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.
I have never seen results as impressive as REDUCE-IT. Here's the N Engl J Med article if anyone is interested:
https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa1812792?query=featured_home
Too bad my investment was not large!
From the paper re mineral oil
I just got off the phone with a community cardiologist (meaning not a KOL, just a regular ol' card) I was speaking to for my job; I mentioned Vascepa and he knew what it was but had no freaking clue about REDUCE IT.
Looking at my biotech portfolio I was like goddamn really sucks today, I'm down 1.2%
Then I looked at the rest of the market
“A breakthrough in CV risk reduction”
“Landmark results for the Vascepa CV outcomes trial”
I also think that people like Pyr live in a bubble and mistake the sentiment on this board for general market sentiment. There is a ton of doubt out there in the general public about Saturday's results.
Let's just say hypothetically that there was a buyout. Depending on which company bought them, and whether they had a large, established CV field force in place or not, the sales force's jobs might be retained.
In fact, given that almost all the big CV drugs are now off patent, most of the big companies have pretty skeletal CV field forces. So in all likelihood if there was a buyout they would be retained anyway.
I hope Marker is actively writing up their data for publication and has a publication plan in place for communicating not only their data but also the rationale for their approach. Because this is ridiculous.
Thank you I found the data (and your post as well--nice work!)
Does anyone here have a schedule of data releases and a list of all ongoing trials, including their ClinicalTrials.gov identifiers?
I like Marker but they have not done a great job of making it easy to figure out what's going on and anticipated data releases.
One big thing is that it should be simple and patently obvious which trials they are involved in by simply searching clinicaltrials.gov for the company name and the also need to settle on some consistent terminology for their products so they are easy to find in the literature.
I want to see a slide with all ongoing investigations, planned analyses, and publication/presentation dates. The pipeline slide just isn't detailed enough.
They also need to get all of this stuff published, including the preclinical data, early patient experience, and they need to work on some review publications laying out the case for their technology.
In many ways this is an ideal investment opportunity--the technologies are impressive but the company hasn't done a great job of making the case yet, so they are flying under the radar. Hopefully this will change with Peter Hoang as the CEO.
Any comments on this article?
https://endpts.com/experts-question-amarins-early-touting-of-vescepa-data-ahead-of-detailed-results/
Someone is really trying hard to get this article into as many places as possible. This is at least the fourth separate website where this article has appeared.
It's not me!
I was reading elsewhere that dark pool trades usually get reported within a minute of the trade occurring.
Here's a more advanced/informative article:
https://www.marketsmedia.com/flashback-friday-dark-pool-trade-reporting/
Yes it is perfectly legal.
https://www.investopedia.com/articles/markets/050614/introduction-dark-pools.asp
Nice work, whoever created the info box at the top.
I'm in on MRKR; I bought a small position yesterday and just jumped in with both feet today after more analysis.
As a scientist and someone who has been working in the pharma industry for 20 years, I think I can say that if this technology pans out it will be a major game changer. Will be back with further insights later if anyone cares to listen to me pontificate
"one would think it can be easily proven which to be right"
New England Journal and other major journals routinely publish the results of data presented at meetings either same day or very shortly after. It is very easy to research this: type "simultaneously published in the New England Journal of Medicine press release" into the google machine
"NEJM doesn't publish papers that have data already presented elsewhere"
Actually NEJM routinely publishes results from clinical trials that have already been presented at a major meeting.