|
Post by dreamboatcruise on May 4, 2018 13:27:59 GMT -5
If we add 50,000 more patients a month ... then, ... WE NEED TO BUILD MORE PRODUCTION PLANTS NOW !!! QUICK... Start Building!! OMG, it seemed like just yesterday we had way too much capacity.
|
|
|
Post by dreamboatcruise on May 4, 2018 12:57:07 GMT -5
Good news taste much better without skepticism. I am going to take this and run with it! Thank you, more good things to come. Good news is better when it is not incorrect. Here's hoping it isn't. But I guess it gives a good excuse to drink champagne midday for those that want to run with it. Given fomularylookup.com did this before (and I "ran with it" then), put me down as once bitten twice shy... but fingers crossed. Perhaps others could check their own insurance coverage against what formularylookup.com is saying for their plan.
|
|
|
Post by dreamboatcruise on May 4, 2018 12:21:20 GMT -5
If memory serves there was one previous time when formularylookup had a glitch and radically incorrect numbers were posted for awhile. I'm certainly hoping these are real.
I just looked on my CA Blue Shield plan and they update formularies once a quarter, but have not yet released the new formulary for this quarter. Though given last update was Feb it seems it would hit this month. Right now the February formulary doesn't include Afrezza at all though formularylookup.com is currently showing CA Blue Shield as 100% covered. Is it possible formularylookup.com got some advance notice before Blue Shield posted changes to members... I suppose.
I'm crossing my fingers.
|
|
|
Post by dreamboatcruise on May 4, 2018 11:39:00 GMT -5
This week, I posted some excerpts of the negative cost effects of REMS to the various distribution channels. Well, with the lifting of the REMS, commercial coverage for Afrezza just exploded. I'll update Medicare and other channels on Sunday (I have to leave town in a few minutes).
See more details in Formulary Coverage in the members-only section. Congrats to all you Afrezza/MNKD believers!
Good fortune all! Do you have any evidence that this has anything to do with REMS or is that simply an assertion you are making based on your own guess? From my understanding of the way these work, there are review boards that meet (often no more than once a quarter) to make formulary changes. The chance that MNKD rushed out and presented review boards with the REMS change, the review boards made a decision and a new formulary updated to hit formularylookup.com all since the REMS changed seems to stretch logic. If this huge jump is real (hoping it is, but also would like to verify such as United Health now having 89% coverage), seems unlikely this is related to REMS. Based on lack of share price movement, I'm worried this may be a formularylookup glitch.
|
|
|
Post by dreamboatcruise on May 3, 2018 15:04:42 GMT -5
Between MNKD and DXCM, it was a good day for my portfolio.
|
|
|
Post by dreamboatcruise on May 3, 2018 14:17:34 GMT -5
Omega... I won't tell anyone. Though I do now question your judgement
|
|
|
Post by dreamboatcruise on May 3, 2018 14:14:35 GMT -5
If Lilly were responsible for having the article removed, then I would hazard a guess that they didn’t like the following excerpt from the article: “I looked at where we were, and when (MannKind) came to me with this opportunity, I first and foremost thought I could come here and contribute to make a real difference in a transformative area of diabetes. So in other words, you wanted to be on the cutting edge? The big insulin makers are doing what they are in diabetes drugs and insulin, but the true innovation is coming from the small bio-tech space – from those at Bigfoot Biomedical, having real-time glucose information and innovating in a space that’s been tough to innovate in until recently. Afrezza’s already there, and I want to get us into the boxing ring and get the scientific and clinical chatter out there so people can truly see how this asset works.” I imagine Lilly would not take it kindly that they were referred to as being “not on the cutting edge.” But that is hardly worth removing the article for. Would something in Dr. Kendall’s previous contract have been violated by making the statement above. I’m not seeing it. Probably has a non-disparagement clause with Lilly, but wouldn't think an implied "not on the cutting edge" would be actionable disparagement.
|
|
|
Post by dreamboatcruise on May 3, 2018 14:04:54 GMT -5
Have to wait and see if SI has meaningfully gone down... or if this is increase in supply of shares to loan. Looks like next SI update will be after 5/9/18 @ 4pm ET for data as of settlement date 4/30/2018 I'm not totally sure which I'd want. If shorts are meaningfully exiting and the share price stays stuck at $1.7x, would mean a lot of longs think that's a fair value. So, I think I'd prefer the short interest not dropping significantly. Getting in my opinion early so if SI does drop and I say I'm not thrilled, the usual street hecklers don't accuse me of spinning the news negatively.
|
|
|
Post by dreamboatcruise on May 3, 2018 13:54:53 GMT -5
It took them six months to get the National Agency of Sanitary Surveillance to approve it? If I'm reading it correctly, that means it passed: "Inspections to ensure manufacturing quality; products’ post-market and post-use activities (monitoring, oversight, complaints’ receipt, etc.)" and "Oversight to enforce compliance with sanitary regulations." So how long will it take for marketing approval? Digger, regardless of how long it takes, you will be able, while you can still type or dictate, to remind us that it has not been approved yet (and that's handy with my memory). There are many other jurisdictions where we are not approved, too, and I believe you should list all of those. Don't be surprised if Mike soon announces a partnership with SpaceX, cuz they can sell it on Mars with no warnings at all! I don't have a complete list but pretty sure Paraguay is one place it's not approved. I think you're correct that bronchospasms are unlikely on planets without atmospheres, so no black box and no spirometry required. I think MK will hype that fact when he discovers it
|
|
|
Post by dreamboatcruise on May 3, 2018 13:45:20 GMT -5
Have to wait and see if SI has meaningfully gone down... or if this is increase in supply of shares to loan.
|
|
|
Post by dreamboatcruise on May 3, 2018 13:44:20 GMT -5
At least It’s on middle of the week better than end of week. Due for some positive company development news. Long past that due date.
|
|
|
Post by dreamboatcruise on May 3, 2018 13:40:00 GMT -5
I heard it was 500M for 51% FWIW if anything That's a heck of a lot better than price of the roughly 30% - 40% of the company (assuming share price recovers and warrants, options etc executed) used in past 6 months. I'd take $1B valuation now if someone offered for my shares.
|
|
|
Post by dreamboatcruise on May 3, 2018 13:14:09 GMT -5
Pegged at 1.70. The sale of shares to Sabby somehow is in control of the share price. 15% difference from the 2.00/share sale. Let me know if anyone has a theory. Considering the lack of any meaningful news (sorry to those hoping REMS was a big deal), it does appear to have settled down based on the discounted share offering... though assuming that represents the current value of the company stretches logic.
|
|
|
Post by dreamboatcruise on May 3, 2018 13:08:22 GMT -5
It’s not that easy to cleanse the internet of something. Very interesting. I’m glad I kept a copy of it. I thought it was a good article but there was nothing in it in my opinion that would warrant such a drastic step as to have it completely removed from the internet. Now, by having it removed, it draws much more attention to it. Why was it removed? What was in it that caused Lilly to be so concerned? Was there a clue in it about something bigger that is coming in the future? I’m going back to read it again. I imagine that if any entity had a problem with some part of the interview, it would have been easy enough to have that part edited and/or deleted from the article. Taking strides to completely strike the article from the website implies a more sweeping issue. If you read between the lines it is evident there are aliens from a distant galaxy living among us.
|
|
|
Post by dreamboatcruise on May 3, 2018 4:59:13 GMT -5
Even if the black box is retained the mandatory requirement for a FEV1 test of every patient can certainly be removed. For example, Afrezza is not recommended for women who are pregnant. Why not throw in a mandatory pregnancy test into the black box? The FEV1 is an unnecessary "what-if" that a narrow-minded (or corrupt) FDA attached to the black box. Even Exubera didn't have it, and that inhaled insulin powder was far more dangerous than inert Technosphere particles. What made it more dangerous... I just thought that was SNY killing it. Though it was an awful delivery device without the pk/pd benefit of Afrezza.
|
|