|
|
Post by dreamboatcruise on Feb 8, 2015 14:13:42 GMT -5
ezrasfund... I tend to believe in the same line of reasoning, after all insulin is something our tissues are exposed to on a daily basis, granted at lower concentrations. However, compared to injections there is the issue of bio-availability of polymer vs monomer forms. I think with the polymer form of insulin it doesn't disassociate until it is absorbed into the bloodstream, and isn't active until disassociated... though I could be wrong. But the bottom line is that the trials, which have been fairly extensive, don't show a signal that insulin causes lung cancer in non smokers. It would be a leap to assume the statistically ambiguous cancers in smokers would indicate that insulin causes healthy tissue to become cancerous. It is less of a leap to think that increased concentrations of insulin exposure MIGHT cause existing cancers to grow faster. If I were DM patient I would not hesitate to use Afrezza as long as I didn't have other pulmonary cancer risk factors. I've never been a smoker, but did have what might have been a fairly significant asbestos exposure years ago... so I might also think twice about Afrezza. Fortunately I don't have that decision to make.
|
|
|
|
Post by Chris-C on Feb 8, 2015 23:18:16 GMT -5
The issue of pulmonary delivery just points out the state of ignorance about how our bodies work. We will probably not see these misconceptions dispelled in our lifetime, but they are misconceptions nonetheless. So the skeptics will continue to worry about the dangers of inhaling, but not the dangers of ingesting or injecting. When you inject something, even subcutaneously, you are introducing that substance into a part of the body that is sterile, and into tissue that under normal conditions does not encounter any foreign substances that are not manufactured or at least filtered by the body. By contrast your lungs are designed to encounter the whole outside world. They are teeming with bacteria. Google lung microbiome. They encounter all the dust and pollen and every other particle and gas in the air. Everything you have smelled has been in your lungs. When someone slurps on a very hot pumpkin spice coffee you can be sure that a trace of cinnamon (or whatever else they put in there) has made it deep into the lungs. Sure there are things that are bad to inhale, and injest and inject. But there is no reason to think that inhaling insulin is inherently worse than injecting. Why are people not developing cancerous lesions around their injection sites? Yes, smoking tobacco causes cancer, but so does chewing tobacco. Has anyone tried injecting? Let's just say that even in this golden age of science there is still enough misunderstanding to go around. Ezrasfund: Excellent post! You point out correctly that, in general, the public is vastly ignorant about things biomedical —and current examples are the hysteria and persistent belief that immunization causes autism and the belief that certain nutritional supplements that show no significant benefit in controlled trials continue to rack up millions of dollars worth of profits each year. (The vitamin supplement industry reaps huge profits without evidence that a daily multivitamin significantly confers a health advantage for the population in general. Clearly, beliefs, when reinforced by wiley marketing efforts, are difficult to change. And sadly, this resistance to change in the face of fact is also true with the medical community, albeit to a lesser degree. When science shows existing theory or dogma to be untrue, it can take years for the scientific/medical community to change its long established practices. Part of the problem is that some (most?) people hate to admit that their beliefs, once formed, are wrong; and the other part of the problem is actually getting the new information to them. Even in the age of the Internet, this can sometimes take years. I always think of the stomach ulcer paradigm shift as a classic example. There are still otherwise well informed people who persist in the belief that ulcers are caused by everyday stress. This, despite the work of an obscure scientist in Australia who claimed in the 1980s that the cause was a bacterial infection. Publishing the data to debunk the established theory became challenging for the poor Australian scientist at the time because he was challenging orthodoxy. All of this points to the possibility (and potential likelihood) that the diffusion and adoption of the inhaled insulin paradigm will take time. This is why I believe that promising numbers in early 2016 or later are more likely than eye popping NRx numbers in 2015. I'd love to be proven wrong, but only if the demand can be met by the capacity of existing production facilities. The more promising route to significant share price appreciation, IMHO, would be the announcement of one or more Technosphere partnerships with established pharmaceutical companies. That's what I'm hoping to hear before the end of the first quarter. GLTA Chris-C |
|
|
|
Post by gomnkd on Feb 9, 2015 4:09:22 GMT -5
the ignorance is propagated both by scientific community and also by others. there is literature that documents insulin as a growth factor (IGF). I always wondered why they bring it up in context of inhalation and not injection.
There was this comment about concentration. Would you rather spray given amount of insulin on a surface the size of tennis court or keep it localized the size of a grape? You got more concentration with injection.
They treat insulin inhalation like it is some rectal feeding. I'm sure our forefathers would have lamented the long term effect of injection over time tested ingestion.
Think of an organ that takes in a known carcinogen along with tars and harmful products several times a day, 40-50 years and still works? I'm talking about tobacco use.
|
|
|
|
Post by EveningOfTheDay on Feb 9, 2015 14:40:34 GMT -5
EveningOfTheDay, It is starting to appear that the shorts have been hesitant to attempt a major flash crash, because they know that quite a few institutional buyers are sitting back waiting to acquires large amounts of shares without driving the price up. It's still logical to assume that Vanguard, Blackrock, Fidelity, Greywolf, State Street and now the French Capital Fund Management among others, will not be intimidated by the games the shorts will play. The shorts are targeting some spineless retail investors who may believe their fear tactics and sell out or continue to get wiped out by their stop loss strategies. Spiro Spiro, I agree. The Blackrock filing puts quite a new perspective into what we have seen in the last few months. This time we could possibly going up to never come down to previous levels. Shorts might be out of time. We will see. |
|
|
|
Post by bradleysbest on Feb 9, 2015 16:26:37 GMT -5
Hopefully SNY has been buying & will soon reach the 5% threshold...... Then you will start seeing a big jump in share price!
|
|
|
|
Post by babaoriley on Feb 9, 2015 18:39:43 GMT -5
Sounds like Spiro has gotten to you, Bradley!! Watch it, he's like a boll weevil!
|
|
|
|
Post by _neil on Feb 9, 2015 19:14:41 GMT -5
SNY loading up to 5% is the one rumor I wish comes true soon though realistically, I don't see that. SNY has issues of their own and I tend to think buying up a stake in MNKD needs some coherent strategy. Maybe after they have good CEO in place, they might.
|
|
|
|
Post by cybergym66 on Feb 10, 2015 8:12:22 GMT -5
Take a look at AMPH...it's up about 35% in the last 3 months. I believe this is due to the belief of institution investors buying the secondary play in Afrezza since I don't see Joe Investor connecting the dots (That AMPH makes the insulin for Afrezza). I argue that this is an indicator that demand will be higher than expected.
|
|
|
|
Post by bradleysbest on Feb 10, 2015 9:26:05 GMT -5
Baba & Spiro are the "godfathers" on this forum! Much thanks for your wisdom & humor!
|
|
|
|
Post by mnholdem on Feb 10, 2015 13:55:11 GMT -5
I don't know... have they ever made an offer that we weren't able to refuse? Aside from the ouzo?
|
|
|
|
Post by biotec on Feb 10, 2015 18:09:49 GMT -5
|
|
