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.
Thx -- very interesting
FGEN
She also agrees with the 12 % mortality rate per yr ...usually MI / heart failure .
So I'm going to go ahead and blame Harvey Berger here.
Fight me.
[throws up in mouth a little]
Somehow, this reminded me of this old tweet:
https://twitter.com/ReformedBroker/status/400745723794186240
That may just be the penalty against the company. Some corporate fraudsters have been executed in China, so ... roll the dice, I guess.
If China is serious about turning its drug development segment into a legitimate business, then data fakers should probably look to see what happened to folks involved in the milk/melamine operation.
China is very sensitive about food quality now. If that same attitude is extended to drug trials, retaliation against the individuals involved could be severe "pour encourager les autres".
Think Gild should make a contrarian acquisition.
What would qualify as contrarian, IYO?
GNC
The premise would be that each drug would be spun off into its own independent unit once it was commercially established.
So let's say (NB--not my actual opinions) I think that BIIB's Tecfidera is a great MS compound and the PML risk is over-blown.
But let's also say:
1. I think BIIB's other MS drugs are likely average;
2. I just don't know anything about hemophilia; and
3. I look at BIIB's pipeline and think they are all over the place with IBS, ALS, Alz, etc.
If BIIB just spun off a single company that owned and sold each of its approved therapies, I could invest in Tecfidera Co. with its sales stream and regular dividend without being "forced" to buy into hemophilia and discovery ops that I don't know or like.
If you could cherry pick your favorite therapies apart from the companies that launched/control them, what would your choices be?
If you could invest in a company's discovery and pipeline without having to worry about whether they can run a sales force, who would you pick?
IMO, pharma today is a bit like the 80s conglomerates -- they think they're creating value by building pre-packaged diversification, but investors aren't the real beneficiaries of that strategy.
I agree we should be skeptical, but I've always thought that there could be a lucrative business model where a discovery lab with a solid bench and pipeline:
1. discovers and gets a molecule approved;
2. launches initial commercialization;
3. ramps up for 1-2 years; and
4. IPOs a one-drug company spin-off keeping a special dividend.
This would allow biotech investors to develop their own portfolios of single-drug cash flow streams rather than being forced to accept the ad hoc portfolios that big pharma have built over the years.
It would also allow investors to better tailor their exposure to the binary-event world of discovery.
Not really what Jami is advocating, but JHMO.
Here is a list of premia maintained by Dew:
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=125266430
Gives you an idea of how common various premium levels are.
Well, since the median buy-out premium from Dew's chart (excluding reverse mergers, which would drag the number down) has been about +50% since 2008, pretty much anyone saying $15 for a buy-out between the crater and August 4, 2016 was being optimistic.
Just sayin.
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=125266430
Listening to Paris is like having your company run by Hugh Grant's character from Four Weddings and a Funeral.
(That's not a criticism.)
no venous thrombotic events were noted following dose optimization
you didn't lose any money in any flash crash unless it was on May 6, 2010
Also, keep in mind that this is just accounting revenue.
Someone correct me if I'm wrong, but Ariad has already received (and spent) that cash.
The only issue going forward would have been whether the reimbursement rate would be high (or low) enough to change someone's model -- a point that's not so important now that EU ops are no longer on the company's income statement.
I agree.
It's (in principle) a strategy that I suggested a while ago, based on the idea that Ariad's core advantage lies in its lab: if you believe in the science, then they should sell Iclusig to fund their lab operations.
It looks like they've done it piece-meal rather than wholesale, which may or may not have garnered superior results.
Either way, monetizing Iclusig this way will force anyone who is short based on a theory that Ariad will have to dilute to survive to rethink their position. I haven't run the numbers as to whether this can get them to Briga launch, but the cost savings is useful.
(As I recall, when I suggested this, I was told that one of the letters in my degree stood for "baloney." Fun times.)
Both seem to be true -- Ariad people said not to think that they have other drugs, and they did publish about this choline kinase alpha molecule.
I agree it's not really congruent.
Bull case is that CHKA is a study compound that can be part of the pipeline.
Base (and also bear) case is that CHKA has hurdles that are too high so they published the paper because that's all the payoff CHKA can give.
That is when the stock dropped. However,
"when Adam F came out with the first "toxic" article on Iclusig"
*spring 2013
I also agree with Biomaven that in Ariad's case the shorts are mistaken.
I think these questions are important:
What stage were these cases, prior ischemic disease, contributing factors, any diabetes, prior treatment with TKI, how close were they to death prior to Iclusig treatment? Most importantly, did the clinicians at the time of these events attribute them to be drug-related or not?
On another topic, Clovis sp is back to where it was before it's meteoric rise in I think '12 or '13. Just the other day, the FDA threw a scalding water on this company...jmo.
Wisdom is a good thing. Rashness is not.
Investigators had informed the company about the frequency of CV events seen in EPIC, but “Ariad was not listening,” the second source said.
I invested in Ariad because Berger was the CEO
...
Slow and steady wins the race
...
Greed and haste never lead to any real success.
It's possible they were just quoting original PACE results.
IMO, still incorrect and irresponsible.
Right, my original comment was a criticism of the article for telling the reader what the most prevalent AE was and calling it the most important.
If you want to postulate some AE that could "make the article right," I can't stop you. The listed AEs are all just the AEs that Ariad presents in their data. If there were other innocuous AEs, I'm confident that Ariad would have disclosed them too.
However, you're not going to get me to agree that any sentence that starts with "The most important adverse event of Iclusig is..." can end without mentioning vascular occlusion. Not ever.
Anyway, as I said, it's not a big deal.
I don't think we are talking about the same article.
When you say:
The article mentioned the more important side effect(blocked artery) and did not mention the more prevalent side effect(skin rash).
The most important adverse events reported were abdominal pain, skin rash and increase of amylase with pancreatitis, which occurred in 7% of patients.
Well, TBH, I'm not sure what they're saying, but this is my thought experiment:
Imagine the doctor gave your daughter/son a pill and told you the "most important" possible adverse effect is a skin rash.
Then your child ends up in the ER with a blocked artery that needs "revascularization" (i.e., surgery) because that's also a possible adverse effect of the pill.
You ask (read: "confront") your doctor about this, and s/he says, "Well, I said rash was 'most important' because that's the most common. I didn't mention the part where it might give you a stroke or heart attack because more people got a rash."
I don't know about you, but I might need a tooth removed from my knuckle.
The idea that the rash and a stomach cramp are the "most important" adverse effect associated with Iclusig is, IMO, just not correct. "Most prevalent"? Sure. But say that.
Anyway, it's just a paper. Doctors shouldn't prescribe without reading the label. But it's mentally sloppy, IMO. That's all.
IMO, this is actually quite interesting.
As for this:
The most important adverse events reported were abdominal pain, skin rash and increase of amylase with pancreatitis, which occurred in 7% of patients.
I suppose when you're in a hole, the first idea is to stop digging....
Not sure I'm on board with the fear-laden imagery, but I suppose the idea is that this is "for healthcare professionals" not for patients.
But given the growing ALK field, you have to stand out in the minds of prescribers.
Hope they didn't pay too much for the marketing/design/website....
This past September is a great illustration in "head fakes" and "baiting" to entice and then the pps got slammed for no good fundamental or technical reason.
It's ok like this
Glad to help -- and just keep in mind that the 7-2015 beta will be higher due to the greater weight afforded to the sharp Aug 28 up-tick.
The highest beta value through today would be one that started the period on Aug. 27. Longer periods reduce the effect of that data point.
EDIT: that is, looking at the weekly +/- figure (my own default) -- other 7-2015 figures don't show this.
Here are results for both daily and weekly returns (some people like to use weekly for beta to allow for market inefficiency).
Note that I would agree that my subjective experience would indicate a greater figure than any of these results indicate....
Since 3-2015, daily:
Since 3-2015, weekly:
Since 7-2015, daily:
Since 7-2015, weekly:
And they have not to my knowledge ever trialed intermittent/gaps in dosing with Pona.
I remember when the crash occurred and stock analysts even asked HB on a call if aspirin or statin regimens might help. He moreorless dismissed it. Of course, Ariad recommends them now. Just amazing.
This is a chart of monthly OPEC total crude output (yellow) and US total crude output (blue/white) since 2001 as a percentage change (1/1/2001 = 100%).
You tell me who is responsible for the crude glut. Just sayin.
I think it's a good thing ARIA got its bond financing done when it did -- there may not be so much interest or appetite for high-yield debt over the coming year if enough US drilling debt goes south.