Register for free to join our community of investors and share your ideas. You will also get access to streaming quotes, interactive charts, trades, portfolio, live options flow and more tools.
Register for free to join our community of investors and share your ideas. You will also get access to streaming quotes, interactive charts, trades, portfolio, live options flow and more tools.
That would be 'gibberish'. And yes, it was an example of how not to post. My bad on the misspell...
I think the whole idea is ludicrous: The 'letter' being a positive, or 'intentionally' planned (ie, silver lining); the FDA feeling pressured from public outrage, and backing down; the FDA retreating after being 'bombarded' with safety data; and the exaggeration of the demand and benefits behind the product. I don't think the FDA are pushovers, particularly with small players.
Hopefully there is a silver lining, but it won't be because of this.
I'm not arguing, just parsing out a redundancy in the post. #3, then, should instead be a subset of #2. No?
Btw- If I was asked to judge this overly exuberant (probably recruited), shareholder, however, I'd say:
1) You have no clue about the road ahead, aka "the big picture"; good, bad, or indifferent
2) You bring the reasonable/realistic longs down with your commentary -- it makes the board look juvenile, naive, and spurious. Have you considered the Yahoo board?
3) Aside from informative (yet probably nauseatingly repetitive) posts, everything else is silly.
Maybe you should check the rear view mirror and compensate accordingly. My advice:
1) Stick to reasonable expectations and nobody gets hurt (lol).
a) don't post exuberant jibberish
2) Take a step back, or away from the bid/ask.
a) choose smelling the coffee over kool-aid intoxication.
3) Don't assume the trustworthiness and transparency of the executives: Past, present, or future.
a) there is always some level of deception, it's innate in most businesses, particularly publicly traded ones.
Contrary to my acrimonious approach, I mean well, so heed my advice. I learned the hard way with a dog named Cortex Pharmaceuticals. Which brings me to my last piece of advice: Beware of standalone 'resident' board experts, as they may be the most misleading of all. It is the most knowledgeable contributors who can inflict the most damage on a board. Always question, never simply take their word for it. In other words, beware of the spin masters!
I think you may be watching this thing too closely. It was premarket and a few hundred shares: That says nothing.
"GAP up?" - Really? What were you looking at?
Why are 2 & 3 separate points?
Misinformation? On this board? That doesn't happen...
Well, okay, it may have happened in the past. But no worries Player: Because of it, we are highly tolerant to, and suspect of, such remarks. We are the wiser now. Thank you, Neuro :)
Monsanto Modified Wheat Not Approved by USDA Found in Field
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-05-29/monsanto-modified-wheat-unapproved-by-usda-found-in-oregon-field.html?cmpid=yhoo
Genetically modified wheat created by Monsanto Co. (MON) that wasn’t approved for use turned up on an 80-acre farm in Oregon last month, threatening the outlook for U.S. exports of the grain that are the world’s largest.
A farmer attempting to kill wheat with Monsanto’s Roundup herbicide found several plants survived the weedkiller, the U.S. Department of Agriculture said today in a statement. Scientists found the wheat was a strain field-tested from 1998 to 2005 and deemed safe before St. Louis-based Monsanto, the world’s largest seedmaker, pulled Roundup Ready wheat from the regulatory approval process on concern that importers would avoid the crop.
Enlarge image
“I would imagine even the perception that GM wheat is out there would have some impact on our exports” with so many countries “putting their foot down on not accepting” gene-altered crops, Ryan Larsen, an assistant professor of agribusiness and applied economics at North Dakota State University in Fargo, said by telephone. “This continues that bad persona that GM crops have. It allows people to say ‘See, it’s out there and we’re not being told it’s out there.’ ”...
Protesters across globe rally against Monsanto
Demonstrators rally against Monsanto in global anti-GMO protest
http://news.yahoo.com/protesters-across-globe-rally-against-003356494.html
"Whole Foods says there is growing demand for products that don't use GMOs, with sales of products with a "Non-GMO" verification label spiking between 15 percent and 30 percent."
Re: Galleon
In 2008, they had claimed to have shown 'POC' in trial, but gave no details. Five years later, they have finished a 12 pt trial, and are still hoping to raise money to do an actual Phase II.
Very interesting, and a good question. There is no information disclosed about the properties or MoA of GL-O21.
I'm curious to know how long it took them to complete the POC trial (in comparison to Cortex's own P.., I mean, HOC trial, lol). It probably started some time after September:
Positive results from Galleon GAL-021 second Phase I study on respiratory depression
Published on September 21, 2012 at 2:40 AM
Galleon Pharmaceuticals, a leader in the development of novel medicines to treat breathing control disorders, today announced that results from a second Phase I clinical study of its investigational drug GAL-021 confirmed previous findings that the drug has dose-dependent effects on respiration. The purpose of the new study was to evaluate higher doses of GAL-021 to determine an appropriate dose range for future studies, including an upcoming Phase I proof-of-concept study utilizing conditions simulating post-operative patients who have impaired respiration.
The New Science of Giving
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887323372504578466992305986654.html?
A young Houston couple is planning to give away $4 billion—but only to projects that prove they are worth it. Can they redefine the world of philanthropy?
The New Science of Giving
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887323372504578466992305986654.html?
A young Houston couple is planning to give away $4 billion—but only to projects that prove they are worth it. Can they redefine the world of philanthropy?
e-LOL!
That was priceless. I'll file that with my worthless Cortex stock.
Maybe, some day, we will all have a future with Neurolicksass :)
Readers choice -- I'm voting for willful ignorance/complicity:
...Is there anyplace other than Corporate Wiki where Mark Varney is cited as the 'President' of Neurolixis? If there is, I havent seen it, and the CorpWiki site states its info is taken from the CA Sec State. That filing cites Varney as the 'registered agent' of Neurolixis--and I would wonder whether Wiki takes the only name linked to the company, and automatically labels them as 'President.'...Newman-Tancredi probably needed a CA business registration to rent that space from JNJ, and thus needed a CA-domiciled registered agent. He knows Varney, may have needed input on establishing ties in the area, Varney was able to provide those.
If someone has something beyond Corporate Wiki upon which this 'Presidency' is based, I'd like to see it. But otherwise, I believe that there is less here than seems to meet the eye.
NP
Congratulations! May your future be as successful as your recent past (Bonus material -- includes 'DickPic of the Day'):
Mark A. Varney, Ph.D.,
Co-Founder, President and Chief Executive Officer.
Dr. Varney has spent over 20 years in the pharmaceutical industry. He joined Neurolixis from Cortex Pharmaceuticals where he was President and CEO and formerly Chief Scientific Officer and Chief Operating Officer.
Prior to joining Cortex, Dr. Varney held senior level positions at Sepracor, Inc., where he was Vice President and head of Discovery, and at Bionomics, Ltd., where he was Vice President of Drug Discovery. Dr. Varney held positions of increasing responsibilities over his six-year tenure at SIBIA Neuroscience Inc., including his most recent position as Director of Neuropharmacology. Upon the acquisition of SIBIA by Merck, Inc in 1999, he was appointed a Director at Merck’s San Diego facility.
Prior to SIBIA, Dr. Varney held research positions at Servier in France and Merck Sharp & Dohme in the U.K. Dr. Varney received his B.Sc. in Biochemistry with honors from Surrey University, U.K. and completed his Ph.D. and postdoctoral training at Oxford University, U.K. Dr. Varney’s career has focused on drug discovery programs for treating schizophrenia, depression, cognitive disorders, anxiety, pain, epilepsy and insomnia. He has been successful in developing drug candidates in several of these disease areas, and has published extensively in peer-reviewed journals and filed numerous patent applications relating to new chemical entities and methods of use.
“Blind belief in authority is the greatest enemy of truth.”
- Albert Einstein
Re: Vile
Like I said regarding Neuro, I just mirror the approach that is directed at me.
Regarding Cortex past mgmt: I call 'em how I see 'em.
As far as you: A sycophant will mindlessly take the path of his idol. For better or worse in all cases. In your case, the latter.
I still maintain we're in a serious bear market that will take us down below 500 on the S&P by late 2012 or the first half of 2013. Even 400 is not out of the question. The Nasdaq will drop even farther in percentage terms
although there are even worse managements out there
Gfp-Ain't nobody got time for that!:
thinks that the fantasies he constructed constitute reality.
you would be liable for defamation
This Mineral Could Save Your Life
By Lisa Collier Cool
May 07, 2013
http://health.yahoo.net/experts/dayinhealth/mineral-could-save-your-life
Up to 80 percent of Americans are jeopardizing their health by failing to get the recommended daily allowance (RDA) of a mineral that protects against heart disease, diabetes, osteoporosis, stroke, and other dangerous disorders. In fact, this essential nutrient—required by every cell in your body—is so often overlooked that it’s been dubbed “the forgotten mineral.”
Skimping on this crucial mineral—magnesium—could actually be fatal, a new study suggests. The researchers checked the magnesium levels of 7,664 initially healthy people (using urine tests), then tracked the participants for an average of 10.5 years. Those with the lowest urinary levels of magnesium were 70 percent more likely to die from heart disease, compared to people with higher levels, even after other cardiovascular threats were taken into consideration.
The researchers report that low magnesium levels are an independent risk factor for heart disease, while a diet that’s rich in this vital mineral may be protective.
Yet most of us eat a dangerously unbalanced diet that’s too high in calcium and too low in magnesium, a combination that may actually boost risk for heart attacks and strokes, according to another new paper.
Low Magnesium & Heart Disease Risk
The paper, which analyzes decades of peer-reviewed science, reports that low magnesium levels—not cholesterol or saturated fat—is the leading predictor of heart disease. The paper argues that medical research took “an early wrong turn” by ignoring studies dating back to 1957 showing that lack of this essential mineral may actually cause plaque buildup in arteries.
“This means we have been chasing our tails all of these years going after cholesterol and the high saturated-fat diet, when the true culprit was and still is low magnesium,” study author Andrea Rosanoff, Ph.D., Director of Research & Science Information Outreach Center for Magnesium Education & Research, in Pahoa, Hawaii, contends in a statement.
“It should be obvious that cholesterol isn’t the cause, since heart disease remains the leading killer of Americans, despite two decades of statin use,” adds Carolyn Dean, MD, ND, author of The Magnesium Miracle (Ballantine Books). Indeed, a 2009 study of more than 136,000 people hospitalized for heart attacks found that nearly 75 percent of had LDL (bad) cholesterol levels considered normal under national guidelines, and close to half had “optimal” levels.
A Potentially Lifesaving Heart Attack Treatment
“Magnesium deficiency is the missing puzzle piece that explains why people with normal or optimal cholesterol—as well as those being treated with drugs to lower cholesterol—suffer heart attacks and strokes,” reports Dr. Dean.
“Not only is there very solid scientific evidence that magnesium helps prevent heart attacks, but there is also research showing that if one occurs, immediate treatment with magnesium can actually stop cell death and save lives,” Dr. Dean adds.
In a randomized study of 194 heart-attack patients, those treated with IV magnesium had one-fourth the in-hospital death rate compared to those who received a placebo, and also had lower rates of irregular heartbeats and congestive heart failure. A follow-up study by the same researchers also found that five years later, nearly twice as many in the placebo group had died from heart disease or other causes and those who survive had higher rates of impaired heart function.
Magnesium Helps Protect Against Chronic Disease
Magnesium plays a key role in more than 300 biological functions of the human body. It helps maintain healthy muscle and nerve function, supports the immune system, keeps bones strong, and aids regulation of blood sugar levels and blood pressure, reports the NIH’s Office of Dietary Supplements (ODS).
Potential health benefits of magnesium include:
Reduced risk for type 2 diabetes, according to data from very large studies. That’s because magnesium plays a key role in carbohydrate metabolism and may influence the release and activity of insulin, according to ODS. Low levels of magnesium are common in diabetes and may also contribute to insulin resistance. Insulin resistance is the root cause of type 2 diabetes and implicated in 70 percent of heart attacks.
Protection against osteoporosis, the brittle bone disease that leads to fractures, deformity and disability in older people, particularly women. Several studies suggest that taking magnesium supplements may boost bone density.
Maintaining healthy blood pressure levels. A diet that’s high in fruits and vegetables, both of which are good sources of magnesium, has consistently been linked to lower blood pressure in large studies, including the well-known DASH (Dietary Approaches to Stop Hypertension) study.
Reduced risk for coronary artery disease (CAD). Several studies have tied higher levels of magnesium to lower risk for CAD—clogged arteries that can lead to a heart attack. There is also evidence that getting enough magnesium may help prevent stroke and heart arrhythmias.
How much magnesium do you need?
The RDA is 400 to 420 mg. daily for men, and 310 to 320 mg. daily for women. For pregnant women, the RDA rises to 350 to 400 mg. daily, according to MedlinePlus. In the UK, the RDA is 700 mg. daily, the amount that Dr. Dean recommends to her patients.
Foods that are rich in magnesium include leafy green vegetables like spinach and beans, fruits like bananas and apricots, peas, nuts, seeds, whole grains, soy products, and some types of mineral water.
It is extremely common for Americans to have low levels of magnesium because most don’t eat the recommended amount of fruits and vegetables. These foods are also lower in the mineral than was the typical in the past, since today’s produce is often grown in magnesium-depleted soil.
What are the warning signs of deficiency?
Symptoms of magnesium deficiency include chronic fatigue, weakness, insomnia, poor memory, mental fog, nausea, muscle cramps, tingling, and numbness. In more severe cases, people can experience seizures, abnormal heartbeats, and heart spasms.
Because these symptoms can overlap with those of other conditions, if you think you might be deficient, consult a healthcare provider, who can order tests to check your levels. Also talk to your provider before taking magnesium supplements, which can interact with certain medications.
If a supplement is advised, one type Dr. Dean recommends is magnesium citrate powder, such as Natural Calm (sold at most health food stores). However, the powder can have a laxative effect if you take too much at once, so she advises spreading the dosage through the day. If you prefer to take a pill, magnesium dimalate is available as a sustained release pill.
Wrigley takes new caffeinated gum off market
By MARY CLARE JALONICK, Associated Press
May. 08, 2013 11:56PM PDT
WASHINGTON (AP) — A Food and Drug Administration investigation into the safety of caffeine-added foods has prompted Wrigley to take its new caffeinated gum off the market for the time being.
Wrigley said Wednesday that it will temporarily halt sales and marketing of Alert caffeinated gum after discussions with the FDA. President Casey Keller said the company made the move "out of respect" for the agency, which said it would investigate the health effects of added caffeine on children and adolescents just as Wrigley rolled out Alert late last month. A stick of the gum has an amount of caffeine equivalent to half a cup of coffee.
"After discussions with the FDA, we have a greater appreciation for its concern about the proliferation of caffeine in the nation's food supply," Keller said in a statement to The Associated Press. "There is a need for changes in the regulatory framework to better guide the consumers and the industry about the appropriate level and use of caffeinated products."
Keller said the company has paused production and sales of the gum to give the agency time to regulate the caffeine-added products.
Michael Taylor, the FDA's deputy commissioner of foods, said Wrigley's decision to stop production for now "demonstrates real leadership and commitment to the public health."
"We hope others in the food industry will exercise similar restraint," Taylor said.
Food manufacturers have added caffeine to candy, nuts and other snack foods in recent years. Jelly Belly "Extreme Sport Beans," for example, have 50 milligrams of caffeine in each 100-calorie pack, while Arma Energy Snx markets trail mix, chips and other products that have caffeine.
The companies say they are marketing the products to adults, but critics say that's not enough when the caffeine is added to items like candy that are attractive to children. Many of the energy foods are promoted with social media campaigns, another way they could be targeted to young people.
Major medical associations have warned that too much caffeine can be dangerous for children, who have less ability to process the stimulant than adults. The American Academy of Pediatrics says it has been linked to harmful effects on young people's developing neurologic and cardiovascular systems.
Taylor said last week that the proliferation of new foods with caffeine added — especially the gum, which he equated to "four cups of coffee in your pocket" — may even prompt the FDA to look closer at the way all food ingredients are regulated. The agency is already investigating the safety of energy drinks and energy shots, prompted by consumer reports of illness and death.
The only time FDA has explicitly approved the added use of caffeine in a food or drink was in the 1950s for colas. Taylor said the current proliferation of caffeine added to foods is "beyond anything FDA envisioned."
The FDA said it would look at the potential impact these new and easy sources of caffeine will have on children's health and take action if necessary. Taylor said he and other FDA officials have held meetings with some of the large food companies that have ventured into caffeinated products, including Mars Inc., Wrigley's parent company.
if someone was interested, Varney would probably have found them.
as I said before, if someone was interested, Varney would probably have found them.
Keep in mind, anything the author of that post has ever written about or implied regarding this company, is a red-herring.
A little color on a bleak situation:
Since late 2012, the Company's business activities have been reduced to minimal levels, and the prior management of the Company, which was removed on March 22, 2013, had retained bankruptcy counsel to assist it in considering whether to file for Chapter 7 liquidation...
New management has determined that the Company has accounts payable and accrued liabilities in excess of $2 million that are delinquent, as well as a note payable to Samyang Optics Co., Ltd. ("Samyang") in the principal amount of approximately $400,000... the Company had discussed terminating its license agreement with the Regents of the University of California...The license fees owed by the Company under the agreement were not paid and the license was terminated by the University on April 15, 2013. The Company is currently in discussions with the University regarding the amount of the fees owed by the Company under the license agreement and a possible settlement of that amount. The Company does not expect to be able to pay its liabilities and fund its business activities going forward without raising additional capital...
The Company has received notice that it has been sued in the Superior Court of California by its former landlord, PPC Irvine Center Investment, LLC. The complaint was filed on March 28, 2013 and seeks, among other things, $57,534.97 in past due rent and reasonable attorney fees, and the notice indicates that eviction is possible. The Company no longer operates at this address.
NEW YORK (CNNMoney)
Should a life-saving drug that can be profitably sold for far less cost more than $100,000 per year?
http://money.cnn.com/2013/04/25/news/economy/cancer-drug-cost/index.html?source=yahoo_quote
A group of more than 120 cancer researchers and physicians took the unusual step this week of publishing a research paper taking aim at pharmaceutical prices they see as exorbitant and unjustifiable.
Drug companies are profiteering, the doctors say, by charging whatever the market will bear for medications that patients literally can't live without.
The paper, published online in the American Society of Hematology's medical journal Blood, analyzes and criticizes the cost of drugs used to treat chronic myeloid leukemia (CML), a rare type of cancer that responds very well to drug therapy. The 10-year survival rate for CML patients now tops 80% for those who receive targeted drugs -- but the annual price tag for the treatment is usually in the six-figure range.
Those prices bear little relation to what the drugs actually cost to develop and produce, the doctors say. As an example, they zero in on the case of imatinib, a drug sold by Novartis (NVS) as Gleevec (in the U.S.) or Glivec (in most international markets).
Gleevec is the kind of miracle pill cancer researchers dream about. Introduced in 2001, the drug and others in its class dramatically increased the survival rate for CML and transformed it from a lethal disease to one that is usually chronic but manageable. It's like having hypertension or diabetes, doctors say -- so long as you take your daily drugs.
Novartis first sold Gleevec in 2001 for an annual cost of $30,000, a price the company acknowledged was steep.
"We agree with those who say the price we have set for Gleevec is high. But given all the factors, we believe it is a fair price," Daniel Vasella, Novartis' CEO at the time, wrote in Magic Cancer Bullet, a 2003 book he penned about his company's wonder drug.
That "fair price" nearly tripled over the past decade. An annual course of Gleevec now wholesales for more than $76,000 in the U.S., according to Novartis. The retail price that patients or their insurers pay is typically much higher.
The Blood authors say lowering those prices will help save the lives of patients who cannot afford to pay. "We believe the unsustainable drug prices in CML and cancer may be causing harm to patients," they wrote.
Gleevec is Novartis' bestselling drug, generating revenue of $4.7 billion last year. The company says the drug's current price tag is justified by its success.
"Thousands of people are alive today because of the development and introduction of targeted CML therapies," company spokeswoman Julie Masow said in a written statement. "Today, nine out of ten patients with CML have a normal lifespan and are leading productive lives."
That answer doesn't please Dr. Hagop Kantarjian, the paper's lead author and chairman of the leukemia department at the University of Texas' MD Anderson Cancer Center.
"These price increases do not reflect the cost of development of drugs or the benefit they provide to the patient," he told CNNMoney. "They are simply related to the drug companies' wish to increase profits beyond a reasonable range."
Drug companies like Novartis and its rivals emphasize that it's usually insurance companies, not individual patients, bearing the costs for pricey drugs. Most U.S. patients pay less than $100 a month out of pocket for Gleevec, according to Novartis, and those who don't have coverage often qualify for free "patient assistance" giveaways. Globally, one-third of the Gleevec that Novartis produces is given away for free, the company said.
But Kantarjian said he and his collaborators want to draw attention to a larger point: Drug prices for all sorts of conditions are far out of line with any economic basis. That's an unsustainable trend, in his view.
Kantarjian hopes other doctors will take up the cause and start analyzing -- and speaking out against -- the rapidly rising costs of drugs in their fields.
"CML happens to be my area," he said. "We wanted to provide a model that other tumor experts and specialists in other fields -- say cystic fibrosis or multiple sclerosis -- can follow."
He's also hoping the pharmaceutical companies will take action. The inspiration for his group's paper came, Kantarjian said, from a protest movement started late last year by a group of physicians at New York's Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center. The doctors announced in a New York Times op-ed that they would no longer prescribe Zaltrap, a "phenomenally expensive" cancer drug they said was no more effective than its cheaper rivals.
One month after that op-ed ran, Zaltrap's maker, Sanofi, cut the drug's price tag in half.
Kantarjian would love to see similar action in his field. But his main goal, he said, is to bring the pricing issue out of the shadows.
"I'm hoping that this will be the trigger for a national dialogue on cancer drug prices, and the prices of drugs in general," he said. "Patients are suffering. And some patients are dying."
Did you come up with an explanation yet? Clearly the Trefis piece was time stamped before your post.
I didn't make the posted date up, if that is what you are suggesting. It is true that Seeking Alpha posted it on April 21st, but that doesn't necessarily mean that is when it entered the Web:
http://www.trefis.com/stock/ibm/articles/180818/ibm-lays-an-egg-on-failure-to-convert-deals-and-growth-market-weakness/2013-04-19
>>>IBM Lays An Egg On Failure To Convert Deals And Growth Market Weakness
April 19th, 2013 by Trefis Team<<<
Marijuana to Treat Pain: A Pill May Outlast a Puff
Study shows a pill containing THC lasts longer and may be safer than smoking pot
http://www.webmd.com/pain-management/news/20130422/using-marijuana-to-treat-pain-a-pill-may-outlast-a-puff
By Brenda Goodman
MONDAY, April 22 (HealthDay News) -- A pill may work as well as a puff when it comes to using marijuana to treat pain, according to a small but carefully controlled new study. Pain relief from pills may last longer, however, and may not leave people feeling as high as they do after they smoke the drug.
Medical marijuana is now legal in 18 states and the District of Columbia, according to the nonprofit group ProCon.org. Surveys show pain is one of the main reasons doctors prescribe it. But studies testing marijuana as a pain reliever have had mixed results. Some have shown that it works as well as mild opioid (narcotic) pain relievers like codeine, while others have indicated that the drug might actually make pain worse.
To learn more, researchers at the Substance Use Research Center of the New York State Psychiatric Institute pitted two strengths of smoked marijuana against two strengths of the drug dronabinol, which contains tetrahydrocannabinol, or THC, the same active ingredient as in marijuana plants.
Dronabinol has been FDA-approved since 1985 to treat the nausea and loss of appetite that commonly afflict patients with cancer and AIDS. Less is known about its effects on pain.
For the government-sponsored study, researchers recruited 30 healthy, pain-free men and women who were already regular marijuana smokers.
During five experimental sessions, participants took a capsule and then 45 minutes later smoked a marijuana cigarette. The capsules contained either an inactive placebo, or 10 milligrams or 20 milligrams of dronabinol. The cigarettes were specially made by the U.S. National Institute on Drug Abuse, which funded the study. Cigarettes were standardized to contain marijuana with no THC, a low dose of the drug or a higher dose.
People in the study never knew whether they were smoking or swallowing the drug or how strong the dose was. Researchers made sure they never got a double hit of the drug during the same session.
The testing days were spaced at least two days apart, and participants were asked to refrain from smoking the night before their lab visits.
Several times during the sessions, researchers had each person place their hands in a water bath kept just above freezing temperatures. They measured how long it took study participants to feel pain and then how long they were able to tolerate the pain before they yanked their hand out of the water. Participants also answered questions about how intensely they felt the pain during the experiments and how high they felt.
When researchers tallied their data, they found that both the smoked drug and the pill were about equally effective at controlling pain.
After smoking the strongest cigarettes or taking the highest strength of the pill, it took people an average of about 12 to 13 seconds longer to report feeling pain from the cold water compared to when they took the placebos. Both forms of the drug also significantly increased pain tolerance, the amount of time a person was able to stand the pain before they pulled their hand out of the cold water.
Additionally, study participants reported that their pain was decreased after they smoked either strength of marijuana cigarette and after they took the highest strength of the dronabinol capsules.
The biggest differences between the puffs and the pills had to do with how long it took the drug to work and how high people felt after they used it.
Researchers found that pain relief peaked about 15 minutes after people smoked the marijuana and wore off relatively quickly. The pills took longer to work, but the pain relief lasted three to four hours.
Participants also reported feeling much higher after smoking the drug compared to when they swallowed it. The feeling of being high usually outlasted any pain relief.
"If you think about it, if you're someone who's dealing with chronic pain, you're going to have to be smoking several times a day, and for a lot of people that would not be feasible," said study author Ziva Cooper, an assistant professor of clinical neurobiology at Columbia University, in New York City.
Cooper also noted that swallowing a pill might be a safer way to take the drug than smoking it. There's some concern, though scant evidence, that smoking marijuana might increase the risk for lung cancer.
Dr. Gary Reisfield, an assistant professor of addiction medicine and chief of pain management services at the University of Florida College of Medicine, in Gainesville, praised the study for being "well-conceived and meticulously designed."
He said the research should help doctors and patients better understand how to use the drug.
"Smoked cannabis works faster, but oral THC works longer. For the management of chronic pain and other symptoms, the duration of action is often more important than the rapidity of onset. It is more convenient, and often more desirable, to administer a medication two or three times daily rather [than] every two or three hours," said Reisfield, who was not involved in the research.
When it comes to price, it costs somewhat more to swallow average doses of the drug than to smoke it, according to ProCon.org. At an average dose of two joints a day, it costs about $514 a month to smoke marijuana. The usual dose of dronabinol, which is the generic form of the drug Marinol, costs about $678 a month.
But dronabinol is often covered by insurance, so an insured patient would pay far less, between $15 and $30 each month for their prescription.
The study was published April 22 in the journal Neuropsychopharmacology.
IBM lays an egg
Yes, athero's imaginary couch is calling my name. I have a lot to learn from mgmt apologists, don't I?
Suddenly, I'm cured! Go figure, lol.
I certainly can't argue with what you claim you gain from this board. I can question what 'diversity' you are referring to though. What I see is one so-called expert, never having a critical or objective comment on the mgmt of a failed company, and rarely being challenged. Make that one quasi-negative remark...they didn't dilute enough, lol.
First, you say, you are here to 'balance' the board with your insights (read: expand on neuro's excuses). Then, you tell me, you are here to learn. So what is it?
What you aren't learning here, to be sure, is the truth. That is, unless you've learned from the company skeptics over the years. From the sounds of your naïveté, however, you are terribly misinformed or blinded.
Does it strike you as odd, that the sole industry insider on this board, never considers the role of mgmt in this failure? This man has no problem critically evaluating or judging other executives in his publications or here, but when it comes to Cortex, the problem is macro in nature. The guy is deluded, there is no question about it. No worries though: You're right there with him.
Ps. You give this board too much credit -- those days have been over for a long, long, time.
If you say so...eom
Unfortunately for yourself, you -- in addition to mgmt, the former BOD, and your mindless supporters -- made the venom a necessary contribution. That's my perspective, you dig? Warding off predators, ie, leeches, pigs, liars, scammers, sycophants, spineless leaders and cheaters, etc., is the point of a defense mechanism like venom, and thus is not disappointing at all. To the contrary, it is well worth it and instinctive! I'll credit myself with good aim, and credit you with being a worthy target!
Lol...always the sycophant! eom
Lolol:
Two weeks ago I was at a CNS drug development meeting where someone from NIH polled a few of us to shelved mechanisms that deserve another chance (NIH has some money they are putting into this concept). As I usually do, I mentioned Ampakines, and a few Big Pharma people nodded their heads
So Varney comes in with a whisper, leaves with a whisper, and bangs the shit (ie. premium) out of the stock through his tenure.
It is awfully telling when you have to be forced/dragged out of your leadership role. Shame on you, skeptic-bashing shareholders, for believing in two-bit investment experts with ulterior motives and a stubborn streak (still going)! And shame, shame, shame on him!
Only if we would have known how bad management was earlier. Lol (but not really).
Good riddance, and let the healing begin...
http://biz.yahoo.com/e/130328/corx8-k.html