|
Post by dudley on Jun 19, 2015 15:17:05 GMT -5
"We’ve proven it here week after week with almost non-diabetic numbers and record low A1C’s that none of us could achieve on injectable insulin. You will notice this week, once again, every one in the Type 1 Group is in “normal” non-diabetic blood sugar range and in the next month, we expect a few more people to achieve A1C’s in the 5’s." afrezzauser.comPeople are probably tired of my mantra "the laws of statistics and biology do not lie" but so far it is holding true - again anybody is welcome to disprove the thesis that these results would be expected to be seen in ANY typical patient using Afrezza. The same or similar results for 4.5 million patients on the RAA's are predictable with great statistical accuracy. Why would that statistical probability change because they are now presenting a monomer human insulin into their system vs. an engineered hexamer insulin? Sam's sample group continues to grow and 100% of the time the results are the same. THAT is NOT a coincidence. Mr. Al Mann would agree with me (or I agree with him?) when he lays out the scientific reason we are seeing this phenomenon HERE
|
|
|
Post by babaoriley on Jun 19, 2015 17:53:06 GMT -5
poorneil,
You wrote: "As of today, the hb1ac control achieved by users is statistically insignificant."
How did you come to that conclusion? Do you know more numbers than are posted here or on diabetes blogs? Of those that I've heard of, they seem to be significant - although the number of reports is not great, the lowering of A1c seems fairly dramatic. Now, I realize that having a group of 100 reporting is better than 15 or so, but if you get 14/15 coming down in what I believe are significant amounts, I suspect it is statistically significant. And you seem to know it is significantly insignificant. So, garbage in, garbage out, for both of us.
However, my suspicion is far more defensible than your "knowing." Unless, of course, you have access to rock solid numbers which I've missed.
Please tell us how many shares you have shorted; it's okay, just tell us, it's only curiosity (how many here can spell "curiosity" correctly without help, I know I can't) on my part, nothing more. And then you can make some arguments why we're doomed, as opposed to making a sweeping statement as that quoted above.
|
|
|
Post by liane on Jun 19, 2015 18:45:13 GMT -5
I came to this venue to see the Friday script numbers, but as I look around I see the rational conversations going on. Think I'll stick around for awhile. So you came for Happy Hour and stayed for dinner. Welcome aboard!
|
|
|
Post by _neil on Jun 19, 2015 18:51:37 GMT -5
Ugh.. baba.. it was a simple matter of sample size. Yes, 14/15 having positive results is encouraging. The sample size however when the TAM is in the millions is insignificant. The reason I need to be sure helps me decide whether I spend my dry powder or continue holding. I neither can nor need to prove my long/short position without violating my privacy and it's tedious that you raise it every single time I come here looking for clarification. Since when is not having a rock solid faith in the stock a concrete evidence of a short position?
I hope you'll at least concede there is a wide enough spectrum between 'this stock is doomed' and 'this is the next TSLA'. Your post can stand on its own without that silly insinuation.
|
|
|
Post by daduke38 on Jun 19, 2015 19:20:06 GMT -5
Still would like to see more stories from T2 diabetics. If Afrezza is going to be a blockbuster drug, it has to make major inroads in the T2 community. To me, that is an interesting comment. I remember following the ADCOM on Mateses's blog. It was interesting how so many commented we need the Type 2 approval due to the high number of them (and we did and do). Seemed like Type1's were good if we got the approval, but not a big deal if we didn't from a high % throwing their thoughts out there during that stressful day. After all, Type 1's are only 5%. Fast forward to today, and I have to wonder where MNKD would be had they not gotten the Type1 approval. Funny how things work out sometimes. Having said that, I agree to be a Blockbuster, MNKD need to get better inroads with the TYPE 2's. I believe it will happen, but who would have guessed that day that Type1's would lead the way?
|
|
|
Post by dudley on Jun 19, 2015 19:24:30 GMT -5
Au contraire, poorneil. The TAM is what makes MNKD so compelling - it is so large that IS the investment thesis. If one did not expect Afrezza to capture a significant share of the market why even consider it as an investment and why pay any attention to it?
Why do you not question the relevancy of the CURRENT insulins? Because they all act the same way - given dosage requirements, patient sensitivities etc. They work in ANY given patient, yet all patients must use varying dosages and get it dialed in for their own situations.
People never question the thesis that any given patient can take Humalog with the same expected outcome yet have doubts accepting that any given patient can expect the same result from Afrezza. The patient group we are seeing are all patients who HAVE tried the RAA's - and got the expected results accordingly. Nobody doubted or questioned them - after all one SHOULD get the same results - 4.5 million others are doing so. When those RAA's were launched THEY were all getting similar results from "small sample sizes".
The fact those results were unacceptable led them to try Afrezza. Now the very same group of patients that got identical results from "proven" insulins are somehow trying to rig the game when they are getting identical results from Afrezza. Makes no sense to me, but it's a free country and we can all believe or disbelieve what we want.
|
|
|
Post by lynn on Jun 19, 2015 19:30:54 GMT -5
Ugh.. baba.. it was a simple matter of sample size. Yes, 14/15 having positive results is encouraging. The sample size however when the TAM is in the millions is insignificant. The reason I need to be sure helps me decide whether I spend my dry powder or continue holding. I neither can nor need to prove my long/short position without violating my privacy and it's tedious that you raise it every single time I come here looking for clarification. Since when is not having a rock solid faith in the stock a concrete evidence of a short position? I hope you'll at least concede there is a wide enough spectrum between 'this stock is doomed' and 'this is the next TSLA'. Your post can stand on its own without that silly insinuation. My only suggestion to you ( regardless of your position , tho if you are short I find it quite suitable ) is why did you choose "poor" in your handle ?? No offense intended but I cringe everytime I see it . If you see and believe yourself to be poor , you shall be ( the broke mentality ) . I grew up with the broke mentality & learned very young that I never wanted to think that way , nor embrace those beliefs . I've read " Think and Grow Rich " and many other books , which reflect how our thoughts become our reality . You may call me crazy , but I live an abundant Life , is it because I worked my butt off to get here ? Maybe , but for me , I've no doubt that my core belief about myself and what I deserve in Life , is about abundance & never the lack of it . I know that is scientifically difficult to prove . But I believe my attitude about Life plays a big role . From my experience on this board , I rarely see someone who refuses to disclose their position in MNKD & those that DON'T end up having ulterior motives . It's a simple question Poor Neil ... Are you Long or Short ? If the latter , than your handle suits you perfectly if your the former than " skeptical Neil " might be more suiting . I appreciate and learn from the different perspectives I read . And there's nothing wrong with questioning your investment . We all have different comfort zones . Have a great weekend all Lynn
|
|
|
Post by _neil on Jun 19, 2015 20:23:29 GMT -5
Au contraire, poorneil. The TAM is what makes MNKD so compelling - it is so large that IS the investment thesis. If one did not expect Afrezza to capture a significant share of the market why even consider it as an investment and why pay any attention to it? Why do you not question the relevancy of the CURRENT insulins? Because they all act the same way - given dosage requirements, patient sensitivities etc. They work in ANY given patient, yet all patients must use varying dosages and get it dialed in for their own situations. People never question the thesis that any given patient can take Humalog with the same expected outcome yet have doubts accepting that any given patient can expect the same result from Afrezza. The patient group we are seeing are all patients who HAVE tried the RAA's - and got the expected results accordingly. Nobody doubted or questioned them - after all one SHOULD get the same results - 4.5 million others are doing so. When those RAA's were launched THEY were all getting similar results from "small sample sizes". The fact those results were unacceptable led them to try Afrezza. Now the very same group of patients that got identical results from "proven" insulins are somehow trying to rig the game when they are getting identical results from Afrezza. Makes no sense to me, but it's a free country and we can all believe or disbelieve what we want. Dudley- The reason I got into MNKD is precisely because the TAM is huge. The success stories so far from users like Sam are very encouraging but the entire sample size of the people reporting is insignificant at this point in time. This could be because most people aren't interested in really sharing with the world their success stories. I would like to see more Sams rather than the already proven efficacy for the small sample size that we so often hear about. The science is the truly compelling part of the equation while we await for more data on what I would consider 'statistical slam dunk'. I guess I need to disclose the fact that I am an engineer that can't help but be overly conservative. Lynn - Thanks for offering your perspective. My handle is supposed to show my current state- no fault of MNKD's. I intend to not remain poor for long though. Since you asked, I am LONG MNKD with the average purchase price ~$7.30. I made the mistake of adding to my position after approval and am currently cautious about averaging my price down. I made a small warrant purchase and sold off after making a small profit so I'll keep taking opportunistic bites. Interesting how much room for interpretation there is in a simple word - 'significant'. Have a great weekend all.
|
|
|
Post by tbone on Jun 19, 2015 21:19:30 GMT -5
Au contraire, poorneil. The TAM is what makes MNKD so compelling - it is so large that IS the investment thesis. If one did not expect Afrezza to capture a significant share of the market why even consider it as an investment and why pay any attention to it? Why do you not question the relevancy of the CURRENT insulins? Because they all act the same way - given dosage requirements, patient sensitivities etc. They work in ANY given patient, yet all patients must use varying dosages and get it dialed in for their own situations. People never question the thesis that any given patient can take Humalog with the same expected outcome yet have doubts accepting that any given patient can expect the same result from Afrezza. The patient group we are seeing are all patients who HAVE tried the RAA's - and got the expected results accordingly. Nobody doubted or questioned them - after all one SHOULD get the same results - 4.5 million others are doing so. When those RAA's were launched THEY were all getting similar results from "small sample sizes". The fact those results were unacceptable led them to try Afrezza. Now the very same group of patients that got identical results from "proven" insulins are somehow trying to rig the game when they are getting identical results from Afrezza. Makes no sense to me, but it's a free country and we can all believe or disbelieve what we want. Dudley- The reason I got into MNKD is precisely because the TAM is huge. The success stories so far from users like Sam are very encouraging but the entire sample size of the people reporting is insignificant at this point in time. This could be because most people aren't interested in really sharing with the world their success stories. I would like to see more Sams rather than the already proven efficacy for the small sample size that we so often hear about. The science is the truly compelling part of the equation while we await for more data on what I would consider 'statistical slam dunk'. I guess I need to disclose the fact that I am an engineer that can't help but be overly conservative. Lynn - Thanks for offering your perspective. My handle is supposed to show my current state- no fault of MNKD's. I intend to not remain poor for long though. Since you asked, I am LONG MNKD with the average purchase price ~$7.30. I made the mistake of adding to my position after approval and am currently cautious about averaging my price down. I made a small warrant purchase and sold off after making a small profit so I'll keep taking opportunistic bites. Interesting how much room for interpretation there is in a simple word - 'significant'. Have a great weekend all. I'm sure all understand this but I will say it anyway.... Dudley's point is that Afrezza is human insulin, not some new drug. It is well established how insilin affects the millions. Therefore there is no reason to think the small sampling will not be replicated, especially when you understand the science. Statistically significant by definition? Ok, no. Significant reason to to look forward to and expect statistically significant results in the future? Absolutely! Gonna wait for that? Then everyone will know it's a paradigm shift. Then is probably the time to sell. Ok, I'm done.
|
|
|
Post by babaoriley on Jun 20, 2015 1:08:58 GMT -5
Ugh.. baba.. it was a simple matter of sample size. Yes, 14/15 having positive results is encouraging. The sample size however when the TAM is in the millions is insignificant. The reason I need to be sure helps me decide whether I spend my dry powder or continue holding. I neither can nor need to prove my long/short position without violating my privacy and it's tedious that you raise it every single time I come here looking for clarification. Since when is not having a rock solid faith in the stock a concrete evidence of a short position? I hope you'll at least concede there is a wide enough spectrum between 'this stock is doomed' and 'this is the next TSLA'. Your post can stand on its own without that silly insinuation. Okay, I'll give you the benefit of the doubt for now, not that anyone gives a hoot what I think, one way or the other. But, if what you said about buying the stock right after approval and being stuck with an average price of $7.30 is accurate, well, perhaps you're really "bitterneil." And I can understand that, I've been there many times, but it doesn't really get one anywhere to be bitter. Did you buy more after approval because of all the celebrating on this board? If so, well, I can understand that, too, and a little bitterness against overly gleeful, giddy and optimistic folk can be tolerated, even indicated, at such moments, but you need to get over it, and change your handle like Lynn suggested - "poorneil" is not what you want to go through message board life with! Heck, if you liked it at $7.30, you should have loved it under $4! Yeah, I know, you were too poor at that point. Maybe before too long, you'll be a winner at $7.30!
|
|
|
Post by cretin11 on Jun 20, 2015 2:54:37 GMT -5
My average price point is close to where poorneil's is (mine also resulting from the timing of getting into this around the post-approval glow), so I can empathize with that. And since he's an engineer (I was a math/stats major), also I get his usage of the term "significant" in the strict mathematical sense.
This MNKD investment has turned into a longer story than some of us hoped or expected, but there are positive signs it will ultimately be a success story. I don't doubt that poorneil is long MNKD, and we can all look forward to the day he is forced to change his moniker to richneil for the sake of accuracy.
|
|
|
Post by savzak on Jun 20, 2015 3:21:21 GMT -5
This MNKD investment has turned into a longer story than some of us hoped or expected, but there are positive signs it will ultimately be a success story. Truer words were never posted.
|
|
|
Post by Chris-C on Jun 20, 2015 10:20:59 GMT -5
I'm sure all understand this but I will say it anyway.... Dudley's point is that Afrezza is human insulin, not some new drug. It is well established how insilin affects the millions. Therefore there is no reason to think the small sampling will not be replicated, especially when you understand the science. Statistically significant by definition? Ok, no. Significant reason to to look forward to and expect statistically significant results in the future? Absolutely! Gonna wait for that? Then everyone will know it's a paradigm shift. Then is probably the time to sell. Ok, I'm done. These are interesting observations. As many here know, in the health sciences, it is sometimes observed that a study obtained statistical significance (usually because of large sample sizes)- but the clinical significance was questionable; that is, although statistically significant, what real difference did it (the intervention or treatment) make in its benefit to the patient? This, I think, is always a valid question, in the same way that quality of life matters to patients but is too seldomly (imo) included as an outcome variable in studies. The results being reported by the Afrezza T1DMs, although not "statistically significant", sure do seem to weigh in on the side of clinical significance- both in terms of results as well as quality of life. Eventually, I'm confident that controlled studies will confirm this. However, a potential problem lies in the design of such a study with respect to the "treatment" (or independent variable). Ideally, scientists want this "intervention" to be applied in a defined replicable manner to all subjects in the experimental group. It seems one of the characteristics of Afrezza, however, is that it works best if self administered by the patient to his or her particular lifestyle and physiological response. I think this need to control how the treatment is given (when, how much and how often) makes it "scientifically" challenging to demonstrate Afrezza's true "significance".
|
|
|
Post by seanismorris on Jun 20, 2015 12:32:04 GMT -5
Quote: "it works best if self administered by the patient to his or her particular lifestyle and physiological response"
This quote summarizes my chief concern with Afrezza...
I'm getting the impression doctors want to be able to say "take this pill (etc.) so many times a day (at such and such time) and call me in the morning."
That does not work well with Afrezza...and if doctors are seeing compliance issues with simple regimens (and they are). How reluctant are they going to be to prescribe something that requires considerably more from their patients?
Arguing statistical significance of the current positive results of Afrezza isn't going to influence the outcome.
Everything hinges on the upcoming marketing (education) campaign and patients compliance. Right now we are only looking at (data from) the most intelligent proactive diabetes patients...which may or may not prove to be relevant.
Waiting...waiting...waiting...we seem to be doing that a lot with this investment.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 20, 2015 12:36:31 GMT -5
It wouldn't appear spiro has to endure anything but simplicity so I'm not so sure I agree with that assessment. He takes it like a pill and his a1c dropped.
thats complex?
|
|