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.
The Brit logo would lend itself well to script EPA
turn letters EPA into red heart shaped logo
Maybe look at AHA logo and modify it with Vascepa capsule or just letters EPA, but modify it enough to avoid lawsuit. or some other groups logo but make it ours.
what is the baby's name so we can include him in our prayers
hard to make changes at annual meeting too many shareholders, retail and institutional alike, vote proxies for management,then vote with their feet if the outcome isn't satisfactory.
whether deserved or not.
Like it or not this management currently benefits from a low stock price. He would have received half as many shares if the stock was $7.25, and a quarter of the shares ar $14.50.
These are greedy pigs, that is why if marjac is victorious we need a quick lawsuit to prevent management from lining their pockets with shareholder gold.
Further we need Denner to lead a cleansing of th BOD.
Marjac,
While I’m not familiar with stockvadar, what he said sounds well thought out to me the one problem is we do not know who our panel of judges will be.
That said, opponents laser focus on rule 24 and the absolute lack of defense of rule 60 suggests to me to be an admission of the absolute defenselessness of their situation. I think win 24, sweep rule 60.
Capt and Gusman,
While Gusman is probably right and you should probably temper these statements,I really enjoyed the sentiments.
The committee was so far wide of the mark as to endangers observers and Nissen has been acting anything but professional or as a clinician. he's a pouty failure in the O3 arena.
At one point there was some concern about our go fund me total raised and the fact that marjac was not traveling to argue our case in person. May I point out that lawyering 50 hours at $200 per hour fully exhausts what we raised. If he spent more than 50 hours on our case (likely) or is entitled to greater remuneration as our appellate counsel, we are likely still indebted to him. And that is not including recognition of the extraordinary quality of the work done to date.
Marjac ought to be Chief Legal Counsel, at least.
North, and others, like Steven I have been remiss in thanking all those that helped marjac create the top notch filings and motions for the rule 24/60 law suit. The same goes for those who have had a hand in helping Capt. form our response to the hoodwinked NICE commission.
Marjac, the follows is from falphey, post #369193:
Listened to first half of recording. If your panel asks as many questions and sets up hypotheticals as they did, you’ll have your hands full. The positive is they seemed prepared and interested. Given the superior nature of your briefs, I’m sure you’ll be ready for them. Hope we get an “A” panel. Our prayers are with you.
where is the signatory page? I have not seen a link.
Looks more like the top 6.
I look at the DHA/EPA-brain issue like a computer solution. DHA repairs the hardware, EPA resolves the software issues. The greatest concentration of DHA in the body is in the brain. But EPA is known to affect mood.
Will someone be posting a link to the proceedings so that we can listen? I for one will be particularly interested in the questions the judges ask. Will they be strictly rule 24 oriented or will they be more interested in the Du decision and fraud on the court (rule 60).
you might find this ICER report from Oct. 17,2019 a valuable assist to your NICE letter/response:
ICER Issues Final Report and Policy Recommendations Regarding Additive Treatments for Cardiovascular Disease
https://icer.org/news-insights/press-releases/cvd_final_report/
ICER Issues Final Report and Policy Recommendations Regarding Additive Treatments for Cardiovascular Disease
-- Independent appraisal committee votes that rivaroxaban and icosapent ethyl improve patient health at prices that achieve good long-term value for money, but the large potential short-term budget impact associated with treating even a small percentage of eligible US patients leads ICER to issue an Access and Affordability Alert --
BOSTON, October 17, 2019 - The Institute for Clinical and Economic Review (ICER) today released a Final Evidence Report and Report-at-a-Glance assessing the comparative clinical effectiveness and long-term value for money of rivaroxaban (Xarelto®, Janssen Pharmaceuticals), and icosapent ethyl (Vascepa®, Amarin Pharma). ICER's report on these additive treatments for cardiovascular disease (CVD) was reviewed at the September 2019 public meeting of the Midwest Comparative Effectiveness Public Advisory Council (Midwest CEPAC), one of ICER's three independent evidence appraisal committees.
"While aspirin and statins have become cornerstone therapies for treating cardiovascular disease, treatments like rivaroxaban and icosapent ethyl appear to provide additional benefits for certain patients who have an elevated risk of major cardiovascular events," said David Rind, MD, ICER's Chief Medical Officer. "Input from clinical experts confirmed that the ideal target population for treatment is very large, and therefore, despite being priced in a cost-effective manner, these additive treatments could pose a short-term budgetary challenge for the health system depending on how real-world uptake evolves. In these situations, it is critical for all stakeholders to work together to ensure that pricing and coverage arrangements don't create barriers to these beneficial therapies, while balancing the need to deliver quality health care for all patients."
During the meeting, a majority of CEPAC members voted that the evidence suggests that rivaroxaban plus aspirin provides a net health benefit superior to what aspirin alone provides. Likewise, a majority found that the net health benefit from icosapent ethyl added to optimal medical management (including statin therapy) is superior to that provided by optimal medical management alone.
During their deliberation, panel members also weighed the therapies' other benefits and contextual considerations. Recognizing that CVD is a condition with high severity and burden of illness, the CEPAC noted that both of these therapies offer a new approach that may allow successful treatment of many patients for whom other therapies have failed. On the other hand, the panel also found that both therapies pose significant uncertainty related to their long-term benefit and risks, including the risk of serious side effects for rivaroxaban.
Both rivaroxaban and icosapent ethyl easily meet commonly cited thresholds for cost-effectiveness and therefore represent a high long-term value for money, as established within ICER's value assessment framework. Rivaroxaban's annual Wholesale Acquisition Cost (WAC) of $5,457 falls within ICER's value-based price benchmark range of $5,200-$7,600 per year. Further, rivaroxaban's estimated rebated price of $2,215 per year is significantly lower than ICER's value-based price benchmark. Icosapent ethyl's annual WAC of $3,699 and estimated rebated price of $1,625 are both significantly lower than ICER's value-based price benchmark range of $6,300-$9,200 per year.
ICER's value-based price benchmarks suggest a price range, net of any discounts and rebates, that aligns fairly with a treatment's added benefits for patients over their lifetime. The ranges reflect commonly cited cost-effectiveness thresholds of between $100,000 and $150,000 per Quality-Adjusted Life Year (QALY) gained. To reach alternative thresholds of between $100,000 and $150,000 per Equal Value of Life Year Gained (evLYG), the results are almost identical: rivaroxaban could be priced between $5,400-$7,800 per year, and icosapent ethyl could be priced between $6,500-$9,400 per year.
Access and Affordability Alert
ICER is issuing an Access and Affordability Alert for both rivaroxaban and icosapent ethyl. While clinical experts at the meeting stated they would consider using rivaroxaban in 30% or more of eligible patients, only 6% of eligible patients in the US could be treated in a given year before crossing ICER's potential budget impact threshold of $819 million. Likewise, while clinical experts at the meeting stated they believe the majority of eligible patients would want to be on icosapent ethyl, only 4% of eligible patients in the US could be treated in a given year before crossing ICER's potential budget impact threshold.
The purpose of an ICER Access and Affordability Alert is to signal to stakeholders and policy makers that the amount of added health care costs associated with a new service may be difficult for the health system to absorb over the short term without displacing other needed services or contributing to rapid growth in health care insurance costs that threaten sustainable access to high-value care for all patients.
Key Policy Recommendations
Following the voting session, a policy roundtable of experts -- including clinicians, patient advocates, and representatives from manufacturers and payers -- convened to discuss the implications of the evidence for policy and practice. Key recommendations stemming from the roundtable discussion include:
Payers should not consider dual-action platelet therapy (DAPT) an appropriate candidate in a step therapy protocol as a first step prior to receiving coverage for rivaroxaban. Clinical experts do not view these two treatment options as interchangeable, given their different mechanisms of action and risk profiles.
Clinical and specialty societies should develop a decision algorithm and/or tool for clinicians to use in determining the most appropriate additive therapies to consider for a given patient.
Regulators and the research community should align on a common, single definition for key outcomes (such as major bleeding), so clinicians and patients have the information they need to make informed decisions.
ICER's detailed set of policy recommendations, including considerations for establishing prior authorization criteria, is available in the Final Evidence Report and in the standalone Policy Recommendations document.
About ICER
The Institute for Clinical and Economic Review (ICER) is an independent non-profit research institute that produces reports analyzing the evidence on the effectiveness and value of drugs and other medical services. ICER's reports include evidence-based calculations of prices for new drugs that accurately reflect the degree of improvement expected in long-term patient outcomes, while also highlighting price levels that might contribute to unaffordable short-term cost growth for the overall health care system.
ICER's reports incorporate extensive input from all stakeholders and are the subject of public hearings through three core programs: the California Technology Assessment Forum (CTAF), the Midwest Comparative Effectiveness Public Advisory Council (Midwest CEPAC), and the New England Comparative Effectiveness Public Advisory Council (New England CEPAC). These independent panels review ICER's reports at public meetings to deliberate on the evidence and develop recommendations for how patients, clinicians, insurers, and policymakers can improve the quality and value of health care. For more information about ICER, please visit ICER's website
Well done Capt.
After marjac wins our rule 24/60 case, we should hire him to go after Nissen for defamation.
This mineral oil placebo argument keeps popping up and biting us in the ass. Is there any way to compare our placebo group to Nissans corn oil placebo group that might show some meaningful statistics? Surely many of the same biomarker measures were taken and can be compared. I would look at only those in both groups that suffered a mace and compare biomarkers, and the changes from base.
ICER on Covid therapies ( doesn’t score HCQ or Ivermectin)
https://icer.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/08/ICER_COVID_19_Draft_Evidence_Report_020322.pdf
Please keep posting, I read most of your posts (unlike others that I almost always skip) Right or wrong I value your perspective and wish I’d traded in and out like you rather than FOMO all the way down, despite my strong (and validated) belief the Sept ‘19 gap would be closed. My bad.
marjac, stay safe, stay well, avoid risk, get lots of rest, Need you 100% mind body spirit on the 11th. After that enjoy yourself :)
Great Movie!
Fishing and fish oil:
https://www.smartnews.com/p/4374116608814091224
Marjac, what is a reasonable time lapse to be expected between the Feb11 hearing and the decision on rule 24 standing?
I hope Denner’s idea of Amarin’s fair value is closer to $30 than $10.
MARJAC, my guess is that one factor in Denner’s reasons to buy AMRN is a rule 60 victory and a recapture of Marine patents. Please let the board know when they get in touch with you to offer advice and support. LOL.
If I'm so smart, why didn't I follow my own advice? several people convinced me runaway gaps don't get filled (Butkowski (?)) and FOMO and wishful thinking caused me to stay in and here I am. Never even played the swings such as they were. No fool like an old fool that doesn't stick to a game plan or firmly believed trading rules.
Where do you see a market bounce. And where do you see AMRN support?
Thanks for your response.
Why has nobody with any “authority” such as the company or Dr. Mason or anybody done a thorough analysis of gv and published the results? My guess it is nowhere near 95% EPA, but you would think someone would do the analysis.
For those who care, the Nuremberg Code:
https://media.tghn.org/medialibrary/2011/04/BMJ_No_7070_Volume_313_The_Nuremberg_Code.pdf
The jab and natural immunity a role for Vascepa?
https://www.authorea.com/users/455597/articles/552937-innate-immune-suppression-by-sars-cov-2-mrna-vaccinations-the-role-of-g-quadruplexes-exosomes-and-micrornas