|
Post by peppy on Dec 6, 2015 7:23:06 GMT -5
In reply to the topic, let's suppose. -Let's suppose the results from the clamp studies are known by sanofi. www.clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/study/NCT02470637
-let's suppose the type 1 user's meeting with Sanofi is true. -let's suppose the first of the pediatric study is known. Detailed Description: The patients are expected to participate in the study for approximately 6 to 8 weeks from Screening to final follow-up visit. Patients who completed 4 weeks of Afrezza treatment and have shown to be safe and well controlled with Afrezza + basal insulin will have the option to continue the extension treatment up to 1 year. www.clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT02527265?term=diabetes&lup_s=08/04/2015&lup_d=14&show_rss=Y&sel_rss=mod14 -let's suppose the pediatric population all 46 of them like afrezza : Estimated Enrollment: 46 Study Start Date: September 2015
-Matt: *(1 phase insulin response of a non diabetic is the natural signal to the liver to stop releasing glucose for about 90 mins. This prevents blood glucose from rising while eating) afrezza prevents blood glucose from rising in the first place, where injectable insulin blood glucoses rise and then are lowered by the insulin. The first phase begins immediately but it doesn’t lower blood glucose, instead it temporarily stops it rising. This effect seems to be responsible for all the weird and wonderful properties of Afrezza, the first phase does not happen with previous insulins. screencast.com/t/YPzBxxXElA The second phase, however, works like a small dose of injectable insulin. It lowers blood glucose, and takes longer to start working. This is the only phase of Humalog or Apidra.
Previous treatments work by flooding the body with an unnaturally high level of insulin for hours, in order to slowly lower high blood glucose levels. Afrezza stops blood glucose rising in the first place using the natural first phase signal to the liver instead. This means that for the first time much lower, more natural levels of insulin can now be used in Type 1 diabetics. afrezzadownunder.com/ (Afrezza units and insulin carb ratios)
-Let's suppose Brandcourt came to consciousness now that he is up to speed.
screencast.com/t/lfvJnQwPlF5H What matt is saying about afrezza phase one stoping the liver from releasing glucose for about 90 mins made me look at what SNY is trying to get approved. Lyxumia GLP-1 RA (Lixisenatide ) Stimulates the pancreas to secrete insulin, liver glucagon decrease, slows gastric empting, signals a full feeling.
screencast.com/t/6JlziaINljx note date
My personal favorite; let's suppose the t cell patents technosphere has, comes in handy for regeneron. screencast.com/t/q4D9MFXV mnkd.proboards.com/thread/4264/wipo-international-patents-mannkind-corporation screencast.com/t/dCEpiehjL6l
-let's suppose there is dollar value in the patents.
-let's suppose al mann is back because he has the control of shares and all negotiations are his.
- let's suppose Hakan was moved to work on....something else.
- let's suppose EU Afrezza approval progresses (afrezza price has to come down for EU health care systems?)
|
|
|
Post by rrtzmd on Dec 6, 2015 11:15:23 GMT -5
In reply to the topic, let's suppose. -Let's suppose the results from the clamp studies are known by sanofi. www.clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/study/NCT02470637
-let's suppose the type 1 user's meeting with Sanofi is true. -let's suppose the first of the pediatric study is known. Detailed Description: The patients are expected to participate in the study for approximately 6 to 8 weeks from Screening to final follow-up visit. Patients who completed 4 weeks of Afrezza treatment and have shown to be safe and well controlled with Afrezza + basal insulin will have the option to continue the extension treatment up to 1 year. www.clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT02527265?term=diabetes&lup_s=08/04/2015&lup_d=14&show_rss=Y&sel_rss=mod14 -let's suppose the pediatric population all 46 of them like afrezza : Estimated Enrollment: 46 Study Start Date: September 2015
-Matt: *(1 phase insulin response of a non diabetic is the natural signal to the liver to stop releasing glucose for about 90 mins. This prevents blood glucose from rising while eating) afrezza prevents blood glucose from rising in the first place, where injectable insulin blood glucoses rise and then are lowered by the insulin. The first phase begins immediately but it doesn’t lower blood glucose, instead it temporarily stops it rising. This effect seems to be responsible for all the weird and wonderful properties of Afrezza, the first phase does not happen with previous insulins. screencast.com/t/YPzBxxXElA The second phase, however, works like a small dose of injectable insulin. It lowers blood glucose, and takes longer to start working. This is the only phase of Humalog or Apidra..................
In reply to your assessment -- the part shown in red on my screen -- the first thing you should try and suppose is an explanation as to why the PD graph shown on the insert looks the way it does. That graph suggests that afrezza's time of onset and effect on glucose lowering is virtually the same as lispro for about the first 60 minutes. One of the trials just completed could indicate that the insert graph may, in fact, be spurious, but, of course, only SNY knows that data at present. However, if the graph turns out accurate, that means the only real differences from lispro is that afrezza can be inhaled and that it is removed from a diabetic's system more rapidly. While the first is a clear advantage, the second remains debatable. As I recall, the trials found no significant difference between the incidence of serious hypoglycemia between afrezza and lispro, and, as has been pointed out elsewhere, the rapid drop in the insulin levels may leave the diabetic exposed to later hyperglycemia from late digesting carbs. Next, if SNY does indeed know the data, you have to try and suppose what their course of action will be given the results. Will they decide it's worthwhile pursuing the kind of large real life trial needed to demonstrate something more than "non-inferiority" that is needed to improve chances for third party reimbursement?
|
|
|
Post by peppy on Dec 6, 2015 11:54:04 GMT -5
In reply to the topic, let's suppose. -Let's suppose the results from the clamp studies are known by sanofi. www.clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/study/NCT02470637
-let's suppose the type 1 user's meeting with Sanofi is true. -let's suppose the first of the pediatric study is known. Detailed Description: The patients are expected to participate in the study for approximately 6 to 8 weeks from Screening to final follow-up visit. Patients who completed 4 weeks of Afrezza treatment and have shown to be safe and well controlled with Afrezza + basal insulin will have the option to continue the extension treatment up to 1 year. www.clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT02527265?term=diabetes&lup_s=08/04/2015&lup_d=14&show_rss=Y&sel_rss=mod14 -let's suppose the pediatric population all 46 of them like afrezza : Estimated Enrollment: 46 Study Start Date: September 2015
-Matt: *(1 phase insulin response of a non diabetic is the natural signal to the liver to stop releasing glucose for about 90 mins. This prevents blood glucose from rising while eating) afrezza prevents blood glucose from rising in the first place, where injectable insulin blood glucoses rise and then are lowered by the insulin. The first phase begins immediately but it doesn’t lower blood glucose, instead it temporarily stops it rising. This effect seems to be responsible for all the weird and wonderful properties of Afrezza, the first phase does not happen with previous insulins. screencast.com/t/YPzBxxXElA The second phase, however, works like a small dose of injectable insulin. It lowers blood glucose, and takes longer to start working. This is the only phase of Humalog or Apidra..................
In reply to your assessment -- the part shown in red on my screen -- the first thing you should try and suppose is an explanation as to why the PD graph shown on the insert looks the way it does. That graph suggests that afrezza's time of onset and effect on glucose lowering is virtually the same as lispro for about the first 60 minutes. One of the trials just completed could indicate that the insert graph may, in fact, be spurious, but, of course, only SNY knows that data at present. However, if the graph turns out accurate, that means the only real differences from lispro is that afrezza can be inhaled and that it is removed from a diabetic's system more rapidly. While the first is a clear advantage, the second remains debatable. As I recall, the trials found no significant difference between the incidence of serious hypoglycemia between afrezza and lispro, and, as has been pointed out elsewhere, the rapid drop in the insulin levels may leave the diabetic exposed to later hyperglycemia from late digesting carbs. Next, if SNY does indeed know the data, you have to try and suppose what their course of action will be given the results. Will they decide it's worthwhile pursuing the kind of large real life trial needed to demonstrate something more than "non-inferiority" that is needed to improve chances for third party reimbursement? rrtzmd, post all graphs including lispro PD graph. The clamp study will produce them as well.
The Clamp Study Single Dose Clamp Study to Evaluate Concentration-time Profile and Metabolic Activity of 3 Dose Levels of Afrezza and 3 Dose Levels of Insulin Lispro in Patients With Type 1 Diabetes Mellitus www.clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT02470637
quote: if SNY does indeed know the data, you have to try and suppose what their course of action will be given the results reply: why don't you play suppose. that is the thread.
|
|
|
Post by dreamboatcruise on Dec 6, 2015 14:06:50 GMT -5
In reply to the topic, let's suppose. -Let's suppose the results from the clamp studies are known by sanofi. www.clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/study/NCT02470637
-let's suppose the type 1 user's meeting with Sanofi is true. -let's suppose the first of the pediatric study is known. Detailed Description: The patients are expected to participate in the study for approximately 6 to 8 weeks from Screening to final follow-up visit. Patients who completed 4 weeks of Afrezza treatment and have shown to be safe and well controlled with Afrezza + basal insulin will have the option to continue the extension treatment up to 1 year. www.clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT02527265?term=diabetes&lup_s=08/04/2015&lup_d=14&show_rss=Y&sel_rss=mod14 -let's suppose the pediatric population all 46 of them like afrezza : Estimated Enrollment: 46 Study Start Date: September 2015
-Matt: *(1 phase insulin response of a non diabetic is the natural signal to the liver to stop releasing glucose for about 90 mins. This prevents blood glucose from rising while eating) afrezza prevents blood glucose from rising in the first place, where injectable insulin blood glucoses rise and then are lowered by the insulin. The first phase begins immediately but it doesn’t lower blood glucose, instead it temporarily stops it rising. This effect seems to be responsible for all the weird and wonderful properties of Afrezza, the first phase does not happen with previous insulins. screencast.com/t/YPzBxxXElA The second phase, however, works like a small dose of injectable insulin. It lowers blood glucose, and takes longer to start working. This is the only phase of Humalog or Apidra..................
In reply to your assessment -- the part shown in red on my screen -- the first thing you should try and suppose is an explanation as to why the PD graph shown on the insert looks the way it does. That graph suggests that afrezza's time of onset and effect on glucose lowering is virtually the same as lispro for about the first 60 minutes. One of the trials just completed could indicate that the insert graph may, in fact, be spurious, but, of course, only SNY knows that data at present. However, if the graph turns out accurate, that means the only real differences from lispro is that afrezza can be inhaled and that it is removed from a diabetic's system more rapidly. While the first is a clear advantage, the second remains debatable. As I recall, the trials found no significant difference between the incidence of serious hypoglycemia between afrezza and lispro, and, as has been pointed out elsewhere, the rapid drop in the insulin levels may leave the diabetic exposed to later hyperglycemia from late digesting carbs. Next, if SNY does indeed know the data, you have to try and suppose what their course of action will be given the results. Will they decide it's worthwhile pursuing the kind of large real life trial needed to demonstrate something more than "non-inferiority" that is needed to improve chances for third party reimbursement? With the results seen by some of the early adopters (assuming that data is reliable), I'd question some of your assumptions. It certainly seems that people can push A1c significantly lower on Afrezza without hypo problems than with traditional RAA. The earlier trials were not designed to show this. Further, if the people we've seen reporting results are at all indicative of what can be achieved by most, it doesn't seem like it would have to be an overly large trial to be statistically meaningful. The safety study needs to be very large/long by its very nature to capture the possible unlikely outcomes. If one needed thousands of patients to show better A1c/hypo results with statistical significance it would be results that would be uncommon enough that it wouldn't have financial significance to those deciding to pay for Afrezza. If a majority of users could safely achieve an A1c at least half percent lower with Afrezza than with trad RAA... wouldn't it be possible to have a meaningful study with 50-100 people? Though a counter argument to what I've stated would be... so why hasn't SNY started such a trial if it's not a huge cost?
|
|
|
Post by rrtzmd on Dec 6, 2015 23:41:14 GMT -5
In reply to your assessment -- the part shown in red on my screen -- the first thing you should try and suppose is an explanation as to why the PD graph shown on the insert looks the way it does. That graph suggests that afrezza's time of onset and effect on glucose lowering is virtually the same as lispro for about the first 60 minutes. One of the trials just completed could indicate that the insert graph may, in fact, be spurious, but, of course, only SNY knows that data at present. However, if the graph turns out accurate, that means the only real differences from lispro is that afrezza can be inhaled and that it is removed from a diabetic's system more rapidly. While the first is a clear advantage, the second remains debatable. As I recall, the trials found no significant difference between the incidence of serious hypoglycemia between afrezza and lispro, and, as has been pointed out elsewhere, the rapid drop in the insulin levels may leave the diabetic exposed to later hyperglycemia from late digesting carbs. Next, if SNY does indeed know the data, you have to try and suppose what their course of action will be given the results. Will they decide it's worthwhile pursuing the kind of large real life trial needed to demonstrate something more than "non-inferiority" that is needed to improve chances for third party reimbursement? With the results seen by some of the early adopters (assuming that data is reliable), I'd question some of your assumptions. It certainly seems that people can push A1c significantly lower on Afrezza without hypo problems than with traditional RAA. The earlier trials were not designed to show this. Further, if the people we've seen reporting results are at all indicative of what can be achieved by most, it doesn't seem like it would have to be an overly large trial to be statistically meaningful. The safety study needs to be very large/long by its very nature to capture the possible unlikely outcomes. If one needed thousands of patients to show better A1c/hypo results with statistical significance it would be results that would be uncommon enough that it wouldn't have financial significance to those deciding to pay for Afrezza. If a majority of users could safely achieve an A1c at least half percent lower with Afrezza than with trad RAA... wouldn't it be possible to have a meaningful study with 50-100 people? Though a counter argument to what I've stated would be... so why hasn't SNY started such a trial if it's not a huge cost? "With the results seen by some of the early adopters..." There is a reason why anecdotal evidence doesn't count in the eyes of insurers -- individual patients are notoriously unreliable sources of info. Although it might seem off-topic, this article about the reliability of eyewitnesses could apply to individual patient reports as well: reliability of individual testimonySimilarly, there are psychological elements in treating illness. People want to get better. They want a drug to work better. In their own minds they might highlight positive events, while finding excuses for instances where the drug didn't perform as well as expected. However, even objective measures like A1C, for example, can be affected by a variety of variables independent of afrezza. Perhaps the patient altered their lifestyle when they started afrezza -- began to exercise more, began to watch their diet more carefully, began to monitor their glucose more closely, began to be more proactive in terms of attending to hyperglycemic episodes, etc. All of that is the reason insurers rank blinded, controlled studies so highly as the gold standard. Indeed, why hasn't SNY announced a "real life" study similar to the ones it's doing for toujeo and praluent? The toujeo one is 3,200 patients, but the praluent one is only 500.
|
|
|
Post by rrtzmd on Dec 6, 2015 23:59:15 GMT -5
In reply to your assessment -- the part shown in red on my screen -- the first thing you should try and suppose is an explanation as to why the PD graph shown on the insert looks the way it does. That graph suggests that afrezza's time of onset and effect on glucose lowering is virtually the same as lispro for about the first 60 minutes. One of the trials just completed could indicate that the insert graph may, in fact, be spurious, but, of course, only SNY knows that data at present. However, if the graph turns out accurate, that means the only real differences from lispro is that afrezza can be inhaled and that it is removed from a diabetic's system more rapidly. While the first is a clear advantage, the second remains debatable. As I recall, the trials found no significant difference between the incidence of serious hypoglycemia between afrezza and lispro, and, as has been pointed out elsewhere, the rapid drop in the insulin levels may leave the diabetic exposed to later hyperglycemia from late digesting carbs. Next, if SNY does indeed know the data, you have to try and suppose what their course of action will be given the results. Will they decide it's worthwhile pursuing the kind of large real life trial needed to demonstrate something more than "non-inferiority" that is needed to improve chances for third party reimbursement? rrtzmd, post all graphs including lispro PD graph. The clamp study will produce them as well.
The Clamp Study Single Dose Clamp Study to Evaluate Concentration-time Profile and Metabolic Activity of 3 Dose Levels of Afrezza and 3 Dose Levels of Insulin Lispro in Patients With Type 1 Diabetes Mellitus www.clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT02470637
quote: if SNY does indeed know the data, you have to try and suppose what their course of action will be given the results reply: why don't you play suppose. that is the thread.
"post all the graphs..." Are you asking me to post the graphs? If so, this is the best I can do: afrezza insertThe relevant graph is shown on page 15 of the insert. As far as my own supposing, if the trial data matches the insert graph, then I suppose SNY will have make up their mind whether to do a real life study to demonstrate that afrezza is more effective at treating diabetes, since the graph suggests the only material difference in effect is the more rapid decline in insulin effect. That kind of data would suggest a large number of patients might be necessary to detect a difference and, given that SNY might also get the same 'non-inferior" results as well, I suppose they might not find it worth the risk. On the other hand, if the data does show a difference -- i.e. a significant earlier effect on glucose concentration than lispro -- I suppose they would still have to do some sort of real life trial to demonstrate cost effectiveness, but they might at least have an argument to convince third party payors to loosen the purse strings until the study is done.
|
|
|
Post by mnholdem on Dec 7, 2015 8:19:22 GMT -5
Perhaps some additional information from Al Mann might shed more light:
www.diabetesincontrol.com/an-exclusive-interview-with-al-mann-founder-and-ceo-mannkind-corp/
NOTE: This interview with Alfred Mann was conducted shortly after the announcement of Sanofi signing the License & Collaboration Agreement.
--- SF = Steve Freed, Interviewer, DiabetesInControl AM = Alfred Mann ---
SF: Do you recall what was the best drop of A1c?
AM: I don’t know the largest drop, but many Afrezza patients achieved HbA1cs under 7% and quite a large number even under 6.5%. Frankly part of the problem in the trials was that from experience with other insulins the fasting glucose was generally not lowered as it should have been; had that been done the A1c results would have been much better.
AM: ...I think that a problem during the trials was that some patients took their dose of Afrezza even before starting to eat. The trial protocols called for Afrezza to be dosed 'at the beginning of the meal,' but sometimes it was taken even before. We need to do additional trials to gain more experience with optimized dosing times. Actual ingestion of food in most meals in the United States except in restaurants takes only about 30 minutes, so I believe that the first Afrezza dose really ought to be taken ten or fifteen minutes after starting to eat. For a longer meal, which is not very common, a second dose might be taken fifty or sixty minutes after starting to eat. For a long feast that lasts for an hour and a half or more, I suggest a third dose be taken at maybe one and a half hours after start. Interestingly I believe the size of all those doses should probably be the same for most patients. Unfortunately the trial protocols called for dosing at the beginning of the meal so we will need to do more trials to be able to gain FDA label approval of optimized dosing.
AM: In the trials the fasting levels for the Afrezza patients was to be reduced to under 120 mg/dl or until there was a hypoglycemic incident, but out of habit that reduction of fasting glucose was generally not properly done. There is hardly any difference in the kinetics of Afrezza from that for the sum of published curves for the phase 1 and phase 2 spikes of normal pancreatic insulin. With Afrezza there is none of the excessive postprandial persistence of current prandial insulins which is a major cause of hypoglycemia and weight gain.
-----
SF: If someone gets a hypoglycemic reaction, is it predictable? Do we get a predictable response when glucagon is required compared to injected insulin?
AM: Any hypoglycemic incident in a patient using Afrezza would be treated in the same way as he/she would be treated today with any other exogenous insulins. We cannot make any claims about hypoglycemic risk since the label does not enable us to, but the kinetics of Afrezza were included in the package insert and those should suggest that unless the dose is taken on an empty stomach Afrezza should not cause a real hypoglycemic risk. During the prandial period it would be difficult to deliver enough Afrezza to cause a hypoglycemic incident and Afrezza is virtually gone before the digestion is completed. There should be almost no risk of a post prandial hypoglycemic event.
SF: But you have to be concerned about hypoglycemia if you take an inhaled dose, and for some reason your meal is delayed, there is still the chance of hypoglycemia, isn’t there?
AM: What I am saying is that a dose of Afrezza should really not be taken until after some food has already been ingested, so there should not be such a problem. However, the FDA only permits us in the label to say the dose should be taken “at the beginning of the meal.”
SF: Is that instruction not on the label to take it after you start eating?
AM: The label says the dose should be taken “at the beginning of the meal.” We are planning new trials to provide more data to validate what should be more optimal dosing protocols for most patients.
---
SF: Is there anything else you’d like to share? What are the biggest impacts, the biggest plusses, and are there any negatives?
AM: Unfortunately, we can’t make claims that are not in the label, so we can’t make specific claims about hypoglycemia or weight gain. All we can say is that Afrezza peaks in 12-15 minutes, and is virtually gone in 2½ to 3 hours and that is really about the same as for pancreatic physiologic insulin from a healthy person. We will be doing more trials to validate additional benefits.
SF: But didn’t you show that there is less hypoglycemia than regular prandial insulins?
AM: Well, the package insert has data that shows less hypoglycemia, but the written word part of the label does not allow us to make that claim.
SF: So, when a representative goes into the doctor’s office, he’s going to say that the onset is more rapid?
AM: I can’t really answer that. The physician presentation will primarily be up to Sanofi.
----
SF: In final, I would like to congratulate you. I’ve been paying attention to Afrezza since the beginning and all the troubles you had to go through. I figured eventually you were just going to drop out of the process but you had so much invested into it, in time and energy. I think most people would have just dropped and said, just forget it!
AM: First of all, you have to understand that I am about 89 years old, so I’m not worried about supporting my family or myself for the rest of my life. My family has already been cared for financially. My personal commitment for decades has been in trying to solve unmet or poorly met medical needs, and not just in diabetes. I’ve fostered many developments that have made substantial differences in peoples’ lives though diabetes is the greatest medical problem faced today throughout the entire world, and the need is enormous. There are close to a billion people with either diabetes or pre-diabetes who should benefit from Afrezza. The problem we have earlier faced was completion of the US regulatory process but now Afrezza is approved. Most other countries outside of Europe actually rely to a large extent on the US or EU to foster local approval, so use in much of the world will soon become possible. The problem will be in creating greater manufacturing capacity.
|
|
|
Post by kball on Dec 7, 2015 8:56:56 GMT -5
^ Love reading Al. Not a hint of bitterness with all the difficulties and roadblocks past and future
|
|
|
Post by stevil on Dec 7, 2015 9:00:43 GMT -5
Right? Man on a mission. Doesn't accept defeat. Each time a door shuts, he looks for a way around the wall.
|
|
|
Post by straightly on Dec 7, 2015 11:43:14 GMT -5
I share the Admiration. But we still have to deal with the Capitalists. Our stock will not bottom until SNP do/show something make people what to be stock holder with no power like us, or somebody want to pry Afrezza from SNP.
What will the price tag be for the later? It is not the sub 700m cap mnkd has. But anybody want to give an educated estimate? This will help understand mnkd ' s valuation.
|
|
|
Post by nylefty on Dec 7, 2015 11:54:26 GMT -5
I share the Admiration. But we still have to deal with the Capitalists. Our stock will not bottom until SNP do/show something make people what to be stock holder with no power like us, or somebody want to pry Afrezza from SNP. What will the price tag be for the later? It is not the sub 700m cap mnkd has. But anybody want to give an educated estimate? This will help understand mnkd ' s valuation. What does China Petroleum & Chemical Corp. (SNP) have to do with MNKD?
|
|
|
Post by straightly on Dec 7, 2015 12:13:37 GMT -5
SNY :-(
|
|
|
Post by mnholdem on Dec 7, 2015 12:32:48 GMT -5
Al Mann remains adamant that, if you get Afrezza to become accessible to patients (which shareholders have become painfully aware involves many unexpected hurdles) then the share price will eventually take care of itself. In the interview excerpts (above) Al states that over a billion people can benefit from Afrezza.
That number of patients - a billion - is what first attracted Sanofi and, IMHO, is what will cause Sanofi to either remain MannKind's partner or to acquire all the rights to Afrezza.
Frankly, as long-time shareholders can attest, those "Capitalists" and MNKD share prices are the very last thing that Alfred E. Mann is concerned about, even though he remains MannKind's largest shareholder.
|
|
|
Post by mssciguy on Dec 7, 2015 12:47:06 GMT -5
Al Mann remains adamant that, if you get Afrezza to become accessible to patients (which shareholders have become painfully aware involves many unexpected hurdles) then the share price will eventually take care of itself. In the interview excerpts (above) Al states that over a billion people can benefit from Afrezza.
That number of patients - a billion - is what first attracted Sanofi and, IMHO, is what will cause Sanofi to either remain MannKind's partner or to acquire all the rights to Afrezza.
Frankly, as long-time shareholders can attest, those "Capitalists" and MNKD share prices are the very last thing that Alfred E. Mann is concerned about, even though he remains MannKind's largest shareholder.
But Sanofi said otherwise last fall, that Afrezza would be suitable for a small subset of patients (at least initially). At this point, Al Mann is out of the picture. Sanofi is driving now and as the MNKD discussion goes on the German boards, the Germans "do not trust the French driving" ... I posted a link to that board on the Social Media category. It's hilarious how the German translates to English, recommend Just click the translate to English buttons on your browser mnkd.proboards.com/thread/4334/social-media-mnkd-discussion-germanyNote that proboards MNKD discussion is mentioned and linked to here
|
|
|
Post by jeremg on Dec 7, 2015 12:51:08 GMT -5
I share the Admiration. But we still have to deal with the Capitalists. Our stock will not bottom until SNP do/show something make people what to be stock holder with no power like us, or somebody want to pry Afrezza from SNP. What will the price tag be for the later? It is not the sub 700m cap mnkd has. But anybody want to give an educated estimate? This will help understand mnkd ' s valuation. What does China Petroleum & Chemical Corp. (SNP) have to do with MNKD? I was guessing "Single Nucleotide Polymorphism", but your guess is at least closer to the meat of things
|
|