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.
Arrowhead looks interesting if overvalued. Their HBV program is already partnered though.
MRKR
I am and I own it. I just did my end of day look at my stocks and was wondering why MRKR suddenly got a close to 10% bump. While I'm pleased of course I'm also disconcerted that a Seeking Alpha article written by an amateur can have this result.
I've done extensive work on CAR-T cells, almost from the beginning, and this technology is extraordinarily impressive. My thought is that it is a prime candidate for a very early takeout, probably at a high premium since it is so cheap right now.
Also I'd say that if you are going to take a larger position, do so before the pancreatic data at ASCO.
https://seekingalpha.com/article/4249159-marker-therapeutics-phenomenal-data-lymphoma-indications-yet-little-recognition-street
Gottleib resigning apparently
Ah ha, Gottleib resigning I guess?
What just happened in the market? Every biotech I own aside from AMRN plunged dramatically at about 2:55-3:00 pm? It's like they all fell off a cliff.
What just happened in the market? Every biotech I own aside from AMRN plunged dramatically at about 2:55-3:00 pm?
I mean there's no question that REDUCE-IT is mentioned for the first time in the guidelines but that is an entirely different thing from being added to the algorithm for the appropriate REDUCE IT patient population.
I have been involved in numerous guideline writing committees. It is not at all unusual for the drug to be mentioned in the discussion section as a first step toward being included formally in the algorithms. Ultimately it will move into a formal recommendation if the data continue to support.
I guess on the plus side, they mention REDUCE IT without any mineral oil caveats!
Either you're lying or you are uncritically listening to someone who is lying.
I would love to be proved wrong, but if Vascepa were to be in the 2019 ADA guidelines, it would be here:
http://care.diabetesjournals.org/content/42/Supplement_1/S103
The AACE guidelines haven't been updated since 2017.
Come on guys don't uncritically believe garbage that you read on StockTwits or wherever.
This is the second time today I've called out outright, easily disprovable lies--the first was someone saying that an UpToDate article said to avoid Vascepa because of the mineral oil issue.
You're welcome.
I just searched UpToDate for this recommendation you mention (I have a subscription), and as far as I can see there is no such thing there. Where did you hear this?
I searched for Vascepa and for Icosapent, and I do not see anything mentioning it in context of mineral oil. The only thing I could find was this:
"Another commercial preparation, Vascepa, is more than 95 percent icosapent ethyl, the ethyl ester of eicosapentaenoic acid [107]. In a small trial of patients with very high fasting triglyceride levels, icosapent-ethyl (4 g/day) reduced triglyceride levels by up to 45 percent but did not significantly affect LDL cholesterol levels [108]."
Also Kastelein is not listed as an author of any article.
Not saying it isn't there but if it is it is very difficult to find. But it is more likely some idiot on StockTwits is lying again, knowing that people without a subscription wouldn't be able to check (sigh)
MRKR
This is worth watching, although it is about 9 months old:
Impressive data from MRKR here.
I suspect MRKR is going to be one of those early buyout/high premium type of situations, since the technology is impressive and they really don't have the infrastructure to advance such a complex therapy rapidly. A Novartis, Celgene/BMS, or Amgen would though.