Recent Posts

UTHR 6 month chart daily
Looks like a cup and handle since Dec 14.

Think of it this way. MNKD was loaned money at 2.5%. So, the lender gets that till the loan is paid off. Now the lender shorts the stock when the share price is above the conversion price of $5.21, but below the call price which in this case is 130% of the conversion price $6.77. Now they have made another profit and have all their money back to use in another venture. Only risk is if their note gets called, so you want it to stay below the call price $6.77
remember you need to be above the call price for 20 out of 30 days. (note if the lender did not get a chance to short all the shares that they can convert this is a good time to short more). So that is the thesis for the lenders wanting to keep the share price low. The problem the lenders have now is that MNKD has the cash to pay them with instead of issuing shares. So, the question is what if the lender is shorting what is their tolerance for risk.

If you could prove that Afrezza stopped the progression of T2 it would be huge and undoubtably make Afrezza the SoC choice. However, that is at least a five year trial with a lot of people so it would cost far more than $50M. I really don't like to think how much that would cost, usually only government entities run trials that big.

Bill continuing the conversation:

“Here’s the key to circumventing PBMs and bundling. Bundling is a way the drug companies get drugs put on formulary that otherwise might not get on. Why is that? Because there are other drugs that are substitutes. This explains why Humalog and Novolog are rarely on together. They are substitutes. The Drug companies give a bigger discount to the PBM/insurance co when they put multiple drugs (bundling) from same manufacturer. It’s a form of volume discounting. In effect the manufacturer buys its way in to PBM for a drug the might otherwise be excluded because the plan might get a bigger discount from the substitute. So Lilly will give a bigger discount on its RAA when the PBM puts other Lilly drugs on formulary. Now I’m certain I don’t know half of the ways the drug companies “buy their way in.” But if a drug has no substitute AND provides “medically necessary” then it must be covered. This is why there are some insanely expensive drugs covered. There is no direct substitute and the care is medically necessary.

So with Afrezza the data would establish that there is no substitute. In fact that was MNKDs strategy for getting Afrezza put into a different class (“ultra rapid acting”). If it’s the only one then no substitute. Now that’s only half the battle bc one still has to establish “medical necessity.” You could imagine a PBM/insurance co to argue that A1c can be controlled without Afrezza and that then while unique, Afrezza doesn’t really offer medically necessary care. That reasoning could be negated by showing that Afrezza allows for significantly lower A1c (with no increase in hypos and in fact a decrease in hypos). The reason that argument works for “medical necessity” is bc most patients can’t get A1c down to ADA targets. ADA has defined “medical necessity” with their targets.

Last point and my apologies for the length of this. I’d also argue that Afrezza halts the progression of diabetes. The data through our experience at Vdex backs this up. So you add to the medical necessity claim and the uniqueness claim that Afrezza halts the progression of the disease. Is that medically necessary? Hell yes it is bc otherwise the disease either directly or indirectly kills most who get it. No one would dare argue against it. And the marketing and patient demand would soon overwhelm resistance. Then the PBMs would be MNKDs best friend.”
~ Bill McCullough, CEO, Vdex Diabetes

Was the full presentation released somewhere?  I've only seen the one slide posted here.  What were the results on hypos?  That one slide made it seem like in the first two hours no one in either the Afrezza group or the RAA group even returned to to pre meal levels, much less going hypo.  Though I wouldn't expect hypos to show up in the first two hours.

Well, if you don't want to watch the video maybe you would want to buy Calley Means book.   I thought Carlson was the CNN Crossfire guy and the guy Fox fired.  He does do some interesting interview.  I thought the Jordan Belfort one is very interesting.

Calley goes through the control BP has.  The interview is not so much about Ozempic.  I think its worth watching and Carlson usually lets the guest do most of the talking - just fast forward through Carlson.  With the Putin interview I thought that was really interesting too.  Moscow looks like a beautiful city probably funded mostly by oil and gas sales which Putin would rather get back to.  With Carlson there was a strong rumor the Ukrainians tried to blow up his car with an UID.  I don't know if its true but even Newsweek didn't really refute it 100%.

Why is Ro a lot cheaper?  Cheaper than what?  You still need to buy the Ozempic.  If we had Saxenda DPI they could be buying that a lot cheaper if we went direct.  I saw Oprah was just forced off the board of weight watchers after she admitted to using Ozempic.  WW could be a Saxenda DPI partner.