|
Post by esstan2001 on Oct 17, 2014 9:49:23 GMT -5
Eli Lilly has Forteo (an expensive, daily injectable (e-coli derived) recombinant PTH for bone density and pagetts disease. It works to increase bone formation instead of halting resorption as all the bisphosphonates like Fosomax, Actonel, Boniva, etc. do. Unigene (Bkpt- IP and assets now in a new company beginning with 'E' can't remember) had a PII next gen enteric coated oral PTH that looked good, but partner GSK backed out, variable bioavailability was always suspected but not clear that was an issue any more.
This market is the osteoporosis, osteo-athritis space. BIG.
|
|
|
Post by esstan2001 on Sept 29, 2014 14:06:34 GMT -5
I think Bernie Madoff would 'like' your post :-)
|
|
|
Post by esstan2001 on Sept 29, 2014 11:36:49 GMT -5
IMO this articles claims to present a balanced review are weak. How can they possibly view naked SS as unlikely to have detrimental effects on capital markets, and as a vehicle to provide socially valuable pricing signals...
NAKED short selling is transacting NOTHING mixed in together with market of real securities. It has to create distortions well beyond that of compliant shorting based on borrowed or located shares. Here is my solution to provide balance- NAKED LONG BUYING (oh, I can hear the comments now...)
While we are at it, lets do it with Money that we can not borrow, and does not exist either (I think the Gov't can supply us some of that)
:-)
|
|
|
Post by esstan2001 on Sept 1, 2014 19:49:10 GMT -5
thanks Liane. Boxes were so faint I missed them.
|
|
|
Post by esstan2001 on Sept 1, 2014 19:32:54 GMT -5
>50k shares / >50k wts
how do I vote, or do I just list here as above?
|
|
|
Post by esstan2001 on Aug 19, 2014 13:53:13 GMT -5
I agree that it would be something like a weighted portion of the sales budget, then the agreement split applied, as you laid out; not capturing each visit cost and working it in that manner.
Marketing efforts may be treated different, as Sanofi can clearly ID those that are associated with Afrezza.
|
|
|
Post by esstan2001 on Aug 19, 2014 11:16:45 GMT -5
if understanding of the deal ultimately crystallizes like this (thru the deal disclosure or anal-ysts analysis), I think the s.p. will adjust upward a buck or 2 IMO (worth roughly 600 mil to market cap to the Co.?) to move us in hte 8-9 area.
|
|
|
Post by esstan2001 on Aug 19, 2014 11:04:19 GMT -5
another point- maybe the sales costs will be apportioned based on how many diabetic products are presented from the portfolio on a typical visit; so if they are hawking 3 meds, 1/3 is charged to the JV...
|
|
|
Post by esstan2001 on Jul 8, 2014 13:55:31 GMT -5
a few points people should consider based on what was written here-
Insulin may be commoditized as you say, but this proprietary delivery method and time of action is certainly not; and this alone can warrant a premium to the pricing, that being left up to the really good marketing guys to figure out...
Nearly unfathomable how the 'faster action and ease of use will mean nothing if'... Isn't the faster acting responsible for the lower highs and higher lows, associated with less strain on the body's cells, the pancreas etc? The health benefits over injected fast acting insulin will surely spread by word of mouth to other diabetics and drive demand...
Bottom line, regardless of how good or bad marketing is (and I vote for good) at some point barring any undiscovered longer term side effect, when patients using Afrezza are leading more normal, healthy, energetic lives, other diabetics will notice and be asking their doctors for the switch.
|
|
|
Post by esstan2001 on Jul 2, 2014 21:50:19 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by esstan2001 on Jun 27, 2014 15:44:09 GMT -5
Congrats to all that held! Happy it came early and when unexpected. Less anticipatory ogeda. Monday will be interesting. Have to read the full label, waiting for the Mannkind official pr.
|
|
|
Post by esstan2001 on Jun 6, 2014 16:03:10 GMT -5
This Pharmalot guy (Ed Silverman) penned some other articles for SA of the same 'well what if this doesn't happen' vein; and he only cites David Cliff, who has been one of the most negative opinion people that Adam F could ever find... there is no other side presented in this 'article'.
I am surprised that this found it's way into the WSJ; journalistic standards must be eroding there too now. I would not be surprised if this is another favor (along with the bulk of the recent press) to help the shorts cover some positions.
|
|
|
Post by esstan2001 on Apr 18, 2014 12:05:08 GMT -5
yes! Also, Dr. James worked at MSMB Capital Mgmt., which was Schrekle's Hedge fund.
|
|
|
Post by esstan2001 on Apr 7, 2014 16:04:15 GMT -5
"I'm just a little worried because there are so many of these 'dimwitted' statements by the FDA, that it starts looking like they are intentionally crafted to achieve a goal."
I tend to wonder if the shorts had a mole in the FDA since their talking points mirrored what was published in the Briefing Docs so well... I too also wonder if the FDA had an unfriendly agenda (political, BigPharma, or just adversarially motivated)
I think we will be OK as the reviewers are not generally the deciders... at this point they need to generate a supporting presentation that justifies the AdCom result, IMO they do not have any other choice.
The suggestion to write your congress person is as the Brit's tend to say, 'Brilliant'. I will be following up on that.
|
|
|
Post by esstan2001 on Apr 7, 2014 15:33:53 GMT -5
dimwits...
a)who else would suggest titrating Insulin Aspart up in the non-TI arm of the T1 trial? or b)suggest high insulin injection dosing in rats to see if there will be lung carcinogen signals?
I think the investigator's answers were a) if I did that, I would likely kill the patient and b) the rats would die of a hypoglycemic event
Reviewers in a diabetic drug trial that exhibit a total lack of understanding of how the drugs work... these are green kids. There is no longer much continuity in terms of knowledgeable FDA staff for these long term drug reviews.
All the experienced career researchers and reviewers have since retired. Why wouldn't they.
|
|