|
Post by ezrasfund on Mar 4, 2015 12:49:27 GMT -5
He is the one who said Afrezza would be hard to use in church or in a movie theater because of the sound disturbing folks. Makes sense?
|
|
|
Post by nugjuice on Mar 4, 2015 13:02:07 GMT -5
He is the one who said Afrezza would be hard to use in church or in a movie theater because of the sound disturbing folks. Makes sense? If it induces a loud coughing fit? Maybe. He did say that it was more discreet in all other situations. Listen, I've never tried it. I have no idea how badly it makes you cough, and/or if the cough goes away after prolonged use.
|
|
|
Post by babaoriley on Mar 4, 2015 13:12:32 GMT -5
I saw no "con" in the review, and I thought the guy who posted about getting the pack with no inhaler was on the level, too. Someone then suggested he call MannKind, who really ought to be apprised of customer service issues. Get the guy an inhaler for goodness sakes!
|
|
|
Post by esstan2001 on Mar 4, 2015 13:17:53 GMT -5
"All I'm saying is people are confusing the post ON the review, and the review itself. The review itself seems to be legit."
From what most people on this board know about the mechanisms and action of afrezza, the review seems to be bogus. If you keep a tally of positive / negative blog posts of people that have tried it, it's probably something like 30 to 2, or 30 to 1 if you discount this one as bogus, as I do.
Elaine Benice to the Soup Nazi..... NEEEEEXXXXT !!!
|
|
|
Post by nugjuice on Mar 4, 2015 13:19:24 GMT -5
If it induces a loud coughing fit? Maybe. He did say that it was more discreet in all other situations. Listen, I've never tried it. I have no idea how badly it makes you cough, and/or if the cough goes away after prolonged use. Would you prefer a cough or terrible A1C control and have a foot cut off? Holy crap dude you love to argue. I'm done with this, you clearly are emotionally attached to this stock and have removed yourself from any ability to see this from an objective perspective. I'm a shareholder, obviously I want to see this stock take off. Whenever I counter an argument you deflect to a totally unrelated topic...so there's just clearly nothing in this world that's going to convince you from what you believe so I'm going to stop wasting my breath. Best of luck
|
|
|
Post by nugjuice on Mar 4, 2015 13:24:51 GMT -5
All I'm saying is people are confusing the post ON the review, and the review itself. The review itself seems to be legit. From what most people on this board know about the mechanisms and action of afrezza, the review seems to be bogus. If you keep a tally of positive / negative blog posts of people that have tried it, it's probably something like 30 to 2, or 30 to 1 if you discount this one as bogus, as I do. Elaine Benice to the Soup Nazi..... NEEEEEXXXXT !!! Are you implying that every single person is going to have a positive experience with Afrezza? Are you implying that we should ignore any non-glowing reviews by actual diabetics taking the actual product? I think some people here need to look up confirmation bias: In psychology and cognitive science, confirmation bias (or confirmatory bias) is a tendency to search for or interpret information in a way that confirms one's preconceptions, leading to statistical errors.
|
|
|
Post by 4Balance on Mar 4, 2015 13:40:00 GMT -5
Afrezza | Early Review 3) NOT SO FAST Afrezza is not as fast-acting as you may believe. I ran several side-by-side tests, and where 3 units of Humalog does the job in 15 to 20 minutes for me, inhaling four units of Afrezza takes at least an hour to accomplish the same goal. I went from 185 to 87 over the course of 60 minutes with 4 units of Afrezza. And it took the full time--I was testing every 10 minutes. Humalog requires 3 units for the same reduction, but only takes 20 minutes if injected in the abdomen or triceps. This may be due to a lower than average body fat, but I also have better-than-normal lung capacity and volume, which I would think would make up for the difference. At any rate, where I thought there would be cost savings of using fewer units, such was not the case. 4) OLD SCHOOL Afrezza uses an older type of insulin called "Regular." It's a perfectly usable sort, and I used it for about 20 years. It takes much longer to enter the bloodstream when injected, and its lifecycle in the body is less predictable than modern fast-acting insulin. I did not find the latter to be true via inhalation, however. It seemed to begin acting within 30 to 60 minutes, and have no more effects after 70. 6) LUNG IRRITATION A deep, thorough inhalation of the powder makes me have to stifle a cough about 75% of the time. So…Is That a Yea or Nay? As of right now, five days into the experiment, I'm not 100% sold on its benefits. The company that produces it has also not responded to my request for a phone call or an email, which looks bad from a customer service standpoint. I have no doubt that they are deluged with requests from the press and from doctors at the moment though, as it is brand Here's who I think would benefit from it the most: 3) Diabetics who are willing to wait when their blood sugar levels are too high. Personally, I cannot stand the feeling in my muscles and the knowledge that it is damaging neurological pathways, and would far rather take an injection and solve the problem now rather than wait 1 to 2 hours. How does it make sense that this person is finding a faster reduction of BG with subQ than with Afrezza...??
|
|
|
Post by nugjuice on Mar 4, 2015 13:51:06 GMT -5
Afrezza | Early Review 3) NOT SO FAST Afrezza is not as fast-acting as you may believe. I ran several side-by-side tests, and where 3 units of Humalog does the job in 15 to 20 minutes for me, inhaling four units of Afrezza takes at least an hour to accomplish the same goal. I went from 185 to 87 over the course of 60 minutes with 4 units of Afrezza. And it took the full time--I was testing every 10 minutes. Humalog requires 3 units for the same reduction, but only takes 20 minutes if injected in the abdomen or triceps. This may be due to a lower than average body fat, but I also have better-than-normal lung capacity and volume, which I would think would make up for the difference. At any rate, where I thought there would be cost savings of using fewer units, such was not the case. 4) OLD SCHOOL Afrezza uses an older type of insulin called "Regular." It's a perfectly usable sort, and I used it for about 20 years. It takes much longer to enter the bloodstream when injected, and its lifecycle in the body is less predictable than modern fast-acting insulin. I did not find the latter to be true via inhalation, however. It seemed to begin acting within 30 to 60 minutes, and have no more effects after 70. 6) LUNG IRRITATION A deep, thorough inhalation of the powder makes me have to stifle a cough about 75% of the time. So…Is That a Yea or Nay? As of right now, five days into the experiment, I'm not 100% sold on its benefits. The company that produces it has also not responded to my request for a phone call or an email, which looks bad from a customer service standpoint. I have no doubt that they are deluged with requests from the press and from doctors at the moment though, as it is brand Here's who I think would benefit from it the most: 3) Diabetics who are willing to wait when their blood sugar levels are too high. Personally, I cannot stand the feeling in my muscles and the knowledge that it is damaging neurological pathways, and would far rather take an injection and solve the problem now rather than wait 1 to 2 hours. How does it make sense that this person is finding a faster reduction of BG with subQ than with Afrezza...?? I have absolutely no idea. I'm not a chemist or a scientist or a physician, or any of that. I'm just an investor. All I'm saying is that from what I can tell, he's legit. He has posts about being diabetic back from 4 or 5 years ago. He's got pictures of himself inhaling it -so obviously he has diabetes. The focus of his blog is clearly fitness... and not diabetes medication. So what incentive would he have to lie? Just think about how emotionally attached everyone here is. This is the totality of what I said: 1) Pointed out that people were mistaking the anonymous comment on the review and the review itself (fact) 2) Pointed out that it was the first non-glowing review of any patient I've seen take it. (I think we can agree this is fact) 3) Pointed out that I couldn't find an inherent conflict of interest. If there is one, it's not obvious...and I was looking for it Could you point out to me which of those 3 points deserves further scrutiny? I realize with this stock everyone has to be on the lookout for shorts, but let's be real. If he's an actual diabetic who actually tried a sample of Afrezza, then his opinion matters. Do people think he's taking money for this or something? From a short seller or a competing company? I'm actually curious
|
|
|
Post by jfl on Mar 4, 2015 13:51:50 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by esstan2001 on Mar 4, 2015 13:52:41 GMT -5
"Are you implying that every single person is going to have a positive experience with Afrezza?" NO. There was a fair drop out rate in the trial, so I don't expect this to bee for everyone. "Are you implying that we should ignore any non-glowing reviews by actual diabetics taking the actual product?" NO. But this particular review arrives around the time of the short attack, and presents many debunked assertions (not all): As for the reiviewer assertions: 1. Pricing- fine you can buy in to this being an issue but the time of action and method of delivery differentiate this from any other RAI. 2. Discrete- Notable that within 5 days this guy got to church and a movie. Wonder if he works. Not having witnessed an inhale except on youtube (seemed innocuous) I'll let you have this one. 3. Not so fast- OK all the scientific data were faked. Including the CGM jpegs from new users. Right. And Humalog acts faster for him than anybody? Maybe he misread the labels for the 2 drugs in his runoff. 4. OLD SCHOOL? Monomeric insulin is immediately ready to find it's receptor sites. It does not need time to break apart like dimers or hexamers. All it needs is to disassociate from technosphere carrier, which is near immediate in the ph change of the lung. BTW, how did the reviewer use it for 20 years since it is not stable without technosphere? And you wonder why I question the voracity of the post! 5. NO fine tuning? The FDA approved the dosing label- if you need 1-4 units, use 4. bla bla bla. And there are MANY reasoned explanations on this board as to why this is the case- that fine tuning is NOT NEEDED (and supported by Sam F and the carb challenge study performed by MNKD (take dose, eat nothing==> no hypo) 6. Lung irritation- 75% of the time? Not reported in trials, but I'll be generous and give it to you 7.Modified self dosing regimen- OK you have to b kidding on this one- elsewhere this was challenged as not making sense inhalation draw would have to be far in excess of what is required to pull in entire dose; any such games would make dosing inconsistent, which the FDA would have kiaboshed. so I think I gave you 2/7 here. "I think some people here need to look up confirmation bias: In psychology and cognitive science, confirmation bias (or confirmatory bias) is a tendency to search for or interpret information in a way that confirms one's preconceptions, leading to statistical errors." I also do not fight a preponderance of questionable data. Makes no logical sense to do so. I do question everything. Especially when there are those with motives and agendas (sure mine is obvious, but I look at the total data presented, including what does not jive with common sense). Debunking this review does not fall into a confirmation bias scenario, IMO.
|
|
|
Post by nugjuice on Mar 4, 2015 14:04:02 GMT -5
"Are you implying that every single person is going to have a positive experience with Afrezza?" NO. There was a fair drop out rate in the trial, so I don't expect this to bee for everyone. "Are you implying that we should ignore any non-glowing reviews by actual diabetics taking the actual product?" NO. But this particular review arrives around the time of the short attack, and presents many debunked assertions (not all): As for the reiviewer assertions: 1. Pricing- fine you can buy in to this being an issue but the time of action and method of delivery differentiate this from any other RAI. 2. Discrete- Notable that within 5 days this guy got to church and a movie. Wonder if he works. Not having witnessed an inhale except on youtube (seemed innocuous) I'll let you have this one. 3. Not so fast- OK all the scientific data were faked. Including the CGM jpegs from new users. Right. And Humalog acts faster for him than anybody? Maybe he misread the labels for the 2 drugs in his runoff. 4. OLD SCHOOL? Monomeric insulin is immediately ready to find it's receptor sites. It does not need time to break apart like dimers or hexamers. All it needs is to disassociate from technosphere carrier, which is near immediate in the ph change of the lung. BTW, how did the reviewer use it for 20 years since it is not stable without technosphere? And you wonder why I question the voracity of the post! 5. NO fine tuning? The FDA approved the dosing label- if you need 1-4 units, use 4. bla bla bla. And there are MANY reasoned explanations on this board as to why this is the case- that fine tuning is NOT NEEDED (and supported by Sam F and the carb challenge study performed by MNKD (take dose, eat nothing==> no hypo) 6. Lung irritation- 75% of the time? Not reported in trials, but I'll be generous and give it to you 7.Modified self dosing regimen- OK you have to b kidding on this one- elsewhere this was challenged as not making sense inhalation draw would have to be far in excess of what is required to pull in entire dose; any such games would make dosing inconsistent, which the FDA would have kiaboshed. so I think I gave you 2/7 here. "I think some people here need to look up confirmation bias: In psychology and cognitive science, confirmation bias (or confirmatory bias) is a tendency to search for or interpret information in a way that confirms one's preconceptions, leading to statistical errors." I also do not fight a preponderance of questionable data. Makes no logical sense to do so. I do question everything. Especially when there are those with motives and agendas (sure mine is obvious, but I look at the total data presented, including what does not jive with common sense). Debunking this review does not fall into a confirmation bias scenario, IMO. It absolutely does. You're looking at a review from an actual diabetic who took the actual medication. The review is not glowing. It's not a bad review. It's just not great. If you choose to discount review simply because most other reviews are glowing, then you're assuming either A) He's lying about his experience with the medication B) He's lying about taking the medication at all C) He's an idiot and didn't interpret his results correctly I can't think of another reason for you to completely discount this review (or 'debunk' it as you call) unless there is some confirmation bias/willful ignorance involved. If someone shows me anything...absolutely anything that could point to the fact that he's really a short seller in disguise, I'm more than happy to listen. As I've said previously, I'm long the stock. I hope we fill 4 million scripts next week. I'm just looking at this objectively - like an investor.
|
|
|
Post by afrizzle on Mar 4, 2015 14:05:05 GMT -5
You made a decent point about the reviewer being legit, which I agree with. I've commented on the comments below. Legit comment but it's not a fair or direct comparison if there is more to consider. What is greater control, no titration, less risk of hypos, and smoother shorter tails worth? I do assume all these benefits to be true, but it's my current thinking while waiting to see what more user's report. The performance benefit is an individual decision that each consumer has to make. This seems like a stretch to me unless there's coughing involved in which case I'd think it a legit comment. Easy enough to time during a hymm or an explosion This is a concern that I'm now on watch for from other user reports. It's not consistent with what Afrezzauser or Peakabull report. Also not consistent with the PK curves. I'm lost on this comment I'm trying to get all the info I can on this aspect and am semi-patiently waiting for the greater sample size to materialize. Since Dr Mann's comments about titration and carb counting not being required was reinforced by Afrezzauser's report, I'm wondering if this patient gave it enough time before reaching this conclusion or if they truly had a different experience. To me, this represent some of the uphill climb with market acceptance. It's harder to get people to unlearn/relearn behaviors and beliefs, particularly where their life previously may have depending on it. A new paradigm of "fine titration not required" may be the drugs biggest draw, if the larger user base finds it to be true. I understand that coughing occurred in 27% of Afrezza users compared to 5.2% "comparitor" per the label. products.sanofi.us/afrezza/afrezza.pdf section 6.1 I also understand that it was tolerated in a subset of patients who reported it and that it went away in another subset but I don't know the specific figures. It's reasonable to think that some won't tolerate the cough, maybe this trial patient is one of them. For me this point added credibility to the review
|
|
|
Post by nugjuice on Mar 4, 2015 14:09:13 GMT -5
Thank you. This is the first logical post I've seen here that could explain the neutral/non-glowing review. It's very possible that given his low body fat % and high muscle mass, as well as the fact that he's injecting directly into the muscle, that the injections work much faster for him than 98% of the population. He could also be exercising afterwards, which according to that article, would also make it work faster. This doesn't mean that Afrezza isn't awesome. It just means it affects some people differently than others....like any drug on the market
|
|
|
Post by nugjuice on Mar 4, 2015 14:14:35 GMT -5
You made a decent point about the reviewer being legit, which I agree with. I've commented on the comments below. (I took out some of the quote for length purposes) Agree with all of your comments. I came away from the review thinking the following: - He's acting like a tough guy (calling being afraid of needles 'irrational') - He's super into fitness so his lungs are probably more sensitive than most of the population to pretty much anything. - He seems like someone who always likes to do things 'his own way' or act like he's smarter than other people - thus the stuff about 'fine tuning' and 'workarounds' - He seems like someone who would be a little pissed off if he reached out to a customer service department and felt snubbed All I'm saying is that I don't think he's lying, or some short seller in disguise.
|
|
|
Post by spiro on Mar 4, 2015 14:22:17 GMT -5
Today is my 6th day using Afrezza, I am hesitant to get involved in a discussion on the benefits of lack of this early. But in my case, during my first 19 doses the urge to cough has been extremely minimal. A quick sip of water of coffee quickly eliminates this urge. For me the, Afrezza has been odorless, tasteless and leaves me wondering if I actually inhaled the dose properly. I actually check the cartridge to look for any powder left. It's always empty. I did see my doctor again on day 4 and she was pleased with my early results and wants me to continue for 3 months. On Saturday or Sunday, I will share with the board my early results. I still have to convince Spiro that Liane will not call him an EXUBERANT PUMPER should he releases this information for publication.
|
|