A Response to Liquid Lounge

In yesterday's Motley Fool there was an excellent article entitled: Liquid Lounge that offered a thoughtful and well-reasoned critique rebutting my analysis of Harris & Harris.

Although, I disagree with the author's assessment, I encourage anyone considering an investment in Harris & Harris to read it!

What the author doesn't take into consideration in his analysis is the potential value of Molecular Imprints, Nanosys, Nantero, Starfire System, Cambrios Technology and Zia Laser. Of course this "potential" doesn't lend itself to the quantative analysis ... and this is precisely what makes Harris & Harris so hard to price.

At the present time, I don't own any shares of Harris and Harris but if it remains in the neighborhood of $11 a share I am considering buying some after the expiration of the mandated 10-day waiting period I must abide by when I write an article about a specific stock for the Motley Fool.

Jack Uldrich

Related Links:
Invest with the CIA
Is TINY Sinking or Diving for Pearls
TINY's Big Potential

"Spooked" about Nanotech ... Follow the CIA

In today's Motley Fool I had an article published entitled: Invest with the CIA. It is primarily about Harris & Harris -- the publicly traded venture capital firm specializing in nanotechnology -- but in the article I point out that the CIA's own in-house venture group, In-Q-Tel, is backing one of Harris & Harris' portfolio companies: Nanosys.

In-Q-Tel has also invested in Fluidigm and Cambrios Technology -- two other very promising nanotech start-ups.

Jack Uldrich

GE: Bringing "Small" Things to Life

Here is an article entitled, GE: Bringing "Small Things to Life", that I wrote for the Motley Fool today. It provides a good overview of how the company is employing nanotechnology to gain a competitive advantage in everything from semiconductors and telecommunications to alternative energy, aircraft and water.

Jack Uldrich

Important Correction Re: Elan

In today's Motley Fool, I had an article discussing Elan. In the body of the article, I made one serious mistake (I have already asked TMF to issue a correction) and a second issue should have been elaborated on.

The mistake is regarding the number of patients who have died from Tysabri. I said the number was three, but it should have two ... and, quite possibly, even one.

The second PML case was diagnosed on a Crohn's patient, who already passed away but whose death was initially misdiagnosed and attributed to Tysabri. The person is now believed to have died of another illness.

In each case, it is also important to note that the PML was complicated by the fact that all 3 patients were either on AVONEX or some other immunosuppressive therapy. That is ... they were taking other drugs in addition to Tysabri.

When used as a monotherapy, the number of PML cases or deaths attributed to Tysabri is zero.

I still stand by stock recommendations ... but these facts could easily lead investors to a conclusion other that which I reached.

The second point I want clarify in the article relates to this sentence: "Yesterday's increase seems to reflect a more balanced and appropriate response. This is because if and when Tysabri receives new FDA approval, its use will be limited to those MS suffers who have no alternative treatment."

I should have said "its use will probably be limited." The comment was based on my belief that the FDA tends to be fairly conservative with drugs when there is a known alternative and, as such, will likely limit its use to those MS suffers for whom there is no other alternative.

It is important to note that this is my opinion and does not reflect a definitive statement ... although it reads like one ... and, for that, I apologize.

As always, I encourage my readers to do their own due diligence ... and this article aptly demonstrates why!

Related Links:
Nanotech Investors: Keep Your Eye on the Prize
Starpharma "Nano" star on the rise?
Elan Good News for Nanotech Investors?
pSivida: Down Under Comapny has Big Upside Potential
Sincerely,

Jack Uldrich

Two Articles ...

Today, I had two articles appear in The Motley Fool. The first was on 3M and the second was on Harris and Harris.

I also encourage you to check out the news coming out of Biophan. It's recent agreement with Boston Scientific is good news. I have been down on the company in the past because I have felt it has relied on dubious press releases (of little substance) at the expense of real news. The deal with Boston qualifies as real news. I hope to be writing a little more on Biophan soon.


Jack Uldrich

Temporary Break

Dear Readers,

I am under contract to write a book about investing in nanotechnology and I am in the process of finishing it up. I will return to writing regular posts once the final manuscript is done. (The book, which is being published by Adams Media, is expected to be out in early 2006).

I appreciate your continued patience.

Sincerely,

Jack Uldrich