JT's answer at leerink

At the end his answer to the european commercialization had changed. During prior conference in regards to partnership in europe he had only broken it down to partnership before or after approval. This time his answer was whether to not partner or partner and if partner to do it before/after approval. He introduced the idea of not partnering. We all know amarin can't handle european sales by itself, so it seems kinda suspicious for an indirect nod to the real possibility of a buyout. Btw i think he destroyed these questions. They were obviously set up to be critical and he just dismantled them confidently, and intelligently.

It is unusual to have significant, continued pain 2 weeks post fall. If you haven't gotten an mri or ct i would consider speaking to your pcp about getting one.

Look at this table from viet le twitter. Crazily consistent positive results on plaque with epa from many japanese studies.
https://mobile.twitter.com/VietHeartPA/status/1089650033379536896

The flip side to that is he is the only one of the 10 member executive team to have sold all their shares. Most of the rest have sold very little or none of their shares. There are a lot of different potential reasons behind why he sold his shares. Some of which could be completely unrelated to amarin

I guess you don't understand how hard it is to lose a medical license. It is either extreme medical incompetence/negligence/malfeasance or very questionable moral/integrity failings. That's your messenger.

There are so many posts/articles/studies that have debunked the MO hypothesis. You are a troll or have a hidden agenda.

I sensed medical quakery when I read his article and was highly suspicous of his self reported medical background. Not surprisingly his license was "resigned". For anyone with a medical background that means he was going to lose his license and resigned it in advance to avoid medical board proceedings/further sanctions.

Amarin Corp. $AMRN: Rating Sell With $5 Price Target-2 Year Timeframe (70% Downside), free public report. https://t.co/23fhPqfnND

— Bhavneesh Sharma MD, MBA (Finance) (@bs2537) January 24, 2019

None of my comments are addressed at M&A. This is one of those rare scenarios where I am pretty certain GIA will bring in a lot more money a few years down the road.

Are you the author of the SA article? I am going to assume that you "seriously" want to have an analysis of his points and not working off of an agenda.

1. Studies have been done on mixed dha/epa formulations (OTC) and NONE have shown benefits. While two very large studies (reduce it / JELIS) of pure EPA have shown benefit.
2. He keeps emphasizing the dose of the EPA in OTC, but two issues.
a. OTC dose is not regulated. I have a tract of land in Alaska that is worth millions that you should buy for a 100k (that statement is not regulated/checked).
b. It is not just dose, but relative concentration of EPA/DHA. Amarin actually owns the patents to keep the EPA at that high of a concentration as a unique chemical entity. Why not ingest fungus for penicillin or tree bark for aspirin or etc.,.
3. Despite not being on formulary for some insurance plans this will progressively diminish through course of next year. If you actually follow all the cardiologists/scientists online who discuss Vascepa (read through them on twitter) and can understand the science the SNDA approval is as much a guarantee as you can get for any drug. The only detractors are Nissen and his friends/colleagues (literally). Which is interesting of course since Nissen is involved in a competing trial. There has been extensive debunking of mineral oil hypothesis.
4. There are multiple significant possibilities that epa may be shown to assist w/ mood/alzheimer/ plaque regression/ colon cancer and studies are under way. Guess what happens to projected sales when there are more indications.
5. Very likely it will be combo with statin in the future and extend patent protection.
6. All projected sales are only conservatively calculated in the US and assume an extremely small market penetration. Totally discounting the significant population in Europe/elsewhere.
7. As a doctor myself I can tell you once Vascepa gets FDA approval and become part of guideline (this is as much a guaranteed as anything for FDA guideline) no doctor would tell their patient to get an OTC over Vascepa. Thats a malpractice lawsuit / pure stupidity/ quakery.
8. Come on now. You have been on this board for a long time. You should already know that sales by company insiders are planned significantly ahead. Does this imply you have an ulterior agenda?

Obvious hit piece and was paid for. He is probably shorting 1 share for 2 years so he can write that.

ESPR European distribution deal:


https://endpts.com/daiichi-sankyo-lines-up-a-900m-deal-for-rights-to-a-cholesterol-drug-looking-to-disrupt-a-blockbuster-market/

They got 900 million for a european distribution deal that only lowers ldl w/o evidence of cv outcomes. Sounds like a slam dunk that vascepa in europe would get multiples of that - potentially close to or greater than current market cap.

New Shorts Attack

If you google amarin the first thing that comes up is:

https://www.classlawgroup.com/amarin-corporation-securities-lawsuit/?utm_campaign=AmarinSecurities&utm_medium=ppc&utm_keyword=%2Bamarin&gclid=Cj0KCQiAj4biBRC-ARIsAA4WaFgy6cSjSpN8xhMnMG1O5Dxu48cC1CinAJnz9BVk2A5qpagL_UoMsVYaAmzqEALw_wcB

What's your perspective on short volume affecting share price? Yesterday, the short volume was the highest in many weeks reaching 56%? Could you argue that if the short volume wasn't that high it should have closed significantly higher?

I think what is more enlightening is that even the doctors who expressed some degree of skepticism about the reduce it results still concluded that the effects were so significant that MO cannot explain them and that FDA approval is still likely.

Kramer's advice on how to short

Lancet published study on colon adenoma reduction with epa/aspirin.

https://www.news-medical.net/news/20181120/Purified-omega-3-and-aspirin-reduce-pre-cancerous-bowel-polyps-shows-study.aspx

Not overwhelmingly positive, but positive overall.

You must have magically skipped past supplemental page 31 of odyssey trial. How convenient fake news.

What's changed is that they thought about it and looked at both arguments and realized there are very valid arguments why the placebo is at most causing minimal effect. I think looking at the Odyssey data is very informative.

Both James Stein and Ethan Weiss have moderated their stance and I think in general adopted a positive interpretation of reduce it data. This is evident through their tweets. Sekar Kathiresan has turned very positive and probably the staunchest supporter of reduce it on twitter. Eric Topol has been consistently anti reduce it and on the surface this is because the results are in such stark contrast to prior fish oil studies. Of course he deflects from acknowledging the Jelis study and that the other fish oil studies were on different preparations / different strengths of fish oil. Interestingly, Topol worked very closely with Nissen on a number of publications. There is also a David Brown who is also consistently against Reduce it, but he comes across as a skeptic in general. Overall flavor off of the cardiologists who debate on twitter about reduce it would be progressively positive.

This twitter debate basically features many of them. Enlightening would be James Stein and Ethan Weiss comments - they have moderated to skeptical positive.

Really would love thoughtful answers to this $amrn question. https://t.co/46d05uSvBL

— Matthew Herper (@matthewherper) November 21, 2018

Agreed with bfost. One of the few reasons a partnership with expanded sales force may be positive. This fud with the mineral oil is also going to slow uptake - essentially committing murder.

RE mineral oil


I think the refutation arguments against the mineral oil hypothesis are pretty convincing. This data is truly paradigm shifting and in the future there will be additional studies to further elucidate how EPA works and the other positive effects irrespective of whether or not Amarin wants to or not. To rush forward with a mineral oil study right now would just detract from the true narrative of Vascepa's positive effects. It will likely delay Vascepa uptake. I think with the reduce it data it will easily make it into the cardiac guidelines and obtain FDA approval. After closely looking at the data I have reasons to suspect there's actually a significant chance mineral oil actually has a positive effect in the placebo population and if vascepa was to be compared to just water the results would be even more astounding. I think with time this will be seen.

Its actually positive. Coming from a guy from the strength trial. The more studies point would occur with any new significant paradigm shifting new discovery and also refers to just not results but potential mechanism of actions and other applications. Think the numerous studies to investigate the pleiotrophic effect of ststin.

Would be a while. Has to do with standard of care, the amount of new information we have to take to take in and concomitant slow rate of adoption, and difficulty with proving causation.

Agreed. Very strong answer and more importantly an answer that doctors/scientists who deal with studies can understand and really appreciate.

News Articles




https://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-6381483/Study-reveals-one-kind-fish-oil-actually-helps-health.html


I guess the positive side to free press is that for every yellow journalist there's quite a few fair ones. Have seen a lot of positive news articles lately. Is anyone following bhat's twitter ? He is on a rampage of twitting positive news about reduce it. Probably pissed off by by the bs from Forbes / AF.

Not saying I would agree to sell it. Just news release the sale discussion. Price hikes on spec. Destroys shorts/manipulation. Keep sale on back burner. Raise capital/dilution if necessary at higher price and then GIA.

New american college of cardiology expert opinion


https://www.acc.org/latest-in-cardiology/articles/2018/11/14/13/59/not-all-fish-oils-are-created-equal

Very very favorable. Nailed all positives of reduce it, dismisses mineral oil as not being able to detract from outcomes, and clearly distinguishes epa from other fish oil.

Honestly if I was CEO. Just to screw with shorts/FUD/manipulation. I would call up some BPs after Monday's short attack and discuss about potential 15 billion sell. Then news release it during the cnbc interview.

Re Pyr

Wouldn't it be funny if pyrrhonian is actually a couple of Nigerian guys who moved on from email monetary frauds onto stock shorting and FUD spreading ?

Thanks for reply. I trust the reduce it data. Just curious what his thought process was. It appears it was anticipating spike w/ enthusiasm and shorts squeeze. If he had planned sale Nov 5/6 then...i would have been more suspicious...

John Thero sold shares

Any input on this ? https://www.insidertracking.com/node/7?menu_tickersearch=AMRN+%7C%7C+Amarin+plc+%28ADR%29

Appears like he sold 500 k shares morning of 11/12. When did he have to initiate the process for the sale ?

Honestly kinda excited when Steve Nissen's study comes out. Irrespective of whether or not corn oil is bad or good very likely his patient population will also have regression to the mean on the placebo side given inclusion parameters for the study. Then we can factually post an article citing what he said this year about reduce-it. Headline "Head researcher of Strength trial questions results of fish oil study". Then in article mentions how he was very concerned about placebo's arm rise in lipid paramenters just like the strength trial during the reduce it trial results and questions positive end points. Factually accurate yes?

We must be looking at different graphs. Because the graphs in the supplemental material in the Odyssey study found on pages 27 and 31 shows clear rise in ldl, non hdl cholesterol, and apo protein by the 4th month from start of study in the placebo group. I honestly love the your posts, because every time you claim something and I/people investigate the data it shows me the real truth and more affirmation of vascepa.

Please tackle Odyssey's jump in ldl/apo/crp in placebo group. Was it the mineral oil they used ? Or ignore the obvious reaffirmation of regression to the mean ?

Misinformation again. If you look at the sub <100 ldl baseline patient population in the pcsk9 trial the graphs jumped in ldl/apo/crp from the very beginning in placebo. What is the patient population in reduce it ? Oh yeah <100 ldl for inclusion criteria. This illustrates what happen when you choose a population w/ low ldl that is high risk for higher ldl ---> you chose outliers --- > regression to the mean with time. Guess where the ldl/apo/crp numbers also rose too ? In the treatment arm of PCSK9 over time after the initial drop off w/ start of therapy. Guess what happened in the reduce it trial ? The treatment arm numbers remain low. What does that tell me ? Vascepa has a crazy ability to do something these other drugs failed to do - literally stopped progressive inflammation and lipid rise that comes with time/lifestyle/diet in high risk patients. That is crazy good.

Unless you have options it really doesn't need to. The data is slam dunk and I am an internist/hospitalist. Buying even more shares now. Near guaranteed FDA approval - especially with Odyssey's data reaffirming regression to mean and the progressive nature of lipids/inflammatory markers w/ time/lifestyle/diet, reduce it subanalysis of cvd risk in placebo group w/ rise in inflammatory markers, and non significant side effects of vascepa. IF anything the study was monumental - the levels of trig did not correspond to the benefit of vascepa - potentially implying no lipid parameters need for people to benefit from vascepa. The market potential just jumped. The approval is a done deal. People can spread all the FUD they want, but what happens when the scientists/doctors approve vascepa for the expanded indications ? FUD becomes useless.

Premarket

I literally have a buy order for 50+ cents above "premarket" price for the past 15 minutes that is not executing. How do they do this ?

Re Pyrr statin effect theory

If based on biomarkers then you have to invalidate the Odyssey study then, because placebo had the same trend. In addition:

If you say mineral oil blocks statin effects /absorption then effectively the study is 1. Vascepa + statin vs. 2. Mineral oil + no statin. So the side effects profile should be 1. Side effects of statin vs side effects of 2. No statin. Meaning the vascepa arm should have more rhabdomyolysis/myalgia/hepatitis than placebo arm. Which did not occur. Have a good day with the shorting :)

Comments in that medscape article

If you read the comments there was a post by someone name Michael Mogadam who calls himself a "general cardiologist". The only Dr. by the name is a gastroenterologist. Whatever the case he advocated supplement > generic lovaza > vascepa based on cost. He mentioned a few questionable studies to support this. Of course this "cardiologist" didn't mention the recently released Vital data on generic lovaza, which was nowhere near comparable in results to Vascepa.

Thanks so much!

Such a slam dunk refutation. Mineral oil what ? If someone has a credible twitter account ( I do not) they should twit this w/ bhat/ other cardiologists linked.

Thanks for posting that.

Yes. I also found the same charts and also there is APO chart w/ similar results. Was looking for the CRP data that Jeffries mentioned - would be the "final nail" in the coffin. We have to definitively shut down these lies proactively.