alive and kicking
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.
Superfly,
"I've tried to stay quiet but I can only do it for so long....This President is responsible for job loss UNDER HIS WATCH, and Mr. Bush is responsible for job loss UNDER HIS WATCH. "
Perhaps you should have keep quiet. Yes a problem is people not accepting responsibility for their actions or consequences for their actions. But one must also be careful to identify the policies which led to problem so that one can take appropriate corrective actions. That is the sound and intelligent thing to do. The country was hemorrhaging jobs BEFORE Obama took over, and that is an undeniable fact. Only a complete idiot would expect that to stop the moment Obama took office, or to attribute continuation of job losses in the next few months to his polices.
http://www.tradingeconomics.com/united-states/non-farm-payrolls
Under Bush, the economy lost ~200K/month from May 2008 through Sept 2008.
Job losses increased to ~ 450K/month in October and November 2008,
then losses increased to ~800K/month in Dec 2008 and Jan 2009.
Obama was sworn on January 20th, 2009.
From February through April 2009 job losses remained at ~800K/month.
In May 2009, the economy lost ~700K jobs.
From June through August 2009, the economy lost ~400K/month
From Sept to Nov 2009, the economy lost ~200K/month jobs
From Dec 2009 through Feb, the economy lost ~40K/month
Finally, in April 2010, jobs were finally added, and most months since have been positive. The point is how long does it take before a president's economic polices can impact growth, and under what circumstances the economy in the US and the world war ewhethe guy took over.
My view is that one has to wait 2 years or so before one can begin to assess the impact a president has one economy, however limited. This same BS that Republicans now are trying to do with Obama, saddle him with the horrid Bush economic legacy early in his term, is the same BS Democrats tried to do to Reagan by saddling him with the horrid economy he inherited from Carter.
"I have been a registered Republican for a long time, but what the Republican candidates stand for now is disgraceful and often childish in its simplicity. I voted for the 2nd Bush, once. If one looks over his record, he is one of the worst presidents overall that we have had."
""Sounds like a decent way to sound "middle of the road" to me.""
Thanks, but it isn't posing or appearances. I look at data and performance, as opposed to some ideologue who clings to the party line no matter what the facts show, or the circumstances dictate.
jbog,
"You mean you are satisfied with the current oversight for financial companies like MF Global? It was both the SEC and the CME that regulated them up to two months ago. Opp's,
I guess the answer might be in having proficient regulators regulating skimpy law's versus the current situation of the keystone cops policing restrictive laws. MF Global fell under the new regs."
The government was trying to tighten up the separation between investor's money and funds that companies like MF Global could use for their own purposes. The head of MF Global, Corzine, successfully lobbied against such new restrictions, arguing that there were already sufficient safeguards in place. We all know that was a self-serving LIE by a greedy man full of hubris. The answer would have been stronger regualtions AND watchdogs.
"By the way, who signed the repeal of Glass Steagle?"
Why are you trying to obfuscate? The Clinton administration along with Republicans and Republican appointees played a big role in the financial debacle. The point is lax financial regulations and an absurd belief that an unfettered free market is best and self-correcting so needs no regulations is the crux of my point.
Who set up BS collateral debt obligations, where they issued horrid and doomed mortgages then packaged them together so could slice them up and give the illusion that they were safe? A free and unfettered Wall Street. They just took the fees, and washed their hands of the whole thing as soon as possible so they took no risks for peddling what they knew was complete trash. Who granted Credit defaulted swaps where such crappy loans, and securities were "guaranteed" or insured for a fee, which enabled that crap to be used as collateral for a new round of risky loans and securities? It sure as hell wasn't the government. Those idiotic greedy executives and companies just took the fees for such CDS without putting any money aside to cover losses.
What is astonishing is that when Obama pushes to get some kind of regulation to reign in such practices, he gets attacked for being anti-free market. One thing being done is to require companies which issue mortgages to keep a decent percentage of those mortgages books so they have skin in the game. Another this to get CDS and derivatives out in the open so one can see how much money is committed and require money to be set aside to cover potential losses. Some very good moves if you ask me.
One last tangental point is that Obama gets attacked for pushing for increased mileage standards, which will be a big help in cutting oil imports. He get attacked for issuing a 3 month moratorium on new off shore deep water drilling after the Gulf-Horizon disaster, when that is the least he should have done.
I have been a registered Republican for a long time, but what the Republican candidates stand for now is disgraceful and often childish in its simplicity. I voted for the 2nd Bush, once. If one looks over his record, he is one of the worst presidents overall that we have had.
Robert,
"The repeal of Glass-Steagle opened a risk to our commercial baking industry "
You are missing the point. The effect on the "baking" industry is how the financial industry "cooked" the books!
Jbog, it does matter to the country in the long run who wins the next election. I figured it would take at least 5 years to being to correct the damage to the country from the financial chaos inflicted by the policies of the last decade. Hell, it would take 2 years or more just to stabilize the country. The country was hemorrhaging jobs BEFORE Obama took office, and you get idiots who look at job losses occurring from January 2009 through spring of that years as some sort of indictment of Obama's record.
The repeal of Glass-Steagle opened a risk to our commercial baking industry. Then you have the idiots who thought unregulated derivative would be just dandy because the private industry would self-regulate. How disastrous were those moves? Amazingly, we now get the view of many Republican candidates that the problem arose because there was too much regulation, so even less would be better for the country. If there is one thing we learned, or should have learned is that without strong regulations and vigilant oversight, the urge for maximizing short term profit at the expense of everything else will predominate.
Robert, it is clear you are befuddled by the comments contained in your last post.
Santorum is a troglodyte. However, he is more dangerous than Sarah Palin because he has significant experience in Washington so isn't as easily and accurately portrayed as being a clueless caricature as Palin was. Santorum lost by 16 points in his last campaign for senator, but that was because the people of Pennsylvania knew him quite well. The danger of a presidential campaign is that he might be able to temporarily deflect enough attention from his views using trivial issues (like the asinine anti-Obama attacks about his apology over the Koran burning incident) and actually have a shot of winning.
In my view, Sarah Palin deserved more ridicule than she received. I lost a lot of admiration for John McCain, and he lost my support, after he nominated Sarah Palin. During his campaign, McCain kept attacking Obama for his lack of experience, and also kept saying that he would rather lose than sacrifice his principles. With the selection of Sarah Palin as VP, he lost his experience argument, AND sacrificed his principles. I consider it as one of the worst political moves in history as he not only lost, but inflicted that idiot Palin on us for years to come.
ONXX didn't miss, but rather beat expectations.
ghmm,
They are referring to the total number of amino acids in the peptide, not the number of different amino acids used. There are only 4 different amino acids in copaxone, but the peptide is longer than 4 amino acids. Hope this clarifies things. FYI, there are only 20 amino acids encoded by tRNAs. That excludes variants such as seleno-cysteine which is not incorporated by the usual triplet codon method.
Susan always gives an entertaining as well as informative seminar. One of her post-docs gave a seminar at Berkeley, which is what sparked my interest in HSP90 as an anti-cancer therapy.
acgood,
I forgot to comment on the ""gov't is the preferred provider of scientific research and funding for research. That's obviously not true in pharmaceutical development"" made by this Oakes guy.
It appears Oakes only wants to count funding AFTER promising insights and discoveries have been made via government sponsored research has driven the field. What often happens in pharmaceutical companies will then partner with universities to try and bring discoveries into the clinic.
Oakes,
I have a very good sense of humor, it just doesn't kick in when someone says something that isn't funny like your previous post.
I did find your last post quite amusing, so thanks for making me laugh.
""I've worked with a lot materials scientists and even those in academia were heavily supported by industry. My employer is a large financial supporter of materials science research at MIT amongst other universities. ""
Just where do you think that the funding to build and operate MIT comes from Jack? Just where do you think the money to train grad-students, post-docs and professors comes from Jack? Industry may pay a part of funding some research, but you tremendously underestimate the role of government funding in that process, not to mention ignoring more basic research.
Oakes, you are clearly well of the mark as to what I was saying. Let me repeat it.
""I have always thought that a great payoff for our investment dollars would be if the US government ratcheted up money for material science research.""
You come back with ""my nitpicks: 1. why should the US gov't do this if the material development is a benefit to industry 2. you obviously don't know enough materials scientists. Solyndra on. ""
I suggest you don't know any basic researcher or know anything about basic research. There is a great deal of difference between basic research and final applied research to generate or refine a product for sale. There would be no internet and no biotech industry without the government investing billions in basic research that no company would do.
The report about the single atom transistors was basic research that a company didn't or wouldn't do. Just as recent breakthroughs in lower temperature superconductors were done at universities funded by government dollars. For the latter, I would ramp up government funding so that we can get closer to the dream of room temperature super-conductors. Just one application that would benefit all of is if such material could be used to make electrical transmission lines to virtually eliminate transmission inefficiencies and resultant waste, and for energy storage.
As for your point #2, I don't understand what you are driving at as Solyndra is irrelevant to my point about basic research. So a small company with some government loans failed, so what? That company appears to be the new whipping boy for those wishing to avoid serious debate about the government and its essential role in US energy policy. If you whine about Solyndra, you should be screaming at the top of your lungs about the travesty of tax breaks given to highly profitable fossil fuel companies.
If you are interested in reducing US energy dependency on fossil fuels, then you should be pushing for tax breaks for geothermal energy and overall energy efficiency in old buildings and for new construction.
Oops, a few seconds after posting I realize there is a dimension of height as they are referring to the wire as it is laid down for a transistor.
A few comments from a non-physicist.
The first is a bit of nit-picking by me.
""The same research team announced in January that it had developed a wire of phosphorus and silicon just one atom tall and four atoms wide that behaved like copper wire. ""
The wire should have reenlisted as 1 atom by 4 atoms, not 1 atom tall and 4 atoms wide. One can't ascribe height or width or legit to either dimension.
The second point may be a bit of nit-picking as well. ""To me, this is the physical limit of Moore's Law," Klimeck says. "We can't make it smaller than this."
Well, one can theoretically make the wire of small atoms, and perhaps use a smaller atom for the transistor. Unless of course there is something a both the physics of the atoms which procludes such a substitution.
My nit-pciking aside, this sounds pretty amazing to me!! I have always thought that a great payoff for our investment dollars would be if the US government ratcheted up money for material science research.
acgood,
Thanks for the nice history of HSP90 inhibitors and I will take a look at the companies listed. One comment about oncogenic proteins being addicted to HSP90. Mutants in oncogenic kinases don't have to rely on HSP90 for their stability, although I am sure that happens. The particular case I was speaking of was where one the level of such a mutant kinase was unaffected by HSP90 inhibition. Rather, the activity of the mutant protein was dramatically lost yet the protein remained stable. The idea was that is folded into a non-fucintonl state without full HSP90 activity.
I saw the news today about the HSP90 inhibitor Debio 0932 from CRIS being moved into phase Ib. A week ago or so I attended an excellent seminar about HSP90 and its ability to allow genotypic variations to accumulate without engendering phenotypic variation. The genetic differences were uncovered when HSP90 was inhibited. I was also interested by some slides showing that HSP90 inhibitors had a dramatic effect on the stability of a mutant oncogenic kinase, specifically it dramatically decreased activity without altering protein levels.
This all got me to better appreciate why some think there is great potential in HSP90 inhibitors as anti-cancer agents. I would appreciate any insights from people who have been following this topic. I did do a quick google each and saw that SNTA has an HSP90 in phase II clinical trials. Thanks in advance.
oldberkeley,
I do usually read jbog's posts because I recognize there is some value to them even though I also disagree with his MNTA assessments. Unfortunately, I often have to grit my teeth to get through some of the his digs.
Best of luck to you as well.
oldberkeley,
You just have to wonder about a guy like jbog who just can't stop making some kind of dig at others to some degree at every opportunity.
I was able to accumulate enough MNTA shares at a price average of the mid $15s now, and am content to let things play out. I assume that is what you meant by non-trading portfolio.
jq1234,
I definitely agree with you. If EXEL were a larger company, they would have worked out a narrower range of CABO dosages before proceeding. As a small company, EXEL didn't have the luxury of time.
For once I made buys and the stocks didn't to go. I bought more EXEL about a week ago at $5 and more MNTA at $15. Maybe this is a new year after all.
biomaven,
You hit the mark with your comments about the global warming is a scam crowd. They are similar to the evolution is just a theory crowd, as if that is enough to raise creationism to the same intellectual level by relabeling it as intelligent design.
I have lots of doubts as to the wisdom of using nuclear power as anything other than a short term stop-gap measure. The fracking methodology is fraught with serious problems, not the least of which is contamination of the ground water supply with noxiously and not very well studied chemicals. That makes it something to not be eagerly rush into full bore.
jmkobers,
I liked your amusing post. We won't know if the "market" got it right until we see how the PI plays out, and whether or not m-copax gets approved. I am satisfied at where MNTA stands in terms of price because I am at the break even point for my investment.
I took a shot and bought some more MNTA yesterday at $15. Obviously I hope that either MNTA wins their patent lawsuit or gets a decent settlement with Watson, but I like the long term view.
Biomaven and genisi,
Sorry, it was the ORR that didn't reach statistical significance. My apologies.
Overall survival is the metric that won approval for Nexavar in HCC, not PFS. Regorafenib appears to be following that pattern, so I think the focus on the small but not statistically significant increase in PFS for Regorafenib is misplaced.
mcbio,
I did listen to the presentation and the comment about peak years is quite confusing. The woman speaking was talking about a different drug when she said peak sales was 7 years out. She then mentioned peak sales for a second drug, followed finally by Relisor. I doubt peaks sales for all 3 drugs would be 7 years out, so I assume here comment about timing was direct towards the first drug and the timing for the other two drugs, including Relistor, wasn't raised.
I did catch that the Relistor oral formulation would be submitted for approval in July (June?) 2012. Do you have any idea on how quickly formulation change can be approved? Does it take the same amount of time as any new drug submission, or is it quicker?
I guess I read it too fast. For some reason I missed the in-house part. I concede the point to the bonus defenders.
MadCity,
I saw that bonus and think it sucks.
McBio,
I didn't get a chance to listen to the presentation, but $50 million in year 7 seems low in the current indication of Relistor in AMI. SLXP has only been in charge of distribution of Relistor for about 6 months, and last quarter Relistor sales were $10 million, up from less than half that in the previous quarter so I was assuming $50 million in sales could be reached this year, especially since SLXP is looking for a European distributor.
Clearly approval in the chronic pain indication will be a big sales driver, as will approval of the oral formulation. How long is the presentation?
<<Someone once said:
“The efficient-market hypothesis may be
the foremost piece of B.S. ever promulgated
in any area of human knowledge!”>>
Once said???
iandy,
Thanks. I was a bit disappointed by the answer as the quiz generated a lot of guesses.
When will we get the answer to the insect question?
Off hand I seem to recall that of the $1 billion in Nexavar sales, around 80%-90% are for HCC. Jq1234 is correct that Nexavar sales growth has been almost exclusively in HCC.
Biomaven,
Funny comment about the FDA reviewed not living long enough to complete their work.
My answer is that there is no need for long-term or even short-term safety studies since they will all die in a few days anyway.
If the drug was toxic and killed insects, it could be used as a insecticide by "niche" competitors and rack up big profits for the company.
Looks like investorgold has become the board's version of "where's Waldo". That guy was a posting machine when MNTA temporarily dropped, but is nowhere to be seen now that MNTA has rebounded. Seems like his claims of being an MNTA long don't add up.
In any event, we have two early Christmas presents, MNTA is back up and we aren't flooded with investorgold's continual rants.
gmm,
I agree this discussion will end because you aren't making any sense.
<<If one tells their doc I got constipated when I take the pain meds you gave me what are they going to do? Why do you think there are long term safety studies?>>
If one tells a doc their are constipated from opiates, they are going to take a drug to alleviate it. That would be Relistor right now, well only for advanced medical illness. PGNX has already completed a one year safety study (phase III trial) using sub-cutaneuous Relistor, which will be for the chronic pain market. From your comments, it seems to me you think NKTR is the only one targeting this market. NKTR-118 will also need to complete a one year safety study to access this market. What you seem to think is that NKTR-118 will prevent OIC but the Relistor only treats is after it occurs, which is not an accurate portrayal. Unless the NKTR drug is going to be given to everyone on opiates, it will only be given to patients who are experiencing OIC, which makes it essentially the same as Relistor.
<<I have agreed its a big market and the drugs have comparable efficacy sorry but I don't believe its worthwhile to continue this discussion!>>
I haven't challenged whether the NKTR drug is better or worse than Relistor. I stated that Relistor will have perhaps a two year start over NKTR-118. Assuming they are equivalent drugs, NKTR-118 will almost certainly be the second choice in the market for some time after approval.
jq1234,
You are usually on the mark, but your comment is wrong.
<The two drugs are used differently. Relistor is used to induce relatively quick bowl movement while NKTR118 is to make people who take opiate on regularly basis to have regular bowl movement.>
Yes, Relistor is currently approved only for advanced medical illness. PGNX is in the process of getting approval for usage in patients who regularly take opiates for chronic pain. The NKTR drug isn't approved for any indication.
gmm,
You are still missing the point. Both drugs are designed to relieve constipation that is derived from taking opiates. Not everyone taking opiates gets constipation. You are postulating that people would prefer or that it is better for people to take a drug that don't need or might not need, rather than only taking the drug if they have a problem with constipation.
You can spin it any way you like, but the NKTR approach is to give drugs to all people who take opiates rather than only those with OIC. While I am sure NKTR would prefer increased usage, I doubt very much that insurance companies like the idea of paying for a drug that patients don't or might not need rather than waiting for a need to arise.
ghmm,
I appreciate the NKTR link, but you are still missing the point. NKTR-118 will be used the same as Relistor, to treat people on opiates who are suffering from opiate induced constipation. The second NKTR drug in your link is a combination of NKTR-118 and an opiate. I don't understand why someone would want to take the combination every time they feel pain. They would only want to take a drug to relieve constipation when they were constipated, not every time they feel pain and the need for opiates. Once they had a bowel movement, why would they want to take a drug like NKTR-118 if it isn't needed? I am sure NKTR would prefer that since it means they make more money.
Not sure where you get the idea that time to bowl movement wouldn't be important to chronic pain users or that PGNX/Salix isn't focused on the chronic pain market. I am also not sure why you don't think a 2 year lead wouldn't be significant if two drugs were equal.