|
Post by rockstarrick on Jan 26, 2019 14:04:49 GMT -5
I wonder why nobody else on here ever thought this before. Man mnholdem, you a smart guy. Respectfully, I've made the same point several times in the past, as recent as a few weeks ago. But it's all good. mnkd.proboards.com/post/166267"It would be interesting to know whether these promised articles have been written and submitted yet or not. And if they have been, which journals the authors may be targetting. If they are hitting top tier medical journals, the acceptance rates for those journals may be very low. I googled it now, and JAMA's is 11%; The Lancet is about 5%. Of course, those are top tier journals. But even many lesser journals still have very low acceptance rates. I guess what I am saying is that publishing may turn out to be more difficult than Kendall etc. expected, if they are trying to publish in good journals and the referees are inherently skeptical." Read more: mnkd.proboards.com/thread/8970/michael-kovacocy-mannkind-comments?page=65#ixzz5ddweLN33Maybe for someone like the CEO of VDEX, or even Mike Castagna, but I’m fairly sure that when Kendal speaks, a lot of people still listen. i highly doubt that joining mnkd has caused him to lose any respect that he may have had from the Industry. Sure, it may take time and more trials to get the type of exposure he is looking for, but I’m sure Kendal knows the steps required, and I’m even more sure he is taking them. There will be a tipping point, the million dollar question is when. Your guess is as good as mine. ✌🏻😎
|
|
|
Post by mnkdfann on Jan 26, 2019 14:16:31 GMT -5
Respectfully, I've made the same point several times in the past, as recent as a few weeks ago. But it's all good. mnkd.proboards.com/post/166267"It would be interesting to know whether these promised articles have been written and submitted yet or not. And if they have been, which journals the authors may be targetting. If they are hitting top tier medical journals, the acceptance rates for those journals may be very low. I googled it now, and JAMA's is 11%; The Lancet is about 5%. Of course, those are top tier journals. But even many lesser journals still have very low acceptance rates. I guess what I am saying is that publishing may turn out to be more difficult than Kendall etc. expected, if they are trying to publish in good journals and the referees are inherently skeptical." Read more: mnkd.proboards.com/thread/8970/michael-kovacocy-mannkind-comments?page=65#ixzz5ddweLN33Maybe for someone like the CEO of VDEX, or even Mike Castagna, but I’m fairly sure that when Kendal speaks, a lot of people still listen. i highly doubt that joining mnkd has caused him to lose any respect that he may have had from the Industry. Sure, it may take time and more trials to get the type of exposure he is looking for, but I’m sure Kendal knows the steps required, and I’m even more sure he is taking them. There will be a tipping point, the million dollar question is when. Your guess is as good as mine. ✌🏻😎 I'm not sure what you are replying to. I didn't say people wouldn't listen to Kendall, I didn't say anyone had lost respect for him. Perhaps you don't understand how papers are refereed? Top journals have low acceptance rates, no matter who you are. Most have blinded refereeing, so the referees won't even know the paper is written by Kendall. Since Afrezza is so relatively new and so few researchers have experience with it, the referees are (IMO) more likely than not going to be cautious or skeptical about any paper on it. That's just how referees often operate. And Kendall can't quicken the steps to it takes to publish in a top tier journal. If that's what he is trying to do, it will take him about as much time as it would take anyone else (and that could be a long while). If some overworked referee is sitting on the paper (or has forgotten about it until the Associate Editor gets around to sending another reminder), there is not much he can do about that, either.
|
|
|
Post by rockstarrick on Jan 26, 2019 14:41:05 GMT -5
I guess I misinterpreted your words “publishing may turn out to be more difficult than Kendal expected” And in my defense, I did say “it may take more time, and more trials to get the type of exposure he is looking for” But I am sure that Kendal knows exactly what it will take, and I am more than sure he is taking the appropriate steps. Also, depending on the type or significance of the data, I’m also confident that Kendal will ensure it is evaluated in a timely manner. I would imagine Kendal has dealt with the folks involved with these medical journals at least once, but more likely several times. Just a guess.
Sorry for misinterpreting your comment, or maybe my wording was misleading. Regardless, I think we can all agree, Kendal is the man for this Job. Have a great weekend. ✌🏻😎
|
|
|
Post by boca1girl on Jan 26, 2019 15:32:04 GMT -5
CNBC is looking for nominations for their 2019 Disrupter 50 list.
I hope Vdex applies this year. Sports, can you nudge them?
|
|
|
Post by sayhey24 on Jan 26, 2019 17:28:55 GMT -5
I am giving Dr. Kendall the benefit of the doubt on the publications and he is planning to submit them for the Big Show in San Fran in June. I hope I am not wrong about this. We keep hoping for miracles every June since Sanofi and crickets. So, not hoping anymore for ANYYHING. Surprise me I say. I thought Dr. Kendall did pretty well last year at ADA2018 which resulted to real changes in the Standard of Care, especially only since he was not even there a year. Granted, the changes which were made are only a start but the conversation has started. Guys like Edelman were pretty quick on afrezza for awhile but seem to be talking it up a lot now.
Who knows maybe we see more VDex like clinics in the near future, too.
|
|
|
Post by sportsrancho on Jan 26, 2019 18:45:39 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by mnholdem on Jan 26, 2019 19:09:19 GMT -5
Maybe for someone like the CEO of VDEX, or even Mike Castagna, but I’m fairly sure that when Kendal speaks, a lot of people still listen. i highly doubt that joining mnkd has caused him to lose any respect that he may have had from the Industry. Sure, it may take time and more trials to get the type of exposure he is looking for, but I’m sure Kendal knows the steps required, and I’m even more sure he is taking them. There will be a tipping point, the million dollar question is when. Your guess is as good as mine. ✌🏻😎 I'm not sure what you are replying to. I didn't say people wouldn't listen to Kendall, I didn't say anyone had lost respect for him. Perhaps you don't understand how papers are refereed? Top journals have low acceptance rates, no matter who you are. Most have blinded refereeing, so the referees won't even know the paper is written by Kendall. Since Afrezza is so relatively new and so few researchers have experience with it, the referees are (IMO) more likely than not going to be cautious or skeptical about any paper on it. That's just how referees often operate. And Kendall can't quicken the steps to it takes to publish in a top tier journal. If that's what he is trying to do, it will take him about as much time as it would take anyone else (and that could be a long while). If some overworked referee is sitting on the paper (or has forgotten about it until the Associate Editor gets around to sending another reminder), there is not much he can do about that, either. I don't quite understand your use of the term "referee" (maybe the NFL playoffs is influencing your choice of words?). The primary criteria for inclusion/acceptance into Lancet, NEJM and AMA includes whether the data/paper submission is medically relevant (aka viable alternative to current practices) and includes verifiable references to all data supportive of any claims. Reviewers meticulously validate the data behind the claim(s) So one of the most common actions that delays publication are reviewer requests for additional supportive references. For example, if the authors wrote that Time-in-Range has been acknowledged as an important and key measurement for diabetes treatment, Lancet may request a footnote (if one wasn't provided) to a reference which validates such a statement, such as publications from the Beyond A1c conference conducted by the FDA with key diabetes leaders.
|
|
|
Post by sportsrancho on Jan 29, 2019 15:00:37 GMT -5
CNBC is looking for nominations for their 2019 Disrupter 50 list. I hope Vdex applies this year. Sports, can you nudge them?
|
|
|
Post by mnkdfann on Jan 29, 2019 17:31:21 GMT -5
I'm not sure what you are replying to. I didn't say people wouldn't listen to Kendall, I didn't say anyone had lost respect for him. Perhaps you don't understand how papers are refereed? Top journals have low acceptance rates, no matter who you are. Most have blinded refereeing, so the referees won't even know the paper is written by Kendall. Since Afrezza is so relatively new and so few researchers have experience with it, the referees are (IMO) more likely than not going to be cautious or skeptical about any paper on it. That's just how referees often operate. And Kendall can't quicken the steps to it takes to publish in a top tier journal. If that's what he is trying to do, it will take him about as much time as it would take anyone else (and that could be a long while). If some overworked referee is sitting on the paper (or has forgotten about it until the Associate Editor gets around to sending another reminder), there is not much he can do about that, either. I don't quite understand your use of the term "referee" (maybe the NFL playoffs is influencing your choice of words?). The primary criteria for inclusion/acceptance into Lancet, NEJM and AMA includes whether the data/paper submission is medically relevant (aka viable alternative to current practices) and includes verifiable references to all data supportive of any claims. Reviewers meticulously validate the data behind the claim(s) So one of the most common actions that delays publication are reviewer requests for additional supportive references. For example, if the authors wrote that Time-in-Range has been acknowledged as an important and key measurement for diabetes treatment, Lancet may request a footnote (if one wasn't provided) to a reference which validates such a statement, such as publications from the Beyond A1c conference conducted by the FDA with key diabetes leaders. By referee, I just mean reviewer. In my field(s), the two words are pretty much used interchangeably, and the words review and referee can be nouns and / or verbs. Wiley (a big journal publisher as I'm sure you know) uses both phrases: authorservices.wiley.com/Reviewers/index.html"We want to do everything we can to support reviewers (also sometimes known as "referees") and to recognize their contribution." Lancet, an example you brought up, talks of reviewers who referee in its review process. ees.elsevier.com/thelancet/"Welcome to the online submission and peer review system for The Lancet. This site enables authors to submit material online, reviewers to referee online, and editors to manage the peer-review process." No biggie.
|
|
|
Post by mnholdem on Jan 29, 2019 18:32:48 GMT -5
Got it.
|
|
|
Post by xanet on Jan 29, 2019 19:36:27 GMT -5
I'm not sure what you are replying to. I didn't say people wouldn't listen to Kendall, I didn't say anyone had lost respect for him. Perhaps you don't understand how papers are refereed? Top journals have low acceptance rates, no matter who you are. Most have blinded refereeing, so the referees won't even know the paper is written by Kendall. Since Afrezza is so relatively new and so few researchers have experience with it, the referees are (IMO) more likely than not going to be cautious or skeptical about any paper on it. That's just how referees often operate. And Kendall can't quicken the steps to it takes to publish in a top tier journal. If that's what he is trying to do, it will take him about as much time as it would take anyone else (and that could be a long while). If some overworked referee is sitting on the paper (or has forgotten about it until the Associate Editor gets around to sending another reminder), there is not much he can do about that, either. I don't quite understand your use of the term "referee" (maybe the NFL playoffs is influencing your choice of words?). The primary criteria for inclusion/acceptance into Lancet, NEJM and AMA includes whether the data/paper submission is medically relevant (aka viable alternative to current practices) and includes verifiable references to all data supportive of any claims. Reviewers meticulously validate the data behind the claim(s) So one of the most common actions that delays publication are reviewer requests for additional supportive references. For example, if the authors wrote that Time-in-Range has been acknowledged as an important and key measurement for diabetes treatment, Lancet may request a footnote (if one wasn't provided) to a reference which validates such a statement, such as publications from the Beyond A1c conference conducted by the FDA with key diabetes leaders. I review for a number of journals, not medical, but same process. Including references is pretty minor in the review process. More important questions are: "What new knowledge does this study add to the literature, and is it relevant to the scope of this journal?" "Are the experimental design and statistical analysis appropriate, and do the presented results arise directly from the analysis?"
|
|
|
Post by lakers on Feb 4, 2019 1:40:26 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by sportsrancho on Feb 4, 2019 10:11:11 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by Clement on Feb 4, 2019 10:20:58 GMT -5
-- from the AerBetic website: "When a diabetic episode is occurring, the skin and breath emit certain gases. Dogs have been in service helping diabetics since 2003. These animals are trained to use their keen sense of smell to detect those gases in diabetics and alert them to a possible episode. AerBetic uses state-of-the-art nanotechnology in very small air sensors that can detect these same gases at the parts per billion level. Our sensors, integrated into our wearable devices such as bracelets and pendants, are programmed to detect the gases indicative of hypoglycemic and hyperglycemic episodes." www.aerbetic.com/An AerBetic bracelet is non-invasive. Nothing pierces the skin. It does not give a direct reading of blood glucose, but it might be that you would have a record of TIR (time in range), which would be very amazing. (If you know when hyper- and hypo-glycemic episodes occur, then you also know TIR for a range defined by the episodes.) I'll be interested in following this one. Could Mannkind partner with these guys?
|
|
|
Post by mnkdfann on Feb 4, 2019 10:52:31 GMT -5
AerBetic is still a work in progress. It is a nice idea, time will show if it evolves beyond vapourware. youtu.be/4mdm2JKwz_Q
|
|