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.
MITI:
It just means that YMI is trying to take a new set of investors for a ride.
The pattern is remarkable, in a way. Their drugs are always described as a value-added version, so they often make a big deal about some putative safety benefit without ever really emphasizing the efficacy.
YMI:
So much for that fictional advantage about the EGF-R inhibitor that doesn't cause a rash.
Gotta hand it to them though... if they manage to now distract people with the JAK inhibitor, it'll be the second time they've done the old biotech bait-and-switch.
OT: Zerohedge
It's what I would call "fringish" in that they seem to dump many interesting reports onto the site (commodities, sovereign bonds, state of the economy, etc...) but then they mix in silly gold / silver speculation and copious photoshopped Obama / Geithner / Bernanke pics alongside some over-the-top commentary.
The site was putatively set up by a Goldman employee that had acquired the company's flash trading algorithms. I started following it then because it was information heavy and littered with economic reports. But over the year or so it has migrated towards buffoonery, with many people using it as a platform for their various rants.
I don't think the aim high results are bullish for AMRN.
Absent outcomes data, not much is going to move treatment around these parts.
But what do i know?
Somewhat OT:
In a way I feel for the NIH. This was a well run trial that has important consequences for both treatment and treatment cost. But it seems like human nature may actually foil their achievement. You can see some of that resistance just in the discussion on this board in the last ~24 hours.
investorgold:
Knock yourself out man... i'm just telling you that at this institution, none of what you're saying would fly.
Also, the FDA will ask you for proof prior to labeling. Treating it like an algebra equation won't get you a label.
Rock on.
miti:
fwiw i bought some more today at 6.05
if my T/A analysis is correct, it should go to 7 if it doesn't go to 5 first.
OT:
What's the big deal about Acuity?
Is there something special about Acuity that we should know?
ONXX:
During the last cc, the ceo expressly noted in prepared remarks that at a summary judgment hearing the previous week, the judge indicated she would issue an order denying bayer's motion for summary judgment. The CEO claims this is good for Onyx... the lawyers can give better colour to that.
gotcha. thanks. eom.
Not to get too convoluted on this, but off-hand that seems like a PK issue and not an affinity issue. Having to sustain circulating concentrations appears to me to be distinct from affinity, especially since Drug + Target <-> Drug-Target is reversible and dynamic.
I don't disagree that sometimes the affinity deal holds true. My comments were not to imply an absolute.
Also note that there is nothing on Ariad's website. The announcement is just one issued by the company that runs the conference calls / maintains transcripts.
I don't know whether it's the first time Berger has done this, but it's something many other companies do routinely.
Any connection between this "new" announcement procedure and an announcement tonight will be merely a coincidence. But of course, I won't be able to convince any of you of that
* As an exercise, readers could list actual events that would be "worthy" of this new PRs strategy, and we can see if it pans out.
It should be the most recent full analysis.
INCY:
OT:
INCY:
Not really sure why everyone is jazzed up about it today, but it's up 15% fwiw.
CV:
I think the next movement in CV is going to be remodeling agents for stage IV NYHA (and then going backwards from there). This is a niche area that is amenable to smaller trials with less of a requirement for a pristine side effect profile (median survival for Stage IV is ~ 6 months, not unlike many cancers).
I agree that the current SOC, which is started much earlier on, is not going to be meaningfully changed by any NCE. This area is going to be a fight between SOC drug treatment versus intervention for the next little while.
PFE Layoffs:
I can't help but think these companies are making moves to manage their share price rather than the business.
Pretty sad to see.
Medgenics:
Just from that description I would think there are some major issues with regards to scale. That's a 2.5 mL "sliver" that is supposed to produce how many times it's weight in protein *and* guarantee secretion of said protein to the circulation so that it reaches a therapeutic level?
And practically, is this any better for the patient than IV infusion? Or is it just a "novel" way of delivery (scale issues aside)?
The market seems to be a little confused about what this may or may not mean for the competing JAK inhibitors.
Incyte spiked down and is now back where it started from.
AMGN:
Is this the first of the iconic "biotechs" to do so?
OT:
Just read what you wrote again.
It reminds me of the classic scene in the M.A.S.H. movie where they all hear a plane and go outside their tents to look to the southern skies in unison, only to notice altogether that the sound is coming from the north.
OT:
OT:
Teva / T-enox:
I completely agree that any clue from Teva would be useful, but I honestly don't believe they're going to talk about it at all anymore. Plus, they would never say in a CC that something is wrong with their application... so really it's a bit of a fruitless exercise from an investor standpoint.
I think the big risk to MNTA vis-a-vis TEVA is that you wake up one morning and T-enox is approved. I do not think there will be any warning sign whatsoever.
What will be interesting (from my viewpoint) is how the medical community reacts to T-enox approval by, say, December of this year. Can NVS / MNTA make a bit of a case that their m-enox is more trustworthy than t-enox because they got their drug approved quicker while Teva has been scrambling? Insinuate that the reason Teva had trouble getting approved is because they were having trouble meeting the FDA guidelines that were established based on MNTA's product*, etc...
For a general small molecule this wouldn't fly. But I wonder if it can be more of a factor when talking about more complex molecules such as enox.
* I would think this will be an angle / scare tactic used by companies who face antibody generics in the future.
I got 67 million using 60% margin just because I like to be conservative.
But I'm down with margins approaching 70%.
~60-70 million to mnta?
OT: