mcbio,

I agree. I am not sure why the issue of whether Ganetespib works as a single agent is important as SNTA appears to be moving forward primarily on combination therapy. That is what SNTA management was touting in the CC by talking up all the interest Ganetespib is generating from other companies. Combination therapy would seem to be the prudent approach given the mechanism of action for Ganetespib. I think it is analogous to being concerned whether a new anti-HIV drug will be effective as a single agent when treatments involve multi-drug cocktails.

mcbio,

Sorry for the case of mistaken identity. I was still trying to awaken and my coffee hadn't completely kicked in. I consider you, acgood and biomaven as excellent resources on this board, so my sleepy brain must have confused you with biomaven.


Thanks for all the info and if I have any questions, I will ask later. Getting ready to go to the race track to watch the Kentucky derby and drink some mint juleps. Hopefully I can avoid drunk posting later today.

biomaven,

Thanks for the nice series of detailed posts to get one up to speed. I was also impressed by comments in the CC by SNTA about how much interest Big Pharma is showing in Ganetespib. Like you I more than doubled my shares of SNTA on friday, but I am starting from a relatively small number so my investment wasn't such a big gamble.

Thanks of rate information on the frequency of ALK+ in NSCLC. You seem to have good knowledge of the frequencies of different mutations/subgoups in NSCLC. Can I trouble you for the same information regarding KRAS+ or other sub-groups which exist and could be delineated in a NSCLC?

The company said the phase 3 trial part of the phase2/3 Galaxy trial wasn't going to be open to all comers, so SNTA will focus on KRAS+ patients and or their unspecified biomarker. Likely these subgroups were the ones that exhibited clear and clearly responses, but it doesn't preclude other patients outside these groups showing some sort of response. I assume the focus on the former is to lower the # of patients in the phase 3 part of the Galaxy trial to both reduce costs and speed approval. Is that what you are thinking?

correction. Must have been too busy to write clearly.

Jellybean,

Are you sure? The expression of tumor suppressor genes can be repressed by DNA methylation, and as such, removed blocks to tumorigenesis. Methylation of the promoter of an oncogene should also hinder gene expression. With oncogene expression decreased, it won't promote tumorigenesis.

acgood,

That's what I figured.

Nice discussion of SNTA today. Isn't the ALK+ population in NSCLC about 10% or so of the total? If so, wouldn't that represent a pretty substantial market?

hptaxis,

Looks like a lot of people are doing what the article suggests. As a long-time ONXX long, it is gratifying to see the stock price rise so much.

I was amused by jbog calling the cash from Baxter "unearned" income. It sounds like jbog is saying MNTA employees hung around Baxter headquarters with their hands open and asking for spare change. That would be unearned income!

Good article in the NY Times about fraud in scientific research and what might be contributing to its rise.

//www.nytimes.com/2012/04/17/science/rise-in-scientific-journal-retractions-prompts-calls-for-reform.html?pagewanted=1&_r=1&hpw

Pete,

Your guess is as good as mine as to what the best course of action is. If there were an obvious correct strategy, most everyone would be following it.

Not too hard to figure. People are waiting on the Watson-Amphistar lawsuit. Until that decision, MNTA is drifting unless the Copaxone approval comes first. In any event, it is comforting to have the $400 million in the bank while we wait it out.

acgood,

Did you get my email requesting manuscripts about SNTA and HSP inhibitors?

""The authors write in their study that an aging population in China likely explains some of their findings.

Older people are more likely to develop type 2 diabetes, and the researchers note that 20 percent of Shanghai residents are over age 60, with that proportion increasing. ""

Assuming the statistics are accurate, a big if I grant you, but shouldn't it be easy to compare similar aged Chinese populations from a few years ago to now, or to compare the same age population in China to adjacent developed countries to get a reasonable estimate of the alarming increase.


""Koplan said many countries have programs to promote healthy lifestyles and prevent type 2 diabetes, but as of yet there's "not a proven documented intervention that can reverse this epidemic of obesity and epidemic of type 2 diabetes.""

Hasn't increased exercise and a better diet been shown to reduce or eliminate type 2 diabetes on an individual basis? I assume the negative assessment above refers to how difficult it is to get enough people to change their behavior so as impact the population averages.

Grthz,

Hmm, since 2000, government funding of the military has sky-rocketed. Since 1990, since government funding of research has increased. Since 1990, since government funding of military has sky-rocketed. These are all true but have nothing to do with the point PGS was making about government funding of scientific research since 2003, after which the push for increased research funding essentially stopped.

What also hasn't been factored in is that a significant chunk of the small increase since 2003 has been for salaries and for targeted research rather than basic research. This isn't a good trend and needs to be reversed.

GrthzGd,

""While I'm digging up the results""


""That's what gets the scientists into trouble in the first place. LOL.""


Not even close to be funny or accurate. Digging up the results means finding some results of experiments you have already done, or those which someone else has already done. Perhaps you were thinking about making up the results.

Acgood, mcbio and biomaven,

Thanks so much for the the discussion and infraction regarding HSP90 inhibitors in general and the heads up about SNTA. I did some reading and thought SNTA was quite impressive. Their web site makes it quite easy to get up to speed. I was impressed by their poster showing how they assessed why some HSP90 inhibitors had such high ocular toxicity, and why Ganetespib does not, short retention time in the retina and hydrophobic rather than hydrophilic. The efficacy in ALK+ NSCLC also caught my eye. I bought some SNTA last week, and will likely buy more before ASCO. I am also keeping my eye on the other companies, INFI and ASTX, that you guys mentioned.

Special thanks to you acgood for the excellent web links. I just might sign up for the biotech due diligence site.

Oldberkeley,

You are allowed to make money. I wish someone had pointed this out to me before!

It is relevant news that should have been brought to shareholders attention. Whether or not it becomes relevant is a different issue.

It is fitting that sexual deprivation leads to increased alcohol consumption since alcohol consumption leads to increase sexual depravation.

Looks like the guys is/was a big advocate for FCSC. That would explain his obsession with Dew.

exwannabe,

Good catch. I was thinking the same thing, that not having much product on hand doesn't jibe with what Watson asserted in court, that they had a large but perishable inventory on hand.

exwannabe,

Good catch. I was thinking the same thing, that not having much product on hand doesn't jibe with what Watson asserting in court that they had a large but perishable inventory on hand.

oldberkeley,

Don't let some criticism blunt that great sense of humor of yours. I do have one criticism about your comment, or maybe a suggestion. Say it with pictures! How about occasionally posting some of these humors topical pictures like you often did. They frequently made me laugh out loud.

Being a PhD scientist and doing research at an academic institution is an interesting life. True the pay isn't great, but we get paid to think, learn and teach while we "play" by conducting experiments. The best part is when you get an interesting and often unexpected result, you are the only person in the world who knows this particular bit of information. Some of us are indeed fortunate to live in some great, albeit expensive places.

If the orange book patents on Copaxone expire on May 24, 2014, why would one expect that generics would be launched only by mid 2015? Obviously, the FDA has something to say about the generics, but excluding that, there seems to be a disconnect.

Ooops, your logic not you're logic. Time for another cup of coffee!

Dew,

I assume you're logic is that the SEC won't get involved because it is too small of a catch.

gym_gravity,

Nice article by Feuerstein, which raises the right questions about the Richard's seeking alpha article and the KERX/AEZS pump. Thanks for posting it. Is this the sort of thing that can be in violation of SEC rules if Richards and his associates bought shares ahead of his pump, and shorted immediately afterwards? I mean there is no insider information begin used or revealed.

Not only did is jump big time on no news except the seeking Alpha pump, 30 million shares traded, which was 30x the normal trading volume. The rise is truly astonishing, especially since it was a pretty big down day on the NASDAQ.

If you want any more evidence that a pump piece can dramatically affect a lightly traded stock, just look at AEZS and KERX. It isn't just that the both are up more than 20%, but the volume is already 10X higher than usual.

Viebacher sounds like a "great" CEO to work for, especially if you are a scientist. Perhaps if there were a few days when all the scientists simultaniously got sick so had to stay home he might "think" a bit differently.

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.