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 : SAFS (Safescience, Inc.) formerly IGGI. Hot Potential -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Daniel Levin who wrote (97)	7/16/1999 11:20:00 PM
From: rocket	Respond to of 110

Yes, Daniel, still holding and very pleased with how the company is operating.

To: Daniel Levin who wrote (97)	8/27/1999 11:24:00 AM
From: Ben Wa	Respond to of 110

Abe S. might be

To: Daniel Levin who wrote (97)	9/2/1999 5:32:00 PM
From: Bob Trocchi	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 110

Daniel... I have just started to read the back posts for SAFS. I currently have no position. In "The Street.Com," a few days ago, Herb Greenberg wrote up a story of SAFS, a very small portion of it is reproduced below. The Street.Com is subscription service so I choose not to reproduce the whole article. If you have a subscription you can find it. If not you can get a free 30 day trial. >>Shuster tested SafeScience products from the store against such common name-brand household cleaners as Joy, Windex and Mr. Clean. Shuster did a complete compositional analysis and found that the SafeScience cleaners were 92.5% to 99.9% water (hey, that's purer than Ivory Soap). That means the SafeScience products have much higher concentrations of water than competing products. That wouldn't be a problem if they could clean dishes and windows. But they didn't do that very well. "Based on the results of the compositional analysis of these cleaning products, it is clear why their performance efficacy was so poor," the report reads. << In general, the article is not very positive on SAFS. Can you give me your reactions to this article or simply the portion I reproduced and some good reasons for going long. I am leaning to short this stock but I value input on both sides. Thanks Bob T.