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 / MedicalGMED


Previous 10 Next 10 
To: Koerte Andreas who wrote (49)1/17/1998 1:00:00 PM
From: Jonathan Lester
   of 63
 
Spoke to IR at company on Friday. They did not know of any news or developments to prompt the sell off. They said that the IL-2 trials are on schedule and that some results should be out in a few months. The deal with BM cannot be cancelled. BM has an option to expand the partnership for cancer therapy, but the option runs out in Feb 98, and nothing has been done at this time. Hope this info helps. I am long GMED and would like to see gene therapy make it to market, although this may take many years.

Share RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last ReadRead Replies (1)


To: Jonathan Lester who wrote (50)1/17/1998 1:29:00 PM
From: celeryroot.com
   of 63
 
There was a news release in the beginning of the week that they had decided not to start a phase I, but I didn't read it as being particularly negative. This stock has tanked before,July I think, on hugh volume and little news. I currently am not holding but wondering if this might be a good buying oportunity???

Share RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last ReadRead Replies (2)


To: celeryroot.com who wrote (51)1/17/1998 7:18:00 PM
From: Robert L. Ray
   of 63
 
Well for the benifit of everyone else the url on the announcement is
biz.yahoo.com And I'll agree, I didn't regard it as a huge negative either. Canceling something that isn't even in phase 1 yet just doesn't seem that huge to me. It actually makes me feel that the company is picking its targets very carefully. It does seem odd that the announcement was made on Monday and it was Friday when the stock went down. At any rate I took the opportunity to jump back into the stock on Friday at just below 4. This stock has had a coupla nice 1 point or so moves up in the last couple of months and I'm betting that it will again.

Share RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last Read


To: celeryroot.com who wrote (51)1/18/1998 8:53:00 PM
From: squetch
   of 63
 
OFF TOPIC:
cleryroot please try this link
westergaard.com:8080/week97012024.html
Regards, squetch

Share RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last ReadRead Replies (1)


To: squetch who wrote (53)1/21/1998 9:37:00 PM
From: Brian Thomas Hertzog
   of 63
 
GMED is down over 40% in the last three days. Looks like a very cheap stock. They have lots of cash, and they are not blowing it. They are at a 52-week low. They have a ton of potential for the next twelve months.

Share RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last ReadRead Replies (1)


To: Brian Thomas Hertzog who wrote (54)1/22/1998 1:49:00 AM
From: JMarcus
   of 63
 
In cruising through this thread, it looks like there have been a number of mysterious large spurts and stutters in the stock price of GMED this past year. For example,

Message 1749122

Share RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last ReadRead Replies (1)


To: JMarcus who wrote (55)1/22/1998 3:45:00 AM
From: Koerte Andreas
   of 63
 
Be careful with GMED. From people working at Boehringer I know that they are not happy with GMED and it is not decided yet whether they will extend their collaboration in February. But maybe GMED have another partner already in mind.

Share RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last Read


To: C.L. Shelby who wrote ()5/13/1998 5:43:00 AM
From: Koerte Andreas
   of 63
 
Can anybody comment on the recent AAT news of GMED? Does It mean that their system of lipid vesicle delivery is generally working?

Share RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last Read


To: Koerte Andreas who wrote (57)6/25/1998 5:08:00 PM
From: Brian Thomas Hertzog
   of 63
 
Is anyone following this company anymore?
Still waiting for a breakout on this value play. What is management doing to increase shareholder value?

Share RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last ReadRead Replies (1)


To: Brian Thomas Hertzog who wrote (58)7/13/1998 1:33:00 PM
From: Robert L. Ray
   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:)

Share RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last ReadRead Replies (1)
Previous 10 Next 10