Elmono: fact that you own little shares atm
and look for a lower entry later is obvious by the tendency in your postings,
thank you however for your honesty on that subject!!
I myself expect you to be wrong there. The uptake argument by CHM is a lot more likely than your explanation. The datasheet in that part was likely a long time pre launch and could not have had all factors in there and the fact that the launch was during the summer also made for a slower initially:
Holiday season is no good season to start a treatment where patients(and in this case children AND parents) need to keep a strict regiment. Also the drug took a bit longer to evaluate for the physician, i definately think that increlex being out there made a few physicians take a bit longer to evaluate both drugs potential/risk/ease of use more thorougly than if there had been only one alternative.
Still, appreciate the discussion returning to normal topics and argument, gladly i do not have to remove any msges at this time, so please keep it like that (not a msg just for elmono there!!)
Also your arguments about insmed not holding back their numbers is wrong and not based on facts. When looking at facts:
You saw that the insmed quarterly cc and an earlier presentation slided were admitted into evidence by TRCA.
Combine that with the fact that inmsed recently decided not to present patient accruel numbers, but merely revenue numbers shows a caution due to the trial.
This fact and the fact that INSM trial is very experienced cannot be a coincidence, most likely trca's moves there were expected and anticipated by insmed legal team and management.
Also add a delay of 3-4months before insurers officially approve a new prescription and start reimbursing and anyone can see why the initial actual reported revenue will come in low at the start, revenue lags patient accruel.
If in doubt the VA"s contract should shed some light there on anticipated use of iplex!
