% | $
Quotes you view appear here for quick access.


  • mitis1st mitis1st Feb 15, 2007 1:51 PM Flag

    Baidu's Mistake

    Baidu's stock has gotten hammered today. Along with downgrades, it's down mainly due to weak guidance. It seems the Street is looking for any excuse to make an example out of Chinese stocks, based on political and economic tensions, as well as the recent talk about a Chinese stock market bubble. Any thoughts?

    Do we have any gauge for how CMED will give guidance based on last year's cc?


    SortNewest  |  Oldest  |  Most Replied Expand all replies
    • You'll be pleased to know that I'm a specialist in telling the difference between typos and other errors. I make typos too. :)

      "publish ON a peer reviewed journal" is not a typo, is my educated guess.

      The usage coincides with what might be Asian (in particular, East Indian) English.

      I have nothing against poor English or people from any country.

      I do have problems with people who claim to be other than what they are. :) Like you.

      Take some more rope. :)

    • Keep correcting my typos! It is good for you!
      If you like to read scientific articles, here is another one for you! This is three years old though! You don;t even want to know what people cooking in the labs at this moment.
      Journal of Medical Genetics 2003;40:e113
      � 2003 BMJ Publishing Group Ltd
      An alternative to FISH: detecting deletion and duplication carriers within 24 hours
      S J White, E Sterrenburg, G-J B van Ommen, J T den Dunnen and M H Breuning

      Human and Clinical Genetics, Leiden University Medical Center, Wassenarrseweg 72, Leiden, the Netherlands

      Correspondence to:
      Dr Johan T den Dunnen
      Human and Clinical Genetics Leiden University Medical Center Wassenarrseweg 72 Leiden, the Netherlands;

      Keywords: Keywords: carrier detection; copy number changes; Duchenne muscular dystrophy; multiplex amplifiable probe hybridisation; mutation screening

      Abbreviations: FISH, fluorescent in situ hybridisation; MAPH, multiplex amplifiable probe hybridisation; MLPA, multiplex ligation dependant probe amplification

      "A range of genetic disorders has been revealed to be caused by deletions and duplications within the genome.1�3 In addition, computational analysis of the recently completed human genome sequence4 suggests that many more rearrangements might exist. Such rearrangements are either directly involved in genetic disease or may play an important, but yet to be determined, role in human variation and multifactorial diseases. Efficient methods are thus required to screen for and detect such rearrangements.

      While changes of several megabases are usually cytogenetically visible, smaller changes require other methods of analysis. Many techniques have been applied, including dinucleotide repeat polymorphism analysis,5 array comparative genomic hybridisation,6 fluorescent in situ hybridisation (FISH),7,8 quantitative multiplex PCR,9,10 and Southern blotting.11,12 The last three mentioned are the most commonly applied techniques,13 with FISH analysis preferred as the method of choice in many clinical centres. FISH has the advantage that the analysis is visual, with the number of fluorescent signals determining the copy number of the region examined. *****However, the method is rather laborious, with cell culturing and preparation of metaphase spreads being necessary, but difficult and time consuming steps. FISH is thus expensive and not suitable for high throughput analysis. In addition, as FISH probes are usually artificial chromosomes or cosmids, it precludes the analysis of small rearrangements, and duplications can be difficult to detect*****."

      Want more?

    • >>>> I do publish scientific papers on peer reviewed journals.

      In reference to your above claim, let me say the following. As someone who is *very* familiar with this territory (see? I can say that without bragging:)) I and others would

      publish IN journals

      and not ON journals.

      You keep damaging your credibility to no end. :) Keep going.

      They say that if you give a [*insert favorite pejorative here*] enough rope, he will eventually hang hinmself.

    • Journals are filled with articles from researchers at universities and labs. These researchers have to publish to get their annual salary increases, or even to keep their jobs.

      Don't be a clown. (1) Anybody can publish (including me, AND Joe Schmo), (2). Anybody can post links, AND (3). Anybody can make bizarre claims.

      With your "they can tweak the FISH technology a bit" statement, you revealed the state of your existence.

      You like FISH links, it seems?

    • "factual" statements about the waning of FISH technology?
      To tell you the truth there are very little solid facts are available for you and me from this chinese company! If are in China and you are privy to check their book and CMED's future plans, you are doing fine. I am not! I have to extrapolate possible scenarios based on whatever is available to me. I would not call myself an expert in FISH technology but I know the technology. I do publish scientific papers on peer reviewed journals.

      Why not check this abstract+whole contents!

      Technical Advances
      Chromogenic in Situ Hybridization
      A Practical Alternative for Fluorescence in Situ Hybridization to Detect HER-2/neu Oncogene Amplification in Archival Breast Cancer Samples
      Minna Tanner*, David Gancberg{dagger}, Angelo Di Leo{dagger}, Denis Larsimont{dagger}, Ghizlane Rouas{dagger}, Martine J. Piccart{dagger} and Jorma Isola*

      From the Laboratory of Cancer Genetics,*
      Institute of Medical Technology University and University Hospital of Tampere, Tampere, Finland; and the Jules Bordet Institute,{dagger}
      Brussels, Belgium

      Determination of HER-2/neu oncogene amplification has become necessary for selection of breast cancer patients for trastuzumab (Herceptin) therapy. Fluorescence in situ hybridization (FISH) is currently regarded as a gold standard method for detecting HER-2/neu amplification, but it is not very practical for routine histopathological laboratories. We evaluated a new modification of in situ hybridization, the chromogenic in situ hybridization (CISH), which enables detection of HER-2/neu gene copies with conventional peroxidase reaction. Archival formalin-fixed paraffin-embedded tumor tissue sections were pretreated (by heating in a microwave oven and using enzyme digestion) and hybridized with a digoxigenin-labeled DNA probe. The probe was detected with anti-digoxigenin fluorescein, anti-fluorescein peroxidase, and diaminobenzidine. Gene copies visualized by CISH could be easily distinguished with a x40 objective in hematoxylin-stained tissue sections. HER-2/neu amplification typically appeared as large peroxidase-positive intranuclear gene copy clusters. CISH and FISH (according to Vysis, made from frozen pulverized tumor samples) correlated well in a series of 157 breast cancers (kappa coefficient, 0.81). The few different classifications were mostly because of low-level amplifications by FISH that were negative by CISH and immunohistochemistry with monoclonal antibody CB-11. We conclude that CISH, using conventional bright-field microscopy in evaluation, is a useful alternative for determination of HER-2/neu amplification in paraffin-embedded tumor samples, especially for confirming the immunohistochemical staining results.

    • I try to not to fall in love with any of my companies that I hold. Initially, I was interested in CMED but its total lack of own core technology scares me. I like to see companies building around their core technology slowly but solidly. Can CMED do it? I don't know at this point.
      Companies like DADE baehring had to file bankcruptcy few years back from reckless acquisitions and debt. It has done good though since year 2003.

      Well good luck to with CMED!


    • Pure academic! I hold some 20 companies but not CMED. My advice to CMED management is to license technologies not buy with pure cash. License and make it better!

    • Madmoonson:

      Your statement "The street was not thrilled with the FISH technology acquistion" is pure nonsense.

      As soon as the announcement was made, the stock completely reversed a worrisome downtrend and spiked up on tremendous volume. You don't have to be a techician or a fundementalist to see this one....even the man-in-street could tell you that.

      You would have been better off by saying nothing about the street's reaction. If you can't even realize this one price move as being simply a positive reaction, not a negative one, what credibility does the board think about your other "factual" statements about the waning of FISH technology?

      There is no value to your statements other than they do need to be answered by other experts on FISH from which we have not heard in depth.

      BTW, you wouldn't happen to be some of those 2,000,000 shares sold short, would you??

    • Hi Madmonsoon,

      Thanks for your note.

      I do appreciate your take on CMED and many RATIONALE that you are giving.

      This Board is BETTER because we DO WELCOME opposite take on CMED & various stocks.

      Your UNIQUE CRITICAL VIEW of CMED acquisition is a HEALTHY DOSE of REALITY for US who have EMOTIONAL bonding with everything CMED.

      FISH acquisition has NOT caused a SPARK in CMED price YET because of some ADDITIONAL cost factors which you have IDENTIFIED...........but I do BELIEVE that 3/08 will be a MUCH BETTER stock PERFORMANCE year for CMED.

      CMED Q3 & Q4 will be a TRANSITIONAL quarter into BETTER SALES & EPS from Q1 of 08 FY imho.

      Please CONTINUE to evaluate as CMED progress from SLOWER GROWTH to FASTER GROWTH in FY 08.....

      Technically CMED is HOLDING FIRM above 50 DMA.......

      CMED CMF has REMAINED HIGH GREEN for several weeks..... has CMED as CONFIRMED BUY.......

      I will bet more on ABOVE 3 lines than any RESTRUCTURING charges that you are FOCUSSED ON....wall street is ALWAYS OK with any ACQUISITION related cost....I will not BET against CMED @ this stage...when it is INCHING UP SLOWLY imho.

      Good luck to you in your investments & STRATEGIES.


    • Hi madmonsoon2000,

      Thanks for your take on CMED.

      BTW, what is your interest in CMED?


    • View More Messages