Sometimes I wonder: Do columnists on this site ever read one another's work, or do they simply wade into epic battles both prejudiced and uninformed?

Related Stories

The Daily Interview: Dresdner RCM's Camilo Martinez

Turning on Tech: Some Gurus Cast a Bearish Glance at Tech Stocks

Biotech Goes Mainstream

Biotech Is Still a Bust

10 Questions With Sit Mutual Funds' Gene Sit

If, for example, certain columnists were reading Helene Meisler, they would know that the big stocks (i.e., the NYSE) are way overbought in the short term and the little stocks (i.e., the Nasdaq Composite Index) are way oversold.

Looking back at the first three months of last year, we saw the Dow plummet while the Nasdaq skyrocketed -- and they reversed course within a week of each other during the great Nasdaq selloff last March. Given the pattern, it's not unreasonable to hypothesize that money may be about to flow at this moment from bigger "safe" stocks to smaller Nazz stocks.

Moreover, if certain columnists had read GBS' column last Tuesday (a sharp-eyed reader pointed it out to me), they would have seen him muttering about a potential reverse-head-and-shoulders in the Amex Biotechnology Index, or BTK. In case you don't speak technical, that's bullish, dudes. (We won't even discuss the potential "W" being traced out -- but it's one of Helene Meisler's favorite formations.)

And if certain columnists ever bothered to read my columns with an open mind, they might remember the new rule: When you hold a gene in your hand, you hold a drug. Because two years ago, Genentech (DNA:NYSE - news - boards) and Idec Pharmaceuticals (IDPH:Nasdaq - news - boards) proved that monoclonal antibodies actually work.

Result? It now takes little more than a year to get a drug into the clinic if it's a monoclonal antibody. And if the clinical trial is for something critically urgent, like cancer, those trials can be finished in less than four years. We're talking five to six years from idea to approved product. Compare that with 10 to 12 years in the old "small molecule" paradigm (and nearly half the drugs in development still fall into that pokey paradigm).

If you can do arithmetic, you can see why we biotechies are hopped up about the sector. Health care companies figured it out, needless to say. That's why a huge number of biotech companies and nearly every big pharma hopped on the monoclonal bandwagon. To top it off, genomics companies are now handing targets to monoclonal makers with laser-sight precision.

Long story short, biotech stocks were ready to rise coming into today -- and this morning, scientists hit the gas. Biotech investors will be attending conferences this week at which the human genome sequence will be hotly debated; but the one sure winner out of these discussions will be biotech.

Just Look at the Chart!

My thanks to the readers who e-mailed me last month saying, "Don't be short biotech after Feb.12." Being short biotech wasn't likely to be my problem because I run a mutual fund, but it was nice to know what the technicians were saying: As of the close today, the BTK just poked above its 50-day moving average, not to mention having successfully tested a downtrend line that dates back to November.

(Back then, I argued biotech would outperform the rest of Nasdaq. Whoop-dee-doo, it did ... but if you lived through the Nasdaq carnage, you know that wasn't saying much.)

Will today's rise in biotech stocks continue? Probably. Richard McCabe of Merrill Lynch said the market would bottom some time this month and then rise in the March/April time frame. He's one smart cookie and has tremendous impact. Will biotechs lead the Nasdaq again as they have for most of the past year? I think so. Will some people on this site stop dissing biotech like a nervous twitch? Not likely. But I think they'll find biotech's probably going up, with them or without them.