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.
RPRX
>so efficacy is really going to make or break this product<
While I wholeheartedly agree that superior efficacy (with similar or better tolerability) will make this the treatment of choice, even equivalence with Lupron is fine with me...there's still significant profit potential even with a 'me-too' product.
Regarding the 6-month dosing limitation: Lupron is indicated for only 6 months of therapy. That's not to say that it can't be or isn't used for longer durations, but a label that includes longer duration dosing would be a significant advantage.
Remember also that Proellex is oral. Lupron is an injection. That's a pretty major advantage for a non-life-threatening condition.
....and, of course, RPRX is only an $80 million company. That's the key point from an investment standpoint. They are sitting on two relatively low-risk drugs with profiles that could make them the treatments of choice for their respective indications.
Why do I say low-risk? Well understood MOA and demonstrated efficacy in controlled clinical trials. Also note the "relatively." As in: low-risk in comparison to Provenge
Of course, nothing is for sure, and I'm hoping that the size of my investment doesn't blind me to the potential shortcomings. For now, though, I think it's a pretty good value.
Who supports the troops?
Methodology:
To calculate the Ratings, IAVA reviewed all legislation voted on in the Congress since September 11, 2001. For each piece of legislation that affected troops, veterans or military families, IAVA took a position either in support of, or in opposition to its passage. The letter grades were derived, using the scales below, from the percentage of times that each legislator's vote matched the official IAVA stance.
The complete list of legislation, as well as the IAVA position for or against, can be found here: http://www.iavaaction.org/
I'd like to hear one of the die-hard "Republicans support the troops" folks talk their way out of this box.
Before responding, you should have a look at the list of legislation and see if you agree with IAVA's position or not. I would suggest that most military supporters will be in close to 100% agreement with IAVA's stance on each of the issues.
Here's the report card for the Senate, along with party affiliation.
What is IAVA?
Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of America believes that issues concerning our Troops & Veterans, the health of our Military, and our National Security are all interrelated. The IAVA philosophy/platform is that:
A healthy, well-manned, well-equipped, and properly used Military is vital to our national security, but with substantial priority placed on personnel, not high-end weapons systems
Our Troops must always be provided a clear mission (with goals and an exit strategy), be properly trained for the tasks it is given, and not be overextended in order to ensure success of the mission and to keep the military healthy.
Our Troops must always be provided the best equipment and operating conditions that provide for the greatest level of safety and moral within reason.
Veterans must be properly provided for, not only for moral reasons, but because it directly and significantly impacts recruitment and morale for the overall armed forces.
>You assert as a fact that "it is an impossibility to be a "support the troops" person without supporting their mission"<
In support of Koikaze and the fallacy of the Shazaam's statement, see post #49620, which would seem to suggest that it is quite possible to support our troops without supporting their mission (note all the Democrats at the top of that list). Conversely, the data in that post would also strongly support the fact that it is possible to support the mission without supporting the troops (note all of the Republicans with failing grades; in fact, the highest-graded Republican gets a C and the lowest-graded Democrat gets a B-).
I would also suggest that these data indicate that the Bush adminstration has been good for military spending, but bad for the military. As in the folks who actually do the fighting.
Here's the post: http://tinyurl.com/vj4td
I would challenge any support-the-troops Republican to look at the list of legislation used to grade Congress, decide whether or not it constitutes "Supporting the Troops," and then look at who gets the best grades.
The one and only thing I find amazing about the neo-cons is that they are so adept at getting people to vote against their own self interest. The military, the religous right, Hispanics (until recently)...the list goes on and on.
And, Extelecom, I hope you don't have a problem with the label "Neo-con." They are NOT Republicans.
>Koikaze... we are not in Iraq to take control of oil. You are just repeating liberal blog nonsense.<
George Bush, Rose Garden news conference, Oct. 11, 2006
We can't tolerate a new terrorist state in the heart of the Middle East, with large oil reserves that could be used to fund its radical ambitions, or used to inflict economic damage on the West.
>First of all - it wasn't HIS lie!<
What? He can't even keep his story straight from month to month. Bush lies, the neo-cons in Congress fall in line, then he lies again. How many times do you need to be lied to?
State of the Union address, Jan. 29, 2002
Bush tells us that there might be WMDs in the "axis of evil"
"States like these (Iraq, Iran and North Korea), and their terrorist allies, constitute an axis of evil, arming to threaten the peace of the world. By seeking weapons of mass destruction, these regimes pose a grave and growing danger. They could provide these arms to terrorists, giving them the means to match their hatred. They could attack our allies or attempt to blackmail the United States. In any of these cases, the price of indifference would be catastrophic."
Speech in Cincinnati, Oct. 7, 2002.
Whaddya know, Iraq has WMDs. No two ways about it!
"If we know Saddam Hussein has dangerous weapons today _ and we do _ does it make any sense for the world to wait to confront him as he grows even stronger and develops even more dangerous weapons?"
Speech to U.S. troops in Qatar, June 5, 2003
Oops, no WMDs. Sorry folks, I killed a couple thousand troops and tens of thousands of Iraqis for no good reason. But wait, I think we're actually liberating an oppressed people!
"I am happy to see you, and so are the long-suffering people of Iraq. America sent you on a mission to remove a grave threat and to liberate an oppressed people, and that mission has been accomplished."
Second inaugural address, Jan. 20, 2005
...not to mention that we're supporting Democracy. See, it's totally worth it to spend $9,000 per household and 3000 lives to support Democracy, even if they don't want it!
It is the policy of the United States to seek and support the growth of democratic movements and institutions in every nation and culture, with the ultimate goal of ending tyranny in the world."
News conference on his ranch in Crawford, Texas, Aug. 7, 2006.
And now that I've created a terrorist hotbed by killing and torturing Iraqis and setting off a massive internecine conflict, just wanted to mention that we're in Iraq to defeat fascists
"Not only do terrorists try to stop the advance of democracy through killing innocent people within the countries, they also try to shake the will of the Western world by killing innocent Westerners. They try to spread their jihadist message, a message I call _ it's totalitarian in nature _ Islamic radicalism, Islamic fascism. They try to spread it as well by taking the attack to those of us who love freedom."
White House news conference, Aug. 21, 2006.
Wow, this is working out just great. Now that we've created a state dominated by terrorists, we have an excuse to stay and kill more people and spend more money! Not to mention we can finally do away with that Constitution thingy.
"We're not going to leave before the mission is complete. I agree with General Abizaid: We leave before the mission is done, the terrorists will follow us here."
At a GOP fundraiser in Nashville, Tenn., Aug. 30, 2006.
Well, Iraq wasn't the central front before, but now it sure is.
"And now the central front in the war on terror, the central front in this struggle to protect ourselves is Iraq."
At Rose Garden news conference, Oct. 11, 2006
Emphasis on "new" in "new terrorist state." In other words, it wasn't a "terrorist state" before, but now it is. Wonder why? And by the way, is he saying now that we're there for the oil? Finally, some honesty!
"We can't tolerate a new terrorist state in the heart of the Middle East, with large oil reserves that could be used to fund its radical ambitions, or used to inflict economic damage on the West. By helping the Iraqis build a democracy _ an Iraqi-style democracy _ we will deal a major blow to terrorists and extremists, we'll bring hope to a troubled region, and we'll make this country more secure."
Who supports the troops?
Methodology:
To calculate the Ratings, IAVA reviewed all legislation voted on in the Congress since September 11, 2001. For each piece of legislation that affected troops, veterans or military families, IAVA took a position either in support of, or in opposition to its passage. The letter grades were derived, using the scales below, from the percentage of times that each legislator's vote matched the official IAVA stance.
The complete list of legislation, as well as the IAVA position for or against, can be found here: http://www.iavaaction.org/
I'd like to hear shazaam or any of the other die-hard Bush supporters talk their way out of this box.
Before responding, you should have a look at the list of legislation and see if you agree with IAVA's position or not. I would suggest that most military supporters will be in close to 100% agreement with IAVA's stance on each of the issues.
Here's the report card for the Senate, along with party affiliation.
What is IAVA?
Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of America believes that issues concerning our Troops & Veterans, the health of our Military, and our National Security are all interrelated. The IAVA philosophy/platform is that:
A healthy, well-manned, well-equipped, and properly used Military is vital to our national security, but with substantial priority placed on personnel, not high-end weapons systems
Our Troops must always be provided a clear mission (with goals and an exit strategy), be properly trained for the tasks it is given, and not be overextended in order to ensure success of the mission and to keep the military healthy.
Our Troops must always be provided the best equipment and operating conditions that provide for the greatest level of safety and moral within reason.
Veterans must be properly provided for, not only for moral reasons, but because it directly and significantly impacts recruitment and morale for the overall armed forces.
>Fwiw: I take red yeast rice which is a weak statin. (cost 5$/month and doesn't show up on insurance records as an actual medication) my cholesterol went from 205 to 160. I take co-Q10 along with it. It seems like no big deal and the smart thing to do.<
...and if you need an HDL-C boost, you could take OTC niacin (as long as you're not susceptible to flushing). Although I am a fan of the statins, quite honestly red yeast rice (which is, essentially, lovastatin) plus a low dose of OTC niacin is probably sufficient for many people. The important thing, though, is to keep the doses reasonably low as both lovastatin and niacin are metabolized by CYP3A4 and have the potential to interact.
RPRX
And someone just bought 402,000 shares of RPRX. I didn't think the news was that spectacular
RPRX
Repros Reports Partial Interim Assessment of Phase 2 Study of Proellex(TM) in Endometriosis
Tuesday October 24, 6:00 am ET
Always nice to start the day with some positive data. These early results suggest that Proellex (at the highest dose) is much more effective than Lupron in reducing pain associated with endometriosis.
However, the company is honest and correct in saying that "Because the effects of GnRH agonists are best evaluated after at least three months of dosing, these preliminary results may be reversed by the final results of this clinical trial." Although from a grammatical standpoint I would have said it differently.
Also nice to see that estrogen levels are maintained.
Highest Dose of Proellex(TM) Achieves Similar Pain Relief as Lupron in Women Suffering from Endometriosis
THE WOODLANDS, Texas--(BUSINESS WIRE)--Repros Therapeutics Inc. (Nasdaq:RPRX - News) and (PCX:RPRX - News) today released preliminary three-month findings from its current six-month European study of Proellex(TM) in the treatment of endometriosis. The study included three dose levels of Proellex(TM) as well as a positive control arm. The positive control was Leuprolide Injection (Lucrin®), a GnRH agonist also known as Lupron®, commonly used for the treatment of endometriosis. Proellex will be administered for six months as a daily oral dose of 12.5mg, 25mg, or 50mg capsules.
The study has completed enrollment of 39 women diagnosed with endometriosis. Sixteen of these 39 women have completed three months of dosing.
Based on an endometriosis symptom survey, results demonstrated a reduction of distress related to pain in all doses of Proellex or Lucrin over the course of three-month exposure to the drugs. Daily pain diaries indicated that women on Lucrin on average experienced 19.4 days of pain over the three-month period whereas women on 50 mg Proellex exhibited less than 1 day of pain over the same period. Women on 25 mg and 12.5 mg of Proellex exhibited more days of pain than that recorded by women receiving the highest dose of Proellex or Lucrin. There appeared to be a dose dependent effect on pain reduction. Because the effects of GnRH agonists are best evaluated after at least three months of dosing, these preliminary results may be reversed by the final results of this clinical trial. Blunt honesty from a biotech? Amazing.
On average, Lucrin reduced estrogen levels to post-menopausal levels (less than 20 pg/ml) whereas all doses of Proellex maintained estrogen concentrations in the low normal range. Women with post-menopausal levels of estrogen have been shown to be at greater risk for bone loss and other medical conditions. Lucrin, therefore, is not indicated for treatment lasting longer than six months.
Women in the study were closely monitored for changes in the structure of the endometrium. Results in these 16 women suggest that there is a dose dependent effect of Proellex on the endometrium. Compared to baseline measurements, after three months on treatment, zero of the three women receiving 50mg, one of the four women receiving 25mg, and two of the four women receiving 12.5mg Proellex exhibited thickening of the endometrium. Five of the 16 women received Lucrin, and as expected, did not have a thickening of the endometrium due to a low estrogenic state.
Joseph Podolski, President and CEO of Repros, noted, "Clearly this is very early data. The pain effects seen in this study are consistent with those we saw in our earlier fibroid trial wherein the 50mg dose achieved statistically significant relief from the pain associated with uterine fibroids. Furthermore, and probably of greater significance, the prevention of endometrial thickening at the highest Proellex dose is consistent with our early findings in primate studies." He further added, "We look forward to evaluating all our findings and share them with our shareholders as they become available."
As previously announced, in December 2006, Repros plans to provide an update on 37 women who have completed three months of dosing.
About Repros Therapeutics Inc.
Repros is engaged in the development of pharmaceutical products that address conditions of the male and female reproductive systems. Proellex(TM), the Company's lead compound, is a PRM (progesterone receptor modulator) currently being studied in a Phase 2 clinical trial for the treatment of uterine fibroids, a condition that affects numerous women of childbearing age in the U.S. and results in a significant number of hysterectomies each year. Proellex(TM) is also being studied in a Phase 2 study for the treatment of endometriosis, a condition that affects approximately 5.5 million women in the U.S. and Canada. Androxal(TM), the Company's other program in late clinical development, is designed to restore normal testosterone production by the testes and is being tested in a Phase 3 clinical trial for the treatment of testosterone deficiency in men.
>DNDN missed the statistical principle, all right. But is that fatal flaw of the package? No!<
Do we really need to rehash DNDN yet again.
Get a membership and search for DNDN on this board. Everything has been covered adequately.
It's totally been worth it.
Data presented as State, Population, Households, Per State Iraqi War Cost.
Sorry about the formatting.
Alabama 4,557,808 1,737,080 $15,376,676,849
Alaska 663,661 221,600 $2,238,993,116
Arizona 5,939,292 1,901,327 $56,307,220,234
Arkansas 2,779,154 1,042,696 $3,514,615,407
California 36,132,147 11,502,870 $121,899,024,333
Connecticut 3,510,297 1,301,670 $11,842,688,989
Delaware 843,524 298,736 $2,845,796,919
District of Columbia 550,521 248,338 $1,857,292,698
Florida 17,789,864 6,337,929 $60,017,664,177
Georgia 9,072,576 3,006,369 $30,608,149,651
Hawaii 1,275,194 403,240 $4,302,121,998
Idaho 1,429,096 469,645 $4,821,341,175
Illinois 12,763,371 4,591,779 $43,059,784,743
Indiana 6,271,973 2,336,306 $21,159,755,310
Iowa 2,966,334 1,149,276 $10,007,521,016
Kansas 2,744,687 1,037,891 $9,259,750,532
Kentucky 4,173,405 1,590,647 $14,079,816,449
Louisiana 4,523,628 1,656,053 $15,261,363,784
Maine 1,321,505 518,200 $4,458,361,419
Maryland 5,600,388 1,980,859 $18,894,028,996
Massachusetts 6,398,743 2,443,580 $21,585,519,636
Michigan 10,120,860 3,785,661 $34,144,745,382
Minnesota 5,132,799 1,895,127 $17,316,523,986
Mississippi 2,921,088 1,046,434 $9,854,874,586
Missouri 5,800,310 2,194,594 $19,568,505,847
Montana 935,670 358,667 $3,156,669,879
Nebraska 1,758,787 666,184 $5,933,619,702
Nevada 2,414,807 751,165 $8,146,834,376
New Hampshire 1,309,940 474,606 $4,419,344,578
New Jersey 8,717,925 3,064,645 $29,411,663,573
New Mexico 1,928,384 677,971 $6,505,789,101
New York 19,254,630 7,056,860 $64,959,345,231
North Carolina 8,683,242 3,132,013 $29,294,653,535
North Dakota 636,677 257,152 $2,147,957,195
Ohio 11,464,042 4,445,773 $38,676,238,485
Oklahoma 3,547,884 1,342,293 $11,665,863,251
Oregon 3,641,056 1,333,723 $12,283,830,627
Pennsylvania 12,429,616 4,777,003 $41,933,795,499
Rhode Island 1,076,189 408,424 $3,630,738,829
South Carolina 4,255,083 1,533,854 $14,355,373,517
South Dakota 775,933 290,245 $2,617,765,162
Tennessee 5,962,959 2,232,905 $20,117,234,778
Texas 22,859,968 7,393,354 $77,122,674,042
Utah 2,469,585 701,281 $8,331,638,915
Vermont 623,050 240,634 $2,101,983,785
Virginia 7,567,465 2,699,173 $25,530,356,671
Washington 6,287,759 2,271,398 $21,213,012,538
West Virginia 1,816,856 736,481 $6,129,527,087
Wisconsin 5,536,201 2,084,544 $18,677,481,314
Wyoming 509,294 193,608 $1,718,205,168
Total, US 296,410,404 105,480,101 $3,373.70 per person $9,480.46 per household
Numbers based on total costs of $1 trillion before this is over. Divide or multiply based on who you believe.
>And while we're at it: what is wrong with requiring a voter to show photo identification when they vote<
Hmm...well, I don't have a picture ID except for my passport. It does not have my address on it.
In some states (Arizona, among others) that'd mean I'm screwed unless I remember to bring a couple utility bills with me. And how many politically unengaged people are going to know to bring utility bills with them if they don't have a picture ID with their address on it?
You seem to be an supporter of the current regime--or at least a die-hard Republican. Or at the very least you don't seem to have a problem with what is going on in our country today. And you appear to have at least some of your rationality (if not your sense of self-preservation) intact.
Okay, so you believe that the Neocons had a reason to spend money and thousands of American lives on a war with Iraq. And you apparently believe that the current approach to terrorism is working or will work. I'm not going to change your mind about that.
May I ask what, exactly, appeals to you about the current regime enough that you'd spend so much time defending them on an internet message board?
We've had 6 years of Republicans in the majority. For me, the one and only positive for the neocons is their stance on taxes. I'd lose a lot if it is taken away or when it expires. I could spend pages on the negatives, you've heard them all before so I won't bother to list them here.
This isn't just a question for Extelecom. Someone, anyone, please just give me a list of positives?
>Fraud will be declared and all hell will break loose.<
Yes, it will. Maybe even riots. When 60% of the country detests the neocons and Preznit Torture, it's almost unimaginable that they won't loose big this year. Unless someone pushes the Diebold button.
I will join them.
Shame on you, Extelecom. I am a libertarian, and I think we'd agree on many things.
Except one: neocons and the torture president must go.
>In essence, a vote for a Republican Senator or a Republican congressman this election is a vote to greenlight their activities over the past few years.
It is a vote to keep the House and Senate leadership the same, it is a vote for fiscal irresponsibility, it is a vote for an anti-homosexual agenda and gay marriage amendments, it is a vote for flag-burning amendments, it is a signal that Congressional meddling in personal matters (Schiavo) is fine, it is a vote for continued feckless foreign policy with no oversight of the President, it is a vote for corruption, it is a vote against stem-cell research, it is a vote for the status quo in Iraq and Afghanistan, it is a vote for domestic surveillance and torture, it is a vote that says “NO PROBLEM” to the sleazy demonization of the opposition and the even sleazier campaign tactics of the GOP, and it is a vote for the continued injection of religion into politics.<
>I'm pissed that you have no idea what's
going on<
What's going on is that we're spending tons of money and lives on a war that we were lied into.
So what does Iraq have to do with 9/11?
>They killed 2700+ inocent Americans<
At that time, the so-called Islamic extremists constituted an extremely small percentage of Muslims. We invaded a country that had nothing to do with 9/11 and killed somewhere between 400,000 and 600,000 of its people.
Wouldn't you be angry?
Preznit Torture has radicalized the middle East to justify a power grab. And the Muslims have become radicalized for a reason. I'd hope that you'd be a radical too if a foreign power invaded the US for no reason and started killing your friends and family
PS: I lived 1.5 blocks from the World Trade Center on 9/11. And I was home. And my girlfriend was in tower 2 (she's fine).
I think it is strange that the greatest supporters of the "War on Terror" are from low-risk regions like, um, Montana. Ever wonder why New Yorkers--that is to say, the people who were actually affected by 9/11--detest Preznit Torture?
I don't get why anyone supports the Neocons. They are the antithesis of everything Republicans and Democrats stand for.
>Those fanatic Muslims want you and I dead<
They want us dead because we stomp on them repeatedly.
If someone supported your enemy, invaded your home, tortured your friends and family, would you want them dead? I'd hope you'd be out there with the semi-automatic rifle you undoubtedly have for "deer hunting" shooting away.
That's the simple, reality-based argument for why they hate us. The twists and turns of Preznit Torture and Co's justification for all this I won't get into here.
Face it. The Iraq war was a pretext to seize as much power as possible from the people. And you and about 40% of the rest of the country--despite all evidence to the contrary--believe Preznit Torture's ever-shifting rationale.
If I didn't believe in the power of propaganda before, I do now. The average American vegetable doesn't have the will to understand the truth. They'd prefer to believe whoever has the best slogan.
I include you in that group. Shame.
Dew,
>Kindler emits more clichés per unit time than any Big Pharma CEO I have ever heard.<
Here's something to liven up your time while you're listening to CCs. Particularly big pharma CCs.
http://tinyurl.com/8hd38
Re: Value of cholesterol targets
Although this figure doesn't show it, you can actually plot the results of pivotal trials of lipid-lowering drugs (including, but not limited to statins) along the line.
The argument that is commonly advanced based on epidemiologic data is that there is no lower limit, down to about 30 mg/dL, at which lower isn't better.
I think Grundy is going to have something to say about this.
Now I'm going to read the article.
FMTI
This news release is a few weeks old, but I came upon it and it struck me as a truckload of BS. Unless they're using an abacus, it doesn't take that long to determine whether participants achieved a 15% reduction in LDL-C. I suspect they're stalling for time to data mine. If the results were positive, they'd be trumpeting them right now.
I also saw that FMTI released another BS press release today about how FM-VP4 was selected as a top 10 unpartnered CV product by some unknown organization. Given that they certainly know the results right now, are they trying to pump up the price before announcing the failure?
Watch this one closely, if for no other reason than for entertainment value. Leaks are inevitable.
Forbes Medi-Tech Announces the Completion of the US Phase II Trial for Cholesterol-Lowering Drug, FM-VP4
Monday October 2, 8:00 am ET
VANCOUVER, BRITISH COLUMBIA--(MARKET WIRE)--Oct 2, 2006 -- Forbes Medi-Tech Inc. (TSX:FMI.TO - News)(NASDAQ:FMTI - News) today announced the completion of its US Phase II trial for its cholesterol-lowering drug, FM-VP4. The primary efficacy objective of this trial is to determine the effect of two doses of FM-VP4, 450mg and 900mg, given for 12 weeks, compared to placebo, on low density lipoprotein-cholesterol (LDL-C). The goal of this trial is to demonstrate a minimum of 15% reduction from baseline in LDL-C at Week 12. The results are anticipated to be released in mid-to-late fourth quarter 2006.
ADVERTISEMENT
"The completion of the US Phase II trial marks the achievement of a major milestone in the Company's history," said Charles Butt, President and CEO, Forbes Medi-Tech. "We have applied our experience and knowledge from previous clinical activities and with the input of both the Company's pharmaceutical development team and our Medical & Scientific Advisory Board, we believe we have optimized the trial design and look forward to receiving the results."
The multicenter Phase II trial with over 150 male and female mild to moderate hypercholesterolemic subjects was randomized, double-blind and placebo-controlled. Subjects were eligible if they had a LDL-C of 130-210 mg/dL and a triglyceride (TG) level of less than 300 mg/dL. Randomization was equal across three groups with approximately 50 subjects in each group (450mg group, 900mg group and placebo group).
In addition to the effects on LDL-C, the effects of FM-VP4 on total cholesterol (TC), high density lipoprotein-cholesterol (HDL-C), HDL:LDL ratio, triglycerides (TG), and C-reactive protein (CRP) will be evaluated in this trial. The safety and tolerability of FM-VP4 will be assessed by physical examinations, laboratory measurements and the evaluation of any adverse events.
FM-VP4 - Cholesterol Absorption Inhibitor
The global anti-dyslipidemic market was an estimated US$27 Billion in 2005 (Datamonitor 2006). The category within the anti-dyslipidemic market experiencing significant growth is the cholesterol absorption inhibitors (CAIs). CAIs are less potent than statins, but can provide enhanced safety as well as a synergistic efficacy in combination therapy. These products demonstrated 115.8% growth between 2003 and 2004, which was due primarily to the launch of Merck/Schering Plough's compound - Zetia®(i). Zetia®, like FM-VP4, inhibits dietary cholesterol absorption. Global sales for Zetia® in 2005 were $1.4 Billion.
The significant and continuous growth of the cholesterol absorption inhibitors confirms the strength of the alternative therapy market for cholesterol lowering. FM-VP4 is one of few other inhibitors in development and, as such, has the potential to achieve a significant market share.
About Forbes Medi-Tech Inc.
Forbes Medi-Tech Inc. is a life sciences company dedicated to the research, development and commercialization of innovative products for the prevention and treatment of cardiovascular disease (CVD). Our vision is to develop and market products along a treatment continuum that CVD savvy consumers, healthcare professionals and specialized CVD research and healthcare institutions will identify, recommend and seek. Our business strategy is to develop and commercialize proprietary compounds to address the unmet needs of patients within the cardiovascular disease market.
(i) Zetia® is a registered trademark of MSP Singapore Company, LLC.
POTP
It headed south because I got sick of owning it and decided to take my 25% loss. I should never held this long, but felt it was impossible to get the shares out the door without sending POTP on a death spiral. Lesson learned.
Not kidding.
You can be comforted that I know no more than you...other than management is running this like a 3rd-grade science project rather than a business.
You can also take some comfort from the fact that I invariably take my loss at the bottom. Should go straight up from here
My opinion only.
>There is currently no approved treatment for Saforis<
Did you mean to say there's no treatment approved for oral mucositis?
Actually Kepivance (palifermin) is approved for oral mucositis.
RPRX
For those of you who care about technicals, RPRX just popped through its 50-day moving average.
Money flow is positive, too.
See, huevos 11, I'm trying to learn. Are you still here?
Dew,
Regarding RMFs, perhaps you could change the deadline to 90 days instead of 60.
Quarterly updates seems more reasonable than every 60 days because if nothing else happens, at least you can add information from the earnings call.
J
I disagree. While a primary care physician certainly can't keep up with everything his or her job entails, a specialist certainly can.
As far as biotechs, I'm in XNPT (currently ~$22.50/share), RPRX ($7.75/share), POTP ($1.39/share).
I don't care about PPS. I care about market cap.
My girlfriend just called me from the upper East side...lots of fire trucks, but not a huge disaster at this point.
>President Bush argued that the decision was "vital to the national security interests of the United States". <
Um, I think this should read, "the decision was 'vital to the interests of politically connected big business who want to sell nuclear technology to North Korea."
Alex,
Regarding this:
>According to a new Johns Hopkins University study just published on the online site of the respected British medical journal, The Lancet.<
I was listening to the Preznit's press conference this morning, and his defense was that "the methodology used [in this study] has been discredited."
I thought that was hillarious. As a scientist and someone who has been involved in many clinical trials, I find it hard to believe that the methodology used in a peer-reviewed paper published by one of the most widely respected medical journals had significant methodological flaws, at least in comparison to politically motivated magic numbers like 30,000.
He's an idiot and a liar.
>BELEROFON<
Sounds like an angry Roman orator.
ANOR
I love this....this sort of thing is the best thing that can happen to the sector.
If it is rimonabant (as Dew suggests) there are two key trials you'll want to look at: RIO-Europe (published in the Lancet) and RIO-US (published in JAMA, I believe).
Regarding your friend who is not tolerating metformin: depending on her A1c levels, she could either get by with a very strict diet and exercise regime, or she should be on insulin.
I'd also say that her doctor sounds particularly ill-informed. Is he or she an endocrinologist? Your friend should be seeing a specialist.
No, liberals (and libertarians like myself) refuse to answer the nonsense neocon brownshirts like yourself spout.
I've never used the ignore function before, but I'm going to try now.
Goodbye.
>In a study conducted by Surrey University, people who took the drug EVT 201 were able to get to sleep despite having a box under their beds playing 52 decibels of recorded traffic noise all night.<
If they have a pill that can help me sleep through the nightly garbage truck fiesta in the NYC financial district, I'll invest my life savings.
Government spending
Here are some numbers for fiscal conservatives who still think Democrats are the big government party, despite all objective evidence to the contrary
Reagan increased discretionary spending from $307.9 billion to $488.8 - an increase of 58.75%. At the same time, the GDP price deflator increased from 56.105 to 79.433 for an increase of 41.56%. That makes Reagan's total increase in discretionary spending 14.54%.
Clinton increased discretionary spending from $539.4 billion to $614.8 - an increase of 13.97%. At the same time, the GDP price deflator increased from 88.204 to 100.687 far an increase of 14.15%. That makes Clinton's total increase in discretionary spending -.18% (Yes you read that right; a Democrat actually shrank discretionary spendinig).
Bush increased discretionary spending from $649.3 billion to $967.9- an increase of 49.06%. At the same time, the GDP price deflator increased from 101.507 to 114.048 far an increase of 12.35%. That makes Bush's total increase in discretionary spending 36.71%.
DVAX Questions Arise After Dynavax Offering
By Marc Lichtenfeld
Senior Columnist
10/10/2006 7:28 AM EDT
URL: http://www.thestreet.com/newsanalysis/investing/10313825.html
I think this also falls under the category of "duh."
Some investors in Dynavax (DVAX) must be marveling at their good fortune, at least those who were able to buy shares of the Berkeley, Calif.-based biotech company at $4.40 in a hastily arranged stock offering on Wednesday, Oct. 4.
Imagine their glee when the stock opened Thursday at $6.35 and closed at $7.70 after a New England Journal of Medicine article was released Wednesday night stating that Dynavax's allergy therapy "appeared to offer long-term clinical efficacy in the treatment of ragweed allergic rhinitis." A 75% one-day gain. As my boss on the trading desk used to say, "That's some sweet corn!"
Who Knew What, and When?
Several questions come to mind when looking at this deal. If the company knew that the positive data were going to be released, why did management rush to do an offering on Wednesday?
The NEJM alerts the scientific media on Fridays to what it will publish in the coming week's edition, and journal subscribers get the news on Tuesdays, rather than Wednesdays. Dynavax acknowledged it knew as early as Friday that the positive article would be published Wednesday. It also acknowledged that the stock offering deal was put together overnight.
Dynavax sold 6.2 million shares at $4.40, grossing roughly $27 million. Had it waited a day and sold at Thursday's closing price, Dynavax could have taken in nearly $48 million -- quite a difference for a company with $60 million in cash and negative operating cash flow of $34 million over the past 12 months.
Dynavax's Chief Financial Officer Deborah Smeltzer says, "You never know what kind of impact a publication will have." The financing transaction occurred quickly because "we had very specific interest from key investors," according to the CFO.
She adds that the market was aware that Dynavax needed to raise money and that overhang was likely holding back the stock. "We knew we had buyers at a specific price," she states. "That's why it was done quickly and overnight, and it removed the risk of financing from the perception of the company's valuation."
Smeltzer points out that these deals are usually done at a discount, but the Dynavax offering was completed at Tuesday's closing price. The CFO would not disclose who the buyers of the offering were other than to say they were large institutions, some of which were existing shareholders and some new. However, regulatory filings show that James Flynn of Deerfield Management (which owns 15% of the company) purchased 950,000 of the shares on Wednesday and scored a nice $3.1 million one-day gain. Calls to Deerfield seeking comment were not returned.
"The deal smells fishy," says one institutional analyst who wishes to remain anonymous and who doesn't own shares of the company. "Obviously, they [Dynavax] knew the study was going to be published," he says. "It seems funny to raise money the night before."
Does the Drug Work?
While Dynavax was thumping its chest like an NFL defensive lineman holding LaDainian Tomlinson to a three-yard gain, it's important to actually read the New England Journal of Medicine article that propelled the shares skyward.
The phase II placebo-controlled trial of Tolamba, a ragweed-pollen antigen vaccine, failed to meet its primary endpoint: a decrease in albumin in nasal fluid. Albumin is a protein that indicates vascular leakage and inflammation, and it is reduced by standard allergy immunotherapies.
The study did show a decrease in the number of sneezes and other rhinitis symptoms, many of which were reported by the patients themselves.
What is also surprising about the reaction to the study is that the data are five years old and that the trial consisted of just 25 patients, only 10 of whom actually received the drug and completed treatment. A follow-up a year later also showed fewer symptoms, although only six of the original 10 were still in the program.
Dynavax has already released more current data than what were published in the NEJM. In January, the company said patients benefited from Tolamba in phase II/III trials that took place in the 2004/05 ragweed seasons. Additionally, Dynavax expects to release new phase III data in the first quarter of 2007. The primary endpoints of the more recent trials are a reduction in the Total Nasal Symptom Scores (TNSS), which are a measure of mostly qualitative symptoms -- congestion, itchiness, runny nose and number of sneezes.
The company certainly can't control overzealous buyers who don't bother to read the results of the study. However, with a press release planned to trumpet the article, the company knew good news was about to hit the tape. Did it leave money on the table, enriching a few at the expense of its existing shareholder base? At best, the timing of the transaction appears irresponsible. Investors might want to think twice before casting their line into these waters.
Please note that due to factors including low market capitalization and/or insufficient public float, we consider Dynavax to be a small-cap stock. You should be aware that such stocks are subject to more risk than stocks of larger companies, including greater volatility, lower liquidity and less publicly available information, and that postings such as this one can have an effect on their stock prices.
DVAX
>dvax - Down 10% early - 27 Million offering closes today.<
I think this falls under the category of "duh". Not sure what all those people who bought in the high 7's and low 8's were expecting.
I sold mine at around $7.72 average. Would love to buy it back at <$6.00.
Should have shorted.
FT
My brain may not be functioning today, what is "FT"?
XNPT
Volume and PPS up substantially over the past few weeks.
I'm willing to bet that someone thinks the long-awaited ex-Asian partnerships are coming soon for the gabapentin and/or baclofen analogs.
In the current environment, one or more partnerships could mean very significant upside even from here.