| Understanding
Why Cancer Strikes Late 2/2/2004 Source: Cell Press We all know that cancer happens more often in older people. The reason seems to be that cancer develops slowly, first passing through a series of benign stages. Our understanding of how cancer develops over a lifetime is limited by the extreme difficulty of monitoring these slow changes, but new work reported this week aids this effort by employing mathematical modelling to analyze epidemiological data on the relationship between age and cancer and generating ideas about how cancer progresses over time. The findings come from Steven Frank at the University of California in Irvine, who analyzed how the rates of breast, prostate, colon, and lung cancers rise with age. Older people do indeed get these cancers much more often, but the increase with age slows down later in life. In the new work, Frank asks how the passage through the benign early stages of cancer would cause the increase in cancer incidence to slow as one ages. His theory is that, early in life, we are well-protected because all of our cells have many stages to go through before they may become cancerous. As we get older, some of our cells progress through the early stages. By midlife, much of the waiting for the slow passage of the early stages is over. A few of our cells are poised on the brink of cancer, with only a few steps to go. So, early in life there are many steps to pass and cancer incidence less frequent. When people are older, cancer strikes frequently because only one or two short steps remain. Cancer incidence is high, but does not increase so much as one gets even older, because those last steps could strike at any time. Frank develops a general model for how cancer progresses then uses it to explain the observed differences between tissues (e.g., prostate vs. breast) in age-specific cancer acceleration. New genetic techniques will soon allow scientists to look at the genetic changes in cells that cause cancer. If Frank is right, then everyone will have cells stepping along through the early stages of cancer progression as they get older. The actual incidence of cancer at different ages in different people can then be linked to the slow changes that happen over the course of our lives. ### Contact: Heidi Hardman hhardman@cell.com 617-397-2879 Cell Press |
| Task
Force Targets NY’s Biotech Needs By Sumathi Reddy Staff Writer, Newsday February 1, 2004 Albany - Eighteen biotechnology companies have emerged from the prestigious Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory during the past two decades. Only four remain in New York State, the remainder fleeing to more tech-heavy areas such as Boston and Seattle. Such is the problem facing New York, lawmakers say, as they struggle to lure and retain biotechnology and high-tech companies, a prime source of high-paying jobs. To that end, Senate Republican leaders say they're focusing on making business easier and cheaper, particularly for small to midsize companies, as they launch phase two of an economic development task force dubbed NextGen. "What we accomplished in the past was really a capital investment," said Sen. Dean Skelos (R-Rockville Centre), chairman of the task force. "Now what we're looking at is, what do we do in terms of the business development? How do we help these companies now survive and grow in New York State and attract companies from outside of New York?" The task force's work comes on top of three economic development recommendations targeting high-tech and biotechnology companies proposed by Gov. George Pataki in his budget address Jan. 20. The panel is holding information-gathering hearings across the state and expects to have a list of recommendations by the end of this month or early next month. While cost estimates and details remain unknown, ideas range from subsidies to lower real estate costs for businesses in high-rent areas, such as New York City and Long Island, to providing more aid through state matching grants, private capital and federal funds. The key to retaining biotech companies is bringing more here, said John Maroney, counsel and director of the office of technology transfer at Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory. "The main reason [companies leave] is almost always the benefits associated with a critical mass of a biotech cluster," he said. In his budget proposal, Pataki included a new tax incentive program that would allow small biotechnology companies to sell their losses to large companies in exchange for capital dollars. Senate Republicans' budget analysis estimates it would cost the state $5 million this year. Pataki also is proposing a $350-million matching fund to help private colleges and universities pay for new construction and other capital projects, targeting investments in high technology, such as life-science labs. Finally, he is calling for the creation of a $250-million Regional Economic Growth program to pay for projects, such as downtown convention centers, with $25 million to be spent in the fiscal year that begins in April, according to Senate budget experts. Other economic development initiatives outlined by Pataki include a tax break for manufacturers and the creation of four agribusiness zones to help rural areas recruit more jobs. Also, Pataki proposed a five-year extension of the Empire Zone program - with changes to ensure it is being used for its purpose - to encourage businesses to locate themselves in economically depressed areas. There has been a chorus of complaints, primarily from upstate, that businesses have taken advantage of the program's generous tax breaks without creating jobs. Assembly Majority Leader Paul Tokasz (D-Cheektowaga) said he will pay close attention to Empire Zone program changes. "A lot of us think it's very subjective and it's very political," he said. "I don't think the program as it exists is going to be extended. There needs to be some improvements." http://www.newsday.com/news/local/state/ny-stecon01n3651266feb01,0,4539386,print.story?coll=ny-statenews-headlines |
| mb,
what is NECESSARY is that ADVR moves along with ALL DUE SPEED toward
re-engaging the continuation of Phase II trials (already approved for
initiation) - as well as ALL testing in other areas/countries. In addition to that, I see nothing wrong with ADVR re-connecting with contacts and policies that engaged other countries, such as the Mercatur/Argentinian/Mexican/Belarus arrangements. What they should consider, in addition to their "Spokesman At-Large" is a Marketing Manager, who would begin talks with other counties much as ADVR did in the mid-90s. Every little bit will help. There is ABSOLUTELY NO time to waste - and the acquisition of cash that MIGHT let them breathe a little easier should NOT give them a sense of relief. Each new movement forward allows the company to release yet another PR that will continue to enhance its value. I hope that the former inane restraint from public notices that informs shareholders and the public alike is not continued with this current administration. This means the lawyers MUST NOT be allowed to make those kinds of decisions. What I am saying is that ADVR MUST play the game from a position of strength - take the bull by the horns and move AGGRESSIVELY AND QUICKLY toward a place that will draw enough attention to allow other entities to consider some kind of partnering up. There is NO TIME TO WASTE - and though there will be cash in the coffers, they must continue to trim their sails while still thinking there is tragedy just around the corner. In today's days and age, it is MORE than just the science - it is the perception that this company is going to be successful, and that will take much aggressive engagement with the financial and medical community. LET THEM TOUT THE COMPANY!! |
| ADVR
MUST consider the possibility of selling/distributing some of their
rights that might allow a reputable firm to move in on
testing/financing. It's going to take a LOT more than 12 Million to move
through the testing process. Wanting to keep ALL the glory will spell doom if in the end it means that you don't succeed. I would ACTIVELY and AGGRESSIVELY begin a campaign to see what might be acquired with a willingness to share in some of the marketing rights/technology in order to sweeten interest in getting a pharm interested to the point of joining forces. What's the good of having 100% of failure vs 75% of success?? |
NASD Notice to Members 04-03 SEC Approves NASD Rule Proposal Requiring Members to Make Affirmative Determinations for Short Sale Orders Received from Non-Member Broker/Dealers; Effective Date: February 20, 2004 Executive Summary The Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) approved amendments to Rule 3370 (Prompt Receipt and Delivery of Securities—the "Affirmative Determination" Rule) that expand the scope of the affirmative determination requirement to include orders received from non-member broker/dealers.1 As revised, Rule 3370 applies to orders received by member firms from both customers and non-member broker/dealers, as well as most firm proprietary orders. The revisions also add an exception for "proprietary" short sales of non- member broker/dealers provided the member can establish that the order meets certain conditions. The text of the amendments as provided in Attachment A become effective on February 20, 2004. Questions/Further Information Questions concerning this Notice may be directed to Gary L. Goldsholle, Associate General Counsel, Office of General Counsel, NASD Regulatory Policy & Oversight, at (202) 728-8104. Discussion NASD Rule 3370 requires, among other things, that no member or person associated with a member shall effect a "short" sale order for any customer in any security unless the member or person associated with a member makes an affirmative determination that the member will receive delivery of the security from the customer or that the member can borrow the security on behalf of the customer by settlement date. Because NASD's definition of "customer" excludes a "broker" or "dealer," the affirmative determination requirements did not apply to orders from "non-member broker/dealers."2 The failure to subject short sales by such persons to the affirmative determination requirement affects the integrity of the marketplace by increasing the possibility of failures to deliver and also creates regulatory disparity by allowing certain firms to effect short sales outside the purview of NASD's affirmative determination requirements. To address these concerns, NASD has amended Rule 3370 to apply to short sale orders for any customer or "non-member broker/dealer." The amendments also provide an exemption for certain proprietary orders of non-member broker/dealers. Specifically, Rule 3370(b)(2)(B) provides exemptions for, among others, proprietary orders of member firms that are bona fide market making transactions, or transactions that result in bona fide fully hedged or arbitraged positions. Proprietary orders of a non-member broker/dealer likewise are exempt from the affirmative determination requirements if they meet the same conditions for the exemptions applicable to proprietary orders of member firms, and the following two conditions are satisfied: (1) the non-member broker/dealer must be registered with the SEC; and (2) if using the market maker exemption, the non-member broker/dealer is registered or qualified as a market maker in the securities and is selling such securities in connection with bona fide market making. Endnotes 1 File No. SR-NASD-2001-85 (Nov. 27, 2001), SEC Release No. 34- 48788 (Nov. 14, 2003), 68 Fed. Reg. 65978 (Nov. 24, 2003). 2 While NASD member broker/dealers are excluded from the definition of "customer" under NASD Rule 0120(g), such firms have an independent obligation to comply with NASD's Affirmative Determination Rule. ©2004. NASD. All rights reserved. Notices to Members attempt to present information to readers in a format that is easily understandable. However, please be aware that, in case of any misunderstanding, the rule language prevails. Attachment A New text is underlined; deletions are in brackets. 3370. Prompt Receipt and Delivery of Securities (a) No Change (b) Sales (1) No Change. (2) "Short Sales" (A) Customer and non-member broker/dealer short sales No member or person associated with a member shall accept a "short" sale order for any customer or non-member broker/dealer in any security unless the member or person associated with a member makes an affirmative determination that the member will receive delivery of the security from the customer or non-member broker/dealer or that the member can borrow the security on behalf of the customer or non-member broker/dealer for delivery by settlement date. This requirement shall not apply, however, to transactions in corporate debt securities or transactions in security futures, as defined in Section 3(a)(55) of the Act, or proprietary orders of a non-member broker/dealer that meet one of the exceptions in subparagraph (B) below, provided, however, that (i) the non-member broker/dealer is registered with the Securities and Exchange Commission, and (ii) if using the market maker exception, the non-member broker/dealer is registered or qualified as a market maker in the securities and is selling such securities in connection with bona fide market making. (B) No Change (3) No change (4) "Affirmative Determinations" (A) No change (B) To satisfy the requirement for an "affirmative determination" contained in paragraph (b)(2) above for customer, non-member broker/dealer, and proprietary short sales, the member or person associated with a member must keep a written record [which] that includes: (i) if a customer or non-member broker/dealer assures delivery, the present location of the securities in question, whether they are in good deliverable form and the customer's or non-member broker/dealer's ability to deliver them to the member within three (3) business days; or (ii) No change
| OT:Found
this recently about the signals MM's. MM'S 'talk' to each other, concerning size of the trade -- 100 -- I need shares. 200 -- I need shares badly, but I don't want to take it down to get them. 300 -- Take the price down to get shares. 400 -- Trade it sideways based on supply/demand. 500 -- Gap one way or other. Usually in direction of (this) trade Can't confirm that ,just what was posted elsewhere. call your local S.E.C and make an inquiry gator |
| Re: Blackout Period by: archangel0128 |
02/05/04 01:27 pm Msg: 113252 of 113260 |
| I really don't want you to say anything. The quote provided stated: "Blackout Period -- A period of time prior to the release of annual or quarterly financial earnings information during which a specified group of employees of a public company are restricted by the company's INSIDER TRADING policy from TRADING in company stock." - emphasis added by me. The granting of options that begin vesting 1 year from now, and only 25% of them at that, is not the same as TRADING. Now being the bright CPA that you appear to be... you know that these being OPTIONS; the purchasing of the stock as they vest is OPTIONAL. As for the "why"... depends if these are INCENTIVE based or PERFORMANCE based. If they are INCENTIVE based, the board seems to be sending the message that they like the current management team. If it is PERFORMANCE based... sounds like a reward for a job well done which in turn bodes well for the 4th Q numbers. |
|
this is just some addtional info i picked up on the web about transfer of wealth
| Re: inflation by: inflationfoe (37/M) |
02/05/04 01:49 pm Msg: 113272 of 113284 |
||||||
| Here is your example on transference of wealth. Solara used to own ALL of a company that made $1 per share. PE 10. 1000 shares outstanding. Solara's investment was worth about $10,000. The next year the stock earned $1.20. PE 10 Solara's investment was worth $12,000. Management decided to award themselves 100 options after the $1 earnings year. Now 1100 shares are outstanding. Solara's share of market cap is 10/11 or $9090 if PE stays same at 10. Next year the stock won't earn $1.20 because there are more shares outstanding. It earns $1.20 * 1000 / 1100 or $1.09 per share. PE 10. Solara owns 1000/1100 of $11990 or $10,900. The overall company is still valued at the same market cap. Solara owns less. Management owns more. |
|||||||
|
|||||||
| Well,
ADVR was not going to go anyplace without a large investment. Now we can fail or succeed with the drug based on the scientific data to be developed. I dont care about personalities or anything non scientific now that ADVR has money to proceed. They came this far on little-Yes I know there will be 10 posts about how money was squandered and all the share dillution and Dr H made a big salary--Those people should divest themselves of ADVR tomorrow and not look back Now it will be about DATA and Human trials Somehow someway in spite of it all ADVR has managed to find other potential avenues for 118, now we can begin to wonder if we might not have a platform with this drug for multiple use..Wouldnt that be something. ADVR has got my respect, they have turned around the lack of communication with shareholders and have been reporting progress and keeping us informed ADVR does not seem like a company that will be doing science by press release either-I respect that I believe we have something here in ADVR I am looking ahead now more than ever because ADVR has 12mm What do I care if it was not 50mm or 100mm Anybody want to guess the GLOBAL MARKET SIZE FOR HIV Remember that patent in China You think a GSK or Novartis or ? might not want to buy the rights to sell the drug in China if the trials prove out ? What about a Joint venture with China ? Think Think Think Think Think Now we got the Doe Ray Me $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ Its all up to the scientific people at ADVR I support them Best to whomever stays in and those who dont too Allen HUGE POTENTIAL HERE --Mike the newer poster who I think is a Dr knows it-Gator sure knows it and Foxy has known it for a long time |