Jump to content

MARKET OUTLOOK - Healthcare, Pharma & Biotech


Recommended Posts

Patient capital advances some helping hands

Jul 15

Feedback Robin Robertson


Biotech companies are proving to be the darlings of venture-capital investors. There are about 150 venture-capital firms in Australia, and about a dozen specialise in health care and biotechnology, offering private equity for growth companies.


Venture capital is patient capital, and biotechnology needs patience as its products can take 10 years from research to development and, finally, to the market.


Despite the long lead time, biotechnology is at the head of the pack in venture-capital investment and has been so for several quarters.


According to Victor Bivell, the publisher of Private Equity Media, this industry sector has been a consistent area of investment from the early 1990s, especially in the United States.


"The first venture-capital fund to specialise in biotechnology in Australia started in 1996," he says. "Now there are about a dozen."


Venture-capital companies have two broad approaches to their funding. One approach involves looking at most proposals, while the second involves specialising in particular industries or in particular stages in a company's life.


Biotechnology - which includes diagnostics, medical devices and pharmaceuticals - lends itself to specialisation. As an industry it also requires considerable expertise on the part of its participants. The business proposals and underlying research are highly technical, and the long lead time to market requires expert supervision.


GBS Venture Partners is one of the larger venture-capital companies specialising in life sciences. It has about 20 investment companies and $150million under management.


Associate director Leigh Farrell says they specialise in this area because they understand all its aspects.


"We are also actively involved in the management of our investee companies, as we have had a long association with the biotech sector," Farrell says.


For every investment GPS takes on, it considers more than 100 proposals. "We look for a unique selling proposition, novel technology protected by patents and a product which addresses unmet needs," Farrell says. "It is an exciting time for the industry, as human sciences is starting to grow. We are translating excellent research into new therapeutics to treat human disease."


GBS earmarks a $30million fund for very early-stage companies and closely monitors their research programs. This is their pre-seed program, partly supported by government loans, which prepares a company for a formal venture capital round. In this way, GBS takes on some early risks.


The rest of GBS's funding, $108million, is focused on funding companies in their more evolved stages.


GBS's investees are listed on its website (www.gbsventures.com.au). One is Pacific Knowledge Systems, which enables internet health sites to deliver customer-specific interpretation of individual test results. Another is Novasys Medical, which is developing therapies and technologies for the treatment of female pelvic disorders, in particular a non-invasive treatment for female stress urinary incontinence.


Start-up Australia is another venture capitalist specialising in the biotechnology sector.


Managing director George Jessup says that traditionally this sector is very successful in the US, and is starting to mature in Australia. "We have a lot of infrastructure and recurrent government funding for research," he says.


"Products in the biotech area are usually global, and a single successful drug can bring sales of more than $1billion. Potential profits are high but, on the downside, it is very risky and you need specialised skills."


Start-up has $55million under management and nine investments, most of which are at the start-up stage. It draws fresh biotechnology material from universities and research institutes. "We work with them to spin out companies and fund the start-up," Jessup says.


Start-up's investees include Alchemia, which has developed a low-cost method of manufacturing small complex sugars (oligosaccharides) used in the development of carbohydrate-based drugs and as nutritional supplements. Manufacturing these sugars is difficult and often has a prohibitive cost.


Another is Cerylid Biosciences, which has developed a drug discovery program based on one of the world's largest natural product libraries. It contains more than 600,000 extracts derived from more than 60,000 samples of microbes, plants and marine organisms from the Australasian region.


Cerylid uses its library to develop drugs for the treatment of cancer and inflammatory diseases. Its website is http://www.startup.com.au.




Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 562
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Posted Images

Governments unite to avoid state of confusion

Jul 15

Feedback Eli Greenblat


All of Australia's state governments are excited about the biotechnology industry. Get any of the country's six premiers in a corner and ask them why that is, and they will talk Hansard-size volumes on being a "smart state" or "aligning their economy with a global industry", and so on and so on.


Such is their commitment that the states sent plane-loads of politicians, bureaucrats and media handlers to the recent world biotech conference in San Francisco to show off their biotech credentials.


Victoria led the way, sending more than 20 public servants (including the premier, treasurer and one parliamentary secretary) at a cost to taxpayers of more than $500,000. Queensland sent fewer than 10 officials, including Premier Peter Beattie, while NSW Premier Bob Carr went to the conference for the first time.


Queensland, led by the beaming Beattie, wants to turn the sunshine state into the smart state; Victoria's Steve Bracks has a bold plan to make the southern state the fifth-biggest biotech region in the world, while NSW is always eager to defend itself as the capital of all things large and of great national importance.


Incidentally, Beattie is so enamoured with biotech-land that he believes Queensland's greatest asset, the Great Barrier Reef, could also contain the cure for cancer and chronic pain relief.


But skirmishes between the states as they battle for global recognition and investment should cease, or at least go underground, with the signing of a historic pact last month. Under an agreement between all states and New Zealand, various governments and premiers will work together to attract biotech research and investment to Australasia.


It means that, while overseas at functions and conventions, state leaders will act as one, sing from the same songsheet and promote Australia rather than their own patch of land.


It dawned on many in the industry that this kind of approach was needed when, at a biotech conference in the United States a few years ago, the state premiers competed with each other so aggressively that foreigners in the audience didn't realise they were actually from the same country.


Biotech executives applauded the deal, saying it was crucial for the future of the industry that premiers and governments work together to bring to the region much-needed investment, research and ideas.


Tony Coulepis, executive director of peak industry body AusBiotech, says the biotech alliance between the states was very evident at last month's Bio2004 conference in San Francisco. "Bio2004 provided signs that the states are working co-operatively to maximise national resources, and this was particularly evident at the Australian exhibition," Coulepis says.


"States have provided a clear indication that they want to market a consistent message and not confuse the international marketplace, or to change what is working well, such as the Committee for Marketing Australian Biotech. States have also been very keen to work with industry.


"AusBiotech is not aware of many examples of such co-operation globally, so industry is very supportive as this is a powerful tool for Australia and for the region, with New Zealand helping to provide critical mass."


Jeff Bell, chief operating officer of biotech Norwood Abbey, says the alliance is an excellent idea and represents a great step forward for the industry.


He says there is a need for the Australian biotech scene to mature in the same way as the nation's financial services industry has matured to become a leader in the region.


"This will help us attract the core infrastructure we need to ramp up the biotech sector, which will boost activity and introduce new ideas," he says.


The chief executive of Biosignal, Michael Oredsson, believes state governments, such as those in Victoria and NSW that have set up "biotech clusters" around institutions such as hospitals and universities, have hit upon a good idea. He says other states should follow their lead.


"Places such as the Australian Technology Park [in Sydney] and other clusters have been very successful and other state governments should be creating these types of industrial parks."


Oredsson says Victoria is still the strongest biotech state but that others are starting to catch up.


"Queensland is very aggressive in this space," he says.


"I met Premier Beattie at a conference recently and he was very up-to-date on the sector, pushing the benefits of the state. He was very personal and helpful."




Link to comment
Share on other sites

Extract - Health Budget 2004-2005


Developing the health policy advisory role in relation to therapeutic products within a new regulatory framework


This measure will enable the Department of Health and Ageing to provide the Australian Government with the best possible advice about public health needs to be met through the regulation of medical devices, medicines and other therapeutic goods. The key outcome will be to ensure that current Australian standards are maintained and developed within the new Trans-Tasman regulatory framework.


A new Trans-Tasman Therapeutic Products Agency will be established in 2005 and will replace the Australian Therapeutic Goods Administration (TGA) and the New Zealand Medicines and Medical Devices Safety Authority (Medsafe).


The single bi-national agency will regulate medical devices and medicines in Australia and New Zealand and will give consumers in both countries full confidence that the medical devices and medicines they use will be safe, efficacious and of the highest quality.


The Australian Government will provide funding of $2.4 million over two years to the Department of Health and Ageing to establish an advisory role within the department to ensure that, while participating in the new Trans-Tasman framework, the Australian Government remains abreast of complex policy issues relating to the regulation of therapeutic goods in Australia and internationally.



Link to comment
Share on other sites

In a Shift, Bush Moves to Block Medical Suits



Published: July 25, 2004



WASHINGTON, July 24 ÃÆâ€â„¢ÃƒÆ’ƒâ€Â ÃƒÆ’¢Ã¢Ã¢â‚¬Å¡Ã‚¬Ãƒ¢Ã¢â‚¬Å¾Ã‚¢ÃƒÆ’ƒÆ’â€Å¡Ãƒƒâہ¡ÃƒÆ’‚¢ÃƒÆ’Æâ€â„¢ÃƒÆ’ƒâہ¡ÃƒÆ’‚¢ÃƒÆ’¢Ã¢Ã¢Ã¢Ã¢â‚¬Å¡Ã‚¬Ãƒâ€¦Ã‚¡ÃƒÆ’‚¬Ãƒâ€Â¦ÃƒÆ’‚¡ÃƒÆ’â€Å¡Ãƒƒâہ¡ÃƒÆ’‚¬ÃƒÆ’Æâ€â„¢ÃƒÆ’ƒâہ¡ÃƒÆ’‚¢ÃƒÆ’¢Ã¢Ã¢Ã¢Ã¢â€š¬Ã…¡Ãƒâ€šÃ‚¬ÃƒÆ’…¡Ãƒâہ¡ÃƒÆ’‚¬ÃƒÆ’â€Å¡Ãƒƒâہ¡ÃƒÆ’‚ The Bush administration has been going to court to block lawsuits by consumers who say they have been injured by prescription drugs and medical devices.


The administration contends that consumers cannot recover damages for such injuries if the products have been approved by the Food and Drug Administration. In court papers, the Justice Department acknowledges that this position reflects a "change in governmental policy," and it has persuaded some judges to accept its arguments, most recently scoring a victory in the federal appeals court in Philadelphia.


Allowing consumers to sue manufacturers would "undermine public health" and interfere with federal regulation of drugs and devices, by encouraging "lay judges and juries to second-guess" experts at the F.D.A., the government said in siding with the maker of a heart pump sued by the widow of a Pennsylvania man. Moreover, it said, if such lawsuits succeed, some good products may be removed from the market, depriving patients of beneficial treatments.


In 2002, at a legal symposium, the Bush administration outlined plans for "F.D.A. involvement in product liability lawsuits," and it has been methodically pursuing that strategy.


The administration's participation in the cases is consistent with President Bush's position on "tort reform."


Mr. Bush often attacks trial lawyers, saying their lawsuits impose a huge burden on the economy and drive up health costs. The Democrats' vice-presidential candidate, Senator John Edwards, a longtime plaintiffs' lawyer, says his proudest accomplishment in Washington was to help win Senate passage of a bill defining patients' rights, including the right to sue. (The bill never became law.)


Jay P. Lefkowitz, former director of Mr. Bush's Domestic Policy Council, said the F.D.A.'s litigation strategy embodied "good health policy and good tort reform."


But Representative Maurice D. Hinchey, Democrat of New York, said the administration had "taken the F.D.A. in a radical new direction, seeking to protect drug companies instead of the public." Mr. Hinchey recently persuaded the House to cut $500,000 from the budget of the agency's chief counsel as a penalty for its aggressive opposition to consumer lawsuits.


In the Pennsylvania ruling, issued Tuesday, the appeals court threw out a lawsuit filed by Barbara E. Horn, who said her husband had died because of defects in the design and manufacture of his heart pump. The Bush administration argued that federal law barred such claims because the device had been produced according to federal specifications. In its briefs, the administration conceded that "the views stated here differ from the views that the government advanced in 1997," in the United States Supreme Court.


At that time, the government said that F.D.A. approval of a medical device set the minimum standard, and that states could provide "additional protection to consumers." Now the Bush administration argues that the agency's approval of a device "sets a ceiling as well as a floor."


The administration said its position, holding that individual consumers have no right to sue, actually benefited consumers.


The threat of lawsuits, it said, "can harm the public health" by encouraging manufacturers to withdraw products from the market or to issue new warnings that overemphasize the risks and lead to "underutilization of beneficial treatments."


Allison M. Zieve, a lawyer at the Public Citizen Litigation Group who represented the plaintiff in the Pennsylvania case, said, "The government has done an about-face on this issue." If courts accept the administration's position, Ms. Zieve said, it would amount to a backdoor type of "tort reform" that would shield manufacturers from damage suits.


In the Pennsylvania case, the federal appeals court quoted extensively from the administration's brief and said the views of the F.D.A. were entitled to great deference because the agency was "uniquely qualified" to determine when federal law should take precedence over state law.


Bush administration officials said their goal was not to shield drug companies, but to vindicate the federal government's authority to regulate drug products.


Patients and their families said they felt betrayed.


continued ...


link to full article in New York Times


Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

FORBES/WOLFE Nanotech Weekly Insider: AUG.06.2004
by Josh Wolfe
(email: nanotech@forbes.com)

I'm writing from a Forbes conference at the Borgata Hotel in
Atlantic City and compared with the relative volatility of the
stock market, the Blackjack tables seem about as safe as a
T-bills in a bullet-proof vest. The Dow closed down 163 points
yesterday, and tech stocks were crushed harder than a kid
under Dom DeLuise's diving board after a cannonball run.

Who said August was slow?!? What a week! I still can't believe
that three different banks were robbed in the same town while
President Bush and John Kerry were both giving stump speeches
blocks away from each other. Something out of a movie. But
back to reality. Until now, I've not uttered a peep about
Nanosys (as my firm Lux Capital is an investor) in the
interest of complying with an SEC mandated quiet period
following the IPO filing. On Wednesday, Nanosys--perhaps the
most highly respected private company in the space--made the
decision to not tread into the very rough waters of the
public markets. Subscribers will get the real deal inside
take in the August issue of the Forbes/Wolfe Nanotech Report.
If you're not a subscriber you sign up now here:  But here's
some points to chew on.

The decision was a wise one. Consider that of 28 offerings to
date in July...13 are trading below their IPO price and
others slashed their offering prices to squeeze out and get
punished by the markets. This past month actually marked the
highest monthly total for withdrawn IPOs (count 'em: 15, with
seven in the last week alone) and also the lowest deal
pricings since 2001. The Nasdaq lost 8% in July. And even
Google has now delayed its IPO at least one week. But it's not
just technology. Since last fall, 30 biotech IPOs returned an
average of -3%. Non-technology companies that went public this
year have only gone up 1%. As the Wall Street Journal's astute
rising star Antonio Regalado noted, Nanosys's decision says
less about nanotechnology than it does about the stock market
in general.

Nevertheless, for the past few weeks the media moved in like
a herd. They proffered simple answers to a complex market
environment and made rear-view mirror projections on revenue
and earnings that will be derived from a suite of
technologies never before created and unlikely to grow
linearly. They piled on after a (now admittedly) uninformed
assault made on Nanosys by one VC--who I'm told has
financially backed three competing companies. Scuttlebutt in
the industry pointed to the timing of these comments during
the SEC mandated quiet period and Nanosys's inability to
defend itself. Nineteenth century French economist Frederic
Bastiast said, "The worst thing that can happen to a
good cause is, not to be skillfully attacked, but to be
ineptly defended."
And competitors were quick to throw fuel
on the fire in attempts to jockey and position themselves as
the leading nanotech company. Ambrose Bierce, the American
writer-cynic defined the word "happiness" as "An agreeable
sensation arising from contemplating the misery of another."
The Germans call it schadenfreude. There was surely a whiff
of it in the air.

Yesterday afternoon, after CNBC's Maria Bartiromo commented
on the awful market conditions and shuttered IPO window,
Kudlow & Cramer weighed-in. Matthew Nordan, VP of Research at
Lux Research (he wouldn't accept title of Chief Genius) and
Charlie Harris, CEO of Harris & Harris Group served up a
smorgasbord of logic, reason and objective perspective to
silence the whine. The duo gave a masterful performance.
Charlie (former head of DLJ's asset management business and a
respected Wall Street veteran) nailed it on the head with a
most humble and astute observation of the macro market with
this point: one month ago his own secondary stock offering was
heavily oversubscribed, while today the stock is down nearly
50%. He suggested that Nanosys would have been met with the same
reception one month ago had it chosen to access the markets.
This wasn't about the company, Charlie pointed out, this is
about the market. See his quote below.

Matthew Nordan addressed critics' primary concerns about the
company--that it's too early, products are years away--with an
analogy to Genentech. When it launched the first biotech IPO in
1980, it wouldn't have a product for five years, just a patent
portfolio. Yet today, it generates $3 billion a year in revenue,
with a $48 billion market cap and is a giant in its field. In
the IT field, he says, Qualcomm makes a similar story. CNBC's
Bullseye then featured Lux Research's Mark Modzelewski who gave
the inside scoop and roused the anchors by demonstrating some
nano enhanced products he was wearing.

OK. This next part is a little technical, but I've got to share
it, so read it slow. Matthew Nordan recently brought a very
interesting and proprietary methodology to Lux Research. And
Forbes/Wolfe monthly premium subscribers will get to benefit
from it directly. It's called evolutionary modeling. What's
evolutionary modeling? First let's look at non-evolutionary
modeling. The normal way people look at how technologies get
adopted is by using "diffusion curves" (think of an "S"
curve) which assume a zero-starting point, some saturation
end-point and a growth curve in the middle that has a positive
first derivative that turns negative after reaching some
inflection point. In other words, growth speeds up until some
point and then it slows down. Think of a Petri dish with growth
medium in it. You start with X #  of bacteria which then
reproduce really quickly since there's a lot of food around.
But as the population grows, the available food decreases and so
does the growth rate of their colony. The same phenomenon can be
seen in the growth rates of people's bodies from when they're
babies to adults. And the same phenomenon can be seen in some
niche industries and sectors as they mature. But sometimes this
kind of modeling is too simple. Diffusion curves are good for
modeling technologies only when they actually diffuse--and in
these models it's always assumed that the environment the
technology is introduced into, doesn't change. But when
you're dealing with complex technologies and all kinds of
selection pressures, evolutionary models are much better. Because
unlike diffusion curves, evolutionary models assume that the
environment that a new technology is being introduced into,
changes. A company could use a nanotechnology or it could use a
competing technology that has nothing to do with nanotech. While
everyone else looks at it the old way, this is how we're looking
at nanotechnology. And we've already unearthed some
very interesting trends that will get announced in the
coming weeks...

And speaking of evolutionary models, my firm Lux Capital can
finally announce its investment in Cambrios (formerly Semzyme)
based on the world-class scientific work of Forbes/Wolfe guru,
MIT professor and PhD researcher Angela Belcher. Mike Knapp is an
all-star CEO leading the charge for the company which uses
genetically engineered biology to manufacture inorganic devices
like semiconductors. This is game changing and I couldn't be more
excited to be part of it. I'll keep our monthly premium
subscribers in the loop with the latest developments and who
this company will absolutely disrupt.

Link to comment
Share on other sites



10:30 - 06 August 2004


A Cheltenham man diagnosed with a potentially fatal heart condition has developed the high-tech device that could ultimately save his life.

Tal Golesworthy, who lives in Charlton Park, was born with an hereditary condition known as Marfan Syndrome and was warned his heart could fail at any time. The condition affects the connective tissue in the body but Mr Golesworthy quite literally took his life in his own hands after deciding conventional treatment was too risky and intrusive.

Although he had no experience in the medical field he enlisted the help of some of the country's top cardiac experts, set up his own company and attracted ÃÆâ€â„¢ÃƒÆ’ƒâ€Â ÃƒÆ’¢Ã¢Ã¢â‚¬Å¡Ã‚¬Ãƒ¢Ã¢â‚¬Å¾Ã‚¢ÃƒÆ’ƒÆ’¢Ã¢Ã¢Ã¢Ã¢â‚¬Å¡Ã‚¬Ãƒâ€¦Ã‚¡ÃƒÆ’‚¬Ãƒâ€Â¦ÃƒÆ’‚¡ÃƒÆ’Æâ€â„¢ÃƒÆ’ƒÂ¢Ãƒ¢Ã¢Ã¢â€š¬Ã…¡Ãƒâ€šÃ‚¬ÃƒÆ’…¡ÃƒÆ’â€Å¡Ãƒƒâہ¡ÃƒÆ’‚£200,000 in funding for the project.

The result was the development of a tiny stent that was implanted into his aorta 10 weeks ago at the Royal Brompton Hospital in London.

Mr Golesworthy was so confident in the technology he became the first person in the world to undergo the operation.

Seven weeks later he was back working and driving.

Nine weeks later he won a competition at Cheltenham Croquet Club's annual tournament.

Mr Golesworthy said: "I don't really think I've come to terms with what I and my team achieved.

"The surgeons involved are thrilled with the potential benefits of my device, which is relatively simple to fit and combines low risk and cost.

"I feel hugely relieved that my future health is now assured."

He said the real risk of suffering heart failure meant the motivation to create the device couldn't have been greater.

He explained: "One goes from being well, to dead in a short period - minutes to several days depending on treatment."

Conventional treatment involved open heart surgery but he decided it was too intrusive because it would have broken into the circulatory system and would have had to be followed up with a lifetime of anti-clotting drugs.

Mr Golesworthy said "You can't possibly understand how terrifying it is.

"I didn't like what was on offer and I thought 'I can do better than that'."

The 47-year-old is a chartered engineer and in 2000 set up a company to research and develop a new device to treat his condition.

Through sheer determination Mr Golesworthy managed to put together a team of cardiothoracic surgeons and engineers.

The cost of the treatment has yet to be announced but the recipient hopes his experience will help others.

After the first six patients have been treated in an initial trial, a full clinical trial will be necessary. If successful it could benefit many more sufferers.

Mr Golesworthy decided not to have children because his father and grandfather had Marfan Syndrome, which is hereditary.



Marfan Syndrome was first described by the French doctor Bernard J A Marfan in 1896.

It is a variable disorder of the connective tissue that affects many organ systems including the skeleton, eyes, heart, lungs and blood vessels.

Severity of the symptoms differ between individuals.

In 75 per cent of cases it is an inherited disorder - in 25 per cent occurring as a result of a new mutation.

Each child of a parent with the condition has a 50 per cent chance of inheriting MFS.

It is caused by a mutation in the gene fibrillin-1 on chromosome 15.

MFS is not restricted to ethnic group or sex.

Around 10,000 people in the UK have Marfan Syndrome

It occurs in 1 in 5,000 births.




Link to comment
Share on other sites

Nobel Prize Material ...


A Current Affair, Monday 9th August, 2004


The doctor many believe can cure cancer

9 August 2004

Reporter: Ray Martin


Over a period of 30 years, highly qualified Perth-based surgeon Dr John Holt has had some startling successes with a radio-wave therapy treatment for cancer patients.


However, this radical treatment has polarised the medical community in Australia. His supporters say he's been vilified, while his detractors point out there is no scientific basis for his claims.


Elvina Johnson had a lot of living to do when she was told she had an aggressive form of bone cancer. At 18, doctors discovered she had a "galaxy of tumours". She lost her leg and underwent intensive chemo treatment to try and stop it spreading. Her cancer was so severe that she relapsed soon after.


"It was through both of my lungs and by that stage it was pretty terminal," she told Ray Martin.


Elvina was desperate. Quite by chance she heard about a cancer specialist with a highly controversial procedure.


"By taking the chance and finding this man, I am here six years later and probably feeling better than ever, so I have had a rebirth," she said.


Dr Holt's controversial treatment works, in layperson's terms, by giving the patient an injection of a glucose-blocking agent. He then shines "radio waves" into the body at a specific frequency. Dr Holt doesn't guarantee it will cure every cancer, but it's not expensive and there's no quackery about it.


Born in Bristol 80 years ago and a member of the Royal Colleges, Dr Holt has 26 medical letters after his name. For more than a decade he was in charge of Western Australia's main cancer institute, until the late '70s, when he was blacklisted by his medical colleagues and politicians.


"The doctors took up such an action initially, they said the treatment was fake and useless," said former WA Premier John Tonkin. But Tonkin added, "There is no doubt whatsoever in my mind that this is the most advanced form of cancer treatment in the world today."


The polarisation of the medical and scientific community in Perth over Dr Holt's treatment has been evident since the mid-'70s.


"It is an unproven form of cancer treatment and it's not part of the armoury of orthodox ways of treating cancer in Australia," said Clive Deverill, the former boss of WA's Cancer Council. "Equally, there are legions of patients who have been down that track who can't say anything about their position because they're dead."


While the medical community continues to argue the merits of Dr Holt's unorthodox measures, the families of his successes feel they owe everything to this gentle man.


After two brain tumours and a tumour on her spine, Sophia Rosa was sent by pre-eminent brain surgeon Dr Charlie Teo for the radical treatment. Two years later, the only sign Sophia had cancer are the side-effects from the massive doses of chemotherapy given in Sydney.


"Sometimes I think maybe Sophia's reason for getting sick was so people would know about Doctor Holt," said Louisa Raso, Sophia's mum.




Dr John Holt (08) 9322 3544


Dr John Holt support group




Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hi MoneyMania,


This is why I created the Case Health - Health Success Stories website. Stories such as these need to be told and shared without restriction.


I have written to Dr Holt's support group asking them to share their stories on the site. Hopefully my email won't get deleted or lost and they will consider it a worthwhile exercise.


Ignored for 20 years by scientific, govt and medical establishments: The important thing is that it was eventually brought to air and can now be thoroughly investigated, not buried.


Off topic - sorry about that - just one of the too many things I'm very passionate about.




Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 4 weeks later...

worth a read


Aegis Health and Life Science Blue Book - Aug 2004

The August edition of our Health & Life Science Quarterly Blue Book profiles 30 companies in the sector, up from 24 in the previous edition. Market capitalisations of companies in the current Blue Book range from around $10M to $300M. The Blue Book profiles focus on company strategies, key projects and significant milestones, as well as presenting some financial data. In this issue, we also include our article: ÃÆâ€â„¢ÃƒÆ’ƒâ€Â ÃƒÆ’¢Ã¢Ã¢â‚¬Å¡Ã‚¬Ãƒ¢Ã¢â‚¬Å¾Ã‚¢ÃƒÆ’ƒÆ’â€Å¡Ãƒƒâہ¡ÃƒÆ’‚¢ÃƒÆ’Æâ€â„¢ÃƒÆ’ƒâہ¡ÃƒÆ’‚¢ÃƒÆ’¢Ã¢Ã¢Ã¢Ã¢â‚¬Å¡Ã‚¬Ãƒâ€¦Ã‚¡ÃƒÆ’‚¬Ãƒâ€Â¦ÃƒÆ’‚¡ÃƒÆ’â€Å¡Ãƒƒâہ¡ÃƒÆ’‚¬ÃƒÆ’Æâ€â„¢ÃƒÆ’ƒÂ¢Ãƒ¢Ã¢Ã¢â€š¬Ã…¡Ãƒâ€šÃ‚¬ÃƒÆ’‚¦ÃƒÆ’¢Ã¢Ã¢Ã¢Ã¢â‚¬Å¡Ã‚¬Ãƒâ€¦Ã‚¡ÃƒÆ’‚¬Ãƒâ€Â¦ÃƒÆ’¢Ã¢Ã¢â‚¬Å¡Ã‚¬Ãƒâ€¦Ã¢â‚¬Å“Milestone Indicators of Value for Biotechnology InvestorsÃÆâ€â„¢ÃƒÆ’ƒâ€Â ÃƒÆ’¢Ã¢Ã¢â‚¬Å¡Ã‚¬Ãƒ¢Ã¢â‚¬Å¾Ã‚¢ÃƒÆ’ƒÆ’â€Å¡Ãƒƒâہ¡ÃƒÆ’‚¢ÃƒÆ’Æâ€â„¢ÃƒÆ’ƒâہ¡ÃƒÆ’‚¢ÃƒÆ’¢Ã¢Ã¢Ã¢Ã¢â‚¬Å¡Ã‚¬Ãƒâ€¦Ã‚¡ÃƒÆ’‚¬Ãƒâ€Â¦ÃƒÆ’‚¡ÃƒÆ’â€Å¡Ãƒƒâہ¡ÃƒÆ’‚¬ÃƒÆ’Æâ€â„¢ÃƒÆ’ƒÂ¢Ãƒ¢Ã¢Ã¢â€š¬Ã…¡Ãƒâ€šÃ‚¬ÃƒÆ’…¡ÃƒÆ’â€Å¡Ãƒƒâہ¡ÃƒÆ’‚ÂÂ.



* Introduction

* Company Profiles

o Alchemia Limited (ACL)

o Australian Cancer Technology (ACU)

o Advance Healthcare Group (AHG)

o Analytica (ALT)

o Avastra Ltd (AVS)

o Biodiem Limited (BDM)

o Bionomics (BNO)

o BioProspect Limited (BPO)

o Colltech Australia Limited (CAU)

o CogState Limited (CGS)

o Compumedics Limited (CMP)

o EpiTan Ltd (EPT)

o Eqitx (EQX)

o Imugene (IMU)


o Metabolic Pharma. (MBP)

o Medaire (MDE)

o Medivac Limited (MDV)

o Medical Corp Australasia (MOD)

o Meditech Research (MTR)

o Norwood Abbey (NAL)

o Optiscan Imaging (OIL)

o Psivida (PSD)

o Rockeby Biomed Limited (RBY)

o Solbec Pharmaceuticals (SBP)

o SciGen (SIE)


o Virax (VHL)

o Visiomed Group (VSG)

o Vision Systems (VSL)


find it at:



Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Create New...