|
Post by mnkdfann on Jan 26, 2019 18:24:16 GMT -5
You are at the correct link, begin filling it out, it will provide you the option. Once again mnkdfann, you seem to have only brought forward the verbiage you wanted shown and "dumped the meat and potatoes" back in the stream. Actually, I think you were editing your post while I was posting mine. So what I quoted was current at the time. Or else the message board editing window was acting up.
|
|
|
Post by mnkdfann on Jan 26, 2019 18:22:47 GMT -5
You may be correct, we will see. Did her cat steal an image and present itself as such? (Now that is satire) It may just put a jackass on a watch list, who knows? I know electronic fraud is currently a hot button issue. Though, it is nice to see your interest. P.S. It is very easy to file.FWIW, reporting silly time-wasting things to authorities can also get you on a list, or worse. Like people who call 911 to report a late pizza delivery and such. But I'm no legal expert, so knock yourself out. You may well be correct.
|
|
|
Post by mnkdfann on Jan 26, 2019 18:16:46 GMT -5
Well that will go exactly nowhere - the first amendment sees to that as it's plainly satire. My mother had a cat called Admiral Poindexter, but that wasn't identity theft either. You may be correct, we will see. Did her cat steal an image and present itself as such? (Now that is satire) I know electronic fraud is a currently a hot button issue. Though, it is nice to see your interest. P.S. It is very easy to file.Link to file? I'm just curious. I found this: www.identitytheft.gov/ But it looks like you have to be a victim to report an ID theft. Anyway, I agree with Aged. IMO, using a photo and name of a public figure on Stock Twits as is being done in this case is akin to satire and far from 'real' identity theft.
|
|
|
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 mnkdfann on Jan 25, 2019 12:57:24 GMT -5
I think CMO Kendall made a strong point about the lack of medical publication of tens years of clinical study data. I’m hoping that one of the causes behind the current dearth of publications is because Dr Kendall is trying to get publications approved in some major medical journals. The approval process can be quite lengthy. 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#ixzz5ddweLN33
|
|
|
Post by mnkdfann on Jan 25, 2019 12:51:17 GMT -5
I liked the fact that Afrezza was in the table at the top of the list, but very dissapointed that the 1st FAQ did not even address inhalation. Common Questions Why do I have to inject insulin? Insulin must be injected because it is a protein. If it were taken orally, the body's digestive system would break it down, rendering it useless. It seemed like a big disconnect for me. And if this info was intended for use by children, why wouldn’t there be an “*” next to Afrezza explaining that it is currently in Phase II trials for pediatric use but approved for adults? Yes have to agree. With two ways of receiving insulin it should now read why do I have to “take” insulin. I think it needs to be more specific, as simply saying 'take' would include taking orally. Better something like "Why can I not take insulin orally?" and the answer revised appropriately.
|
|
|
Post by mnkdfann on Jan 22, 2019 21:52:51 GMT -5
I'm not necessarily. Aged suggested that Eagle offered a 180 pack 'mix'. I noted that the website says nothing about a mix being on offer. It just says "Each pricing option is available in the following dosage: 4 Units, 8 Units, 12 Units". It may be that the 180 option is 180 cartridges all the same type. Geez, sort of sorry I even commented on this. Still, it would be nice if Eagle would clarify on its site what is being offered. Here is what is being offered $120 for a single 90 count box of 4, 8 or 12 Unit Afrezza Cartridges or $199 for any 180 count Afrezza combination box of 4, 8, and/or 12 Units.
For the first 1,000 registrants under this initial Direct Purchase Program Offer, prices are guaranteed for 12 months from time of first fill.
Very good, I thank you.
|
|
|
Post by mnkdfann on Jan 22, 2019 20:18:24 GMT -5
I'm not necessarily. Aged suggested that Eagle offered a 180 pack 'mix'. I noted that the website says nothing about a mix being on offer. It just says "Each pricing option is available in the following dosage: 4 Units, 8 Units, 12 Units". It may be that the 180 option is 180 cartridges all the same type. Geez, sort of sorry I even commented on this. Still, it would be nice if Eagle would clarify on its site what is being offered. They offer the titration pack at $199. This is really going around in circles. How do you know?
Would you please direct me to something / a link that clearly states it is the titration pack that is being offered?
People keep suggesting the 180 option is the titration pack, but AFAIK it does not say that on the Eagle site. It is not a big deal, I just prefer accuracy over well intended guesses.
|
|
|
Post by mnkdfann on Jan 22, 2019 16:43:55 GMT -5
Peppy, I know what SKUs are, I don't know what they mean. Are they the ONLY way the product is allowed to be distributed? Are there other formats allowed? E.g., some non-SKU format for Eagle? no clue. Why would you believe another NDC number would be used for Eagle? I'm not necessarily. Aged suggested that Eagle offered a 180 pack 'mix'. I noted that the website says nothing about a mix being on offer. It just says "Each pricing option is available in the following dosage: 4 Units, 8 Units, 12 Units". It may be that the 180 option is 180 cartridges all the same type. Geez, sort of sorry I even commented on this. Still, it would be nice if Eagle would clarify on its site what is being offered.
|
|
|
Post by mnkdfann on Jan 22, 2019 16:26:04 GMT -5
Peppy, I know what SKUs are, I don't know what they mean. Are they the ONLY way the product is allowed to be distributed? Are there other formats allowed? E.g., some non-SKU format for Eagle?
|
|
|
Post by mnkdfann on Jan 22, 2019 15:38:29 GMT -5
As far as I can see, neither the 90 or 180 is necessarily a 'mix'. The site says "Each pricing option is available in the following dosage: 4 Units, 8 Units, 12 Units". A mix would make sense, but since when do things make sense. I am not sure, but there are two SKUs for 180 cartridge packs. One is for 90x4u and 90x8u, and the other is for 60x4u, 60x8u, and 60x12u. I'm not informed about what SKUs mean exactly. You mean those are the packagings available to pharmacies / distributors from Mannkind? Assuming you are correct, the Eagle Pharmacy page is not conveying that a 'mix' is a possibility. Is it possible that Mannkind is supplying Eagle with a different packaging?
|
|
|
Post by mnkdfann on Jan 22, 2019 12:45:43 GMT -5
Would like some clarification. 90 day supply or 90 cartridge supply. If so wow. That is great! However, if used with every meal, thay would be 3 cartridges per day, totaling 90 cartrdiges month. Of course if only used for corrections, considerably less. 90 cartridges although of any size. I think the titration pack with a mix of sizes at $199 for 180 cartridges is a better choice if you are buying. Unless you are using it just for corrections a single box is not going to be enough for a month if you follow the STAT protocol. As far as I can see, neither the 90 or 180 is necessarily a 'mix'. The site says "Each pricing option is available in the following dosage: 4 Units, 8 Units, 12 Units". A mix would make sense, but since when do things make sense.
|
|
|
Post by mnkdfann on Jan 21, 2019 13:12:21 GMT -5
www.richardcsinger.com/page-1
"VDEX seeking control of AFREZZA from MannKind via Royalty Agreement. As part of this strategy VDEX would be open to Equity Investors."
What is the royalty agreement to which it refers? Is it hinting that maybe Mannkind intends to sell afrezza altogether?
Looks like that came out of a brainstorming session at a small conference hosted by a sm allish Investor Relations group in a hotel (The Mirage ) in Vegas. It attracted 2 or 3 participants. My guess is that the IR group was trying to network companies and develop investable solutions it can make money off of (by doing the deal). Personally, I don't read much into it. VDEX is on this board, perhaps it / they will comment?
|
|
|
Post by mnkdfann on Jan 19, 2019 22:28:33 GMT -5
So what will we get out of this media marketing campaign where will it be? "A major television campaign is to launch on January 14th from 26 national cable networks as well as on local TV stations" I assumed that he meant that the commercials would run nationwide on 26 cable networks (instead of the "selected markets" targeted in the "pilot" campaigns). I also assumed that the local TV stations would be in the markets where we have reps. But I could be wrong. Mike's full statement was "A major television campaign is to launch on January 14th from 26 national cable networks as well as on local TV stations that align to our growing, but targeting salesforce strategy." So it certainly does seem logical to think that these local stations would be in places where there are reps.
|
|
|
Post by mnkdfann on Jan 18, 2019 23:40:04 GMT -5
I wondered the same, and is it common or standard for pharma’s to have contracts with health insurance companies? I guess it depends what sort of contract it is. According to a document from the Kaiser Family Foundation, it sounds as though at least some contracts are standard practice. "PBMs negotiate with pharmaceutical manufacturers for rebates on products selected for the formulary. Rebate amounts are based on the contracts negotiated between the PBM and plan sponsors and the PBM and manufacturers. Typically, contracts are structured so that PBMs retain a portion of the rebate in exchange for developing the formulary and negotiating with manufacturers." Pharmacy Benefit Managers (PBMs): Approximately two-thirds of all prescriptions written in the U.S. are processed by a PBM; PBMs may achieve savings for their customers by negotiating discounts and through cost containment programs, including use of formularies and cost sharing. The above is all from a document titled "Follow the Pill: Understanding the U.S. Commercial Pharmaceutical Supply Chain". The link is too long to post, but you can google the document. From Wikipedia: As of 2016, PBMs managed pharmacy benefits for 266 million Americans. PBMs operate inside of integrated healthcare systems (e.g., Kaiser or VA), as part of retail pharmacies (e.g., CVS Pharmacy or Rite-Aid), and as part of insurance companies (e.g., UnitedHealth Group).
|
|