Micro, indulgent as usual. With the usual good counterpoints. Nonetheless, "biologic activity" can and must equate to clinical efficacy before one gets to go from the lab to the patient to prove whether it works. I mean you have to prove it works in the lab before anyone will let you prove it works (or not) in patients. The toxicity has been thrombocytopenia if I remember correctly, or maybe an anticoagulant effect. So what chemo agent out there is completely non toxic? The idea is to kill the bad cells then stop before all the good ones go too and if not transplant some bone marrow to make up for it. The abstracts at AACR show promise and yes it has been a long time coming. We don't yet know if any "late breaking" data will be presented. Okarma said he plans an 80 (OK, then he 50) center study for breast cancer. Surely that is not based on a drug that does not work. Besides, the real news is on the embryonic stem cell side. You've seen the video from Kierstad:the rats walked--THEY WALKED after stem cell treatment for their spinal contusions. I couldn't sleep for days (no kidding) after I saw that video. It was too exciting. Cardiomyopathy repair, cartilage, islet cells, the list goes on. This company is not your ISRG which could move much faster but still had its origin buried in the space program of distant past. Okarma says these are disruptive technologies, so far besides his warped sense of time and tendency toward hyperbole I have given the benefit of the doubt. We shall see. Lots of first class medical centers looking hard at a drug you say doesn't work. As for the money, yes, I've lost plenty, but I am still swinging for the fence. Best regards, bp
AI
Market Data 
Markets 
