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 : GMED
GMED 46.01+2.4%Dec 1 4:00 PM EST

 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext  
To: Brian Thomas Hertzog who wrote (58)7/13/1998 1:33:00 PM
From: Robert L. Ray  Read Replies (1) of 63
Actually I bought more GMED today Brian. This thing truly seems to be a great bargain. You should check out the insider trades on Yahoo. I follow quite a few biotechs. (LGND being my favorite) But GMED looks better than any of them when it comes to insider buying. I notice one guy named Josef Bossart has accumulated around 60,000 shares;... And he just came to the company from a division of RPR dealing with gene therapy in March 97. So ya gotta believe that this guy at least has a lot of confidence in GMED. I mean geeze he left a big established company like RPR (Rhone Poulanc Roher) and came to GMED and in short order bought 60,000 shares. And they appear to be open market purchases too. Not employment/options related or anything.

Also although I oftentimes ridicule technicians because I'm a died in the wool fundamentalist but look at the chart. Anytime GMED gets to around 3 it seems to bounce back pretty strongly withen 3-6 months.

Also I'm hopeful on their IL-2 drug. IL-2 of course is an older drug that has been proven to be both effective and toxic at doses necessary to help in cancer therapy. But the GMED method of localized delivery of this drug vs. the conventional sytstemic delivery just could wind up being a winner. I like the fact that this is a drug that is proven to work for cancer already. So all GMED has to do is prove that their gene delivery method of it is effective and effectatious. I mean if they are able to produce high concentrations of IL-2 at the tumor site with a proven drug there's no logical reason to believe that it won't work as good or possibly better than IL-2 delivered systemically. IL-2 delivered systimically is *extremly* toxic. One thing I'm a little in the dark on is that IL-2 has been around a while. I'm not sure if anyone has any current valid patents on it or if it's something that's off patent and any drug company can use it with no licensing fees. I've never seen anything anywhere pertaining to licensing fees when it comes to IL-2 so I'm assuming it's off patent if there ever was a patent on it in the first place. Perhaps it came out of a government lab or something and is fair game for all?. Or at least fair game for a company enterprising enough to figure out a delivery method that will be effective in cancer without nearly killing the patient in the process:)
Report TOU ViolationShare This Post
 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext