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.
This has happened before to me, video and links don’t appear in the app but do appear if you view on the iHub website. Also posts appear out of order with the app but not in the website.
The question is whether it is appropriate to require boosters or even multiple boosters for persons who have already been vaccinated multiple times but who have notwithstanding that been infected. For such persons, especially college age males, the risk of vaccination could outweigh the benefit.
Well, I guess we have to disagree on this one. I see the double dose canard as the claim that the longer life is due to twice the toxin and not due to the peptide formulation. This article attributes the longer life to the peptide and the discussion of units is purely a question of price. In fact, the article is correct, is it not, you do pay between 50% and 100% more for a Daxxify treatment, because the recommended dose is twice the units and Revance prices Daxxify at a per unit price that is more half of the Botox per unit price -- entirely justified since it's a premium product.
He didn’t start with 160,000, he started with a few thousand. As the software improved, they increased the size.
It’s not unheard of for people to fall asleep at the wheel, sometimes that ends up in a fatal crash.
Actually, I thought Tesla was fairly choosy in who it “allowed” to have FSD beta, among other things, you need to have a certain “safety score” which takes into account forward collision warnings, hard braking, forced autopilot disengagement. See https://electrek.co/2022/09/19/tesla-full-self-driving-beta-expands-owners/
Unless I’m missing something, they charge a hefty price and allow the beta version to only a relatively small number. The ideal business model would be to offer beta to no one and never deliver the software. No risk of accidents.
Somewhat related, when I bought my 2018 model S, it had enhanced autopilot and we were told it would be upgraded to full self drive for free and that an enhanced processor was ready and would be installed free, soon. Musk even Tweeted a few times about the processor. It was never installed. Didn’t make a big fuss as we sort of soured on the fsd concept, especially my wife, the main driver of the car.
Somebody decided to go 80 or whatever that is on a crowded local street, it’s the driver who picks the speed. Car should braked but car was out of control coming over the bridge. Tesla and Porsche’s and their ilk are dangerous in the hands of maniacs.
Here’s an article with some interesting stats, lines of code in modern autos v Microsoft office, fighter jets, etc. It’s not an entirely meaningful statistic since cars have entertainment systems that bloat the number, presumably that doesn’t directly cause crashes. https://cambridgerad.com/pay-attention-tesla-is-not-a-car-company/
Point is, something with 100 million lines of code is never going to be 100 percent reliable.
That’s a more favorable statistic for Tesla than the statistic Musk frequently cites, which is the much lower accident rate per million miles using autopilot v the rate for ordinary cars. As many commentators have observed, the problems with the Musk statistic include that autopilot is mainly driven on the highway, where the accident rate is much lower; the overall accident rate includes local streets, where accidents are more likely (more turns, two way streets, etc).
If you were willing to take the 50 percent risk of placebo and the time waste of 7 visits to a clinic, you could try to get into the trial. Lots of sites in the Northeast, including Stamford, CT.
I’m considering it.
https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT05477524?term=NCT05477524&draw=2&rank=1
If the intended audience of the letter were actually the FDA, they wouldn’t refer to the results of FDA testing of DAXXIFY.
Interesting that, although EOLS traded down somewhat, it recovered and is basically flat as of this post. In contrast, RVNC is down a bit, with the market.
Plus they can return the securities during their life time for a refund for any reason.
Re possible acquisition of RVNC by ABBV From the FTC website.
https://www.ftc.gov/advice-guidance/competition-guidance/guide-antitrust-laws/mergers/competitive-effects
<<You're referring to Molnupiravir's potential to generate host mutations, while Biowatch and Jbog are talking about mutations in the SARS-CoV-2 virus.>>
There were warnings about inducing dangerous mutations in the virus when approval was being discussed. After all, the drug works ny mutating the virus until it can’t replicate. E.g.,
https://www.science.org/content/article/prominent-virologist-warns-covid-19-pill-could-unleash-dangerous-mutants-others-see-little-cause-alarm
<<that particular measure in Figure 5 is the median for return to baseline. For the 1 point improvement median you have to go to the investor deck.>>
What's the difference between a return to baseline and maintaining a 1 point improvement? If there is a zero improvement, you've returned to baseline, no?
Of course, maintaining none or mild is different.
Yeah, figure 5 of the Sakura paper shows the median.
<<That article indicates that they followed people to 36 weeks + not that it was the median duration for one point improvement.>>
I don't think so. See figure 6 and the text describing it, where it is stated:
Interesting, you quoted from the FDA guidance, ""Success should be defined as achievement of a score of 0 or 1 and a two-grade improvement 365 from the baseline, on both the IA and the SSA scales concurrently, to ensure clinical 366 significance. "
That is evidently confusing as you say (the 0 or 1 is redundant) as it confused the Evolus presenter. At around 44 minutes into the presentation, taking a question submitted electronically, we have:
Question: "Do you have the time to loss or none or mild, which is the criteria for FDA duration."
Response [I won't call it an answer]: "To be clear, that is not the criteria for FDA duration. The FDA has a guidance document and for a primary endpoint its a composite of none to mild or a two point improvement, that's the composite."
<<What EOLS showed was not the duration of none-or-mild status per se, but rather the time to return to baseline among the subset of patients who ever attained none-or-mild status.>>
So that if there were one patient who acheived non or mild out of 50, and she took 7 months to return to baseline, the EOLS metric would say, 7 months for patients who acheive non or mild to return to baseline. Wowza.
<<if you are not going to include the control data then why do a controlled trial>>
Obviously Dew isn't buying the explanation, but the claim was this was an interim safety look and they only looked at efficacy for the Juveau double dose, not the others. So presumably the control arms results will be released after June, when the final results are released.
<<A savvy panelist asked [of Novavax] "where's the efficacy data?" More specifically where's the efficacy data as it relates to circulating variants of concern?>>
Fair questions but surely the same can be asked of Pfizer and Moderna.
I got this answer from chatGPT
My question:
Will 40 units of the neurotoxin Jeuveau instead of 20 units produce longer lasting effects in the glabellar area?
Answer:
“The duration of the effect of Jeuveau (or any other neurotoxin) in the glabellar area can vary depending on a number of factors, including the individual's muscle strength, metabolism, and lifestyle. Generally speaking, using a higher dose of a neurotoxin, such as 40 units of Jeuveau instead of 20 units, may produce longer lasting effects. However, this is not always the case and it's best to consult with a licensed healthcare provider who can provide more specific information about the treatment and its potential effects.”
Novavax saying they need 6 months from identification of genetic sequence of variants to be included in vaccine and delivery of their vaccine.
Novavax speaking now 12:35
A bit strange since the introduction starts out with “authorized or approved” and the gets it wrong. But it is correct in the more complete discussion in 3.2.
Novavax started a trial of its bivalent vaccine in May 2022. https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT05372588 shows it as “active, not recruiting.” I didn’t see any discussion of this in the briefing document.
Re: Israeli study, the results are claimed to be stat sig and the difference in means is about 22 days.
“The mean (SD) interval between BTA injections before completing COVID-19 vaccination was estimated at 118.64 (22.73) days (range, 90-200 days), whereas the same interval after getting vaccinated was 95.95 (12.24) days (range, 75-120 days). The average interval between BTA injections was significantly shorter after getting vaccinated as compared to the interval prior to the beginning of the vaccination campaign (P<0.001).”
Well, I’m impressed that a rag such as the New York Post had a link to the study abstract. That in turn takes you to the full article, which is here https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9349385/pdf/JOCD-9999-0.pdf
It’s a retrospective study of 45 Botox patients in Israel, all patients of one doctor/injector, and it compares frequency of injections before and after two Pfizer COVID vaccine injections. Study purports to show that more frequent injections were needed post vaccination. The argument is that selection bias is eliminated because it’s the same doctor.
If this is actually, hard to see why it wouldn’t be true for Moderna or even, for that matter, for “natural” vaccination (I.e., COVID-19). Of course, the same may be true for Daxxify but the argument is, maybe so, but even then, Daxxify will maintain a relative advantage, perhaps even more material if Botox is lasting considerably less than 3 months.
They should try it in combination with Genasense. Maybe throw in a soupçon of Provenge.
He was at a conference with a bunch of bankers and economists. Speaking directly with precision is not allowed, you must use vague, undefined investment banker lingo where possible.
Don’t miners frequently hedge by entering into forward contracts to sell output at a fixed price? A miner not hedging is more exposed, or long, the commodity.