDan Spillane-4/20/1999
1181 "Drug industry analysts had said they expected the FDA panel to support Vimuddphudd-4/20/1999
Previous 25 | Next 25 | View Recent | Post Message
Go to reply# or date (mm/dd/yy):
HomeMailHotSubjectMarksPeopleMarksKeepersSettings
Terms Of UseContact UsCopyright/IP PolicyPrivacy PolicyAbout UsFAQAdvertise on SI
© 2026 Knight Sac Media.  Data provided by Twelve Data, Alpha Vantage, and CityFALCON News