InvestorsHub Logo

rosemountbomber

07/17/18 11:44 AM

#133554 RE: Whalatane #133549

Kiwi, maybe less than that since the 15% encompasses some failure chance.

But realistically it is still only his educated guess. We shall all find out the real numbers real soon. None of this handicapping with percentages.

Jt0082

07/17/18 11:50 AM

#133556 RE: Whalatane #133549

thanks Kiwi, always enjoy your valuable contributions on here as a patient and as an investor.

The doc obviously disclosed upfront his relationship with AMRN and of course there can be a conflict but at the end of the day, he obviously believes in the science and the key differentiators:

- pure EPA (banged on about this and that all other trials are combos)

- the dosage (banged on about non being 4g mentioned even JELIS only 1.8g)

- the right patient population enrolled (high trigs, diabetics, all the subgroups and SE's)

for me I have no clue where the RRR comes out... I hope double digits, but no point speculating because nobody really knows. If you take the doc's word that there will be significant adoption if hits as you know nothing else out there to reduce risk.. and how optimistic he is on success, I think presents a good opportunity. That's why I increased my holding. That being said, I also understand Phyr's view that you could wait for the results and buy then as its safer and you take out the binary risk and there will still be significant upside if it hits (albeit a bit less).

oneragman

07/17/18 11:59 AM

#133558 RE: Whalatane #133549

Kiwi, right at the end, the doctor noted that in the ODYSSEY trial, those with high trigs had an event at twice the rate as those with normal trig levels, even though ldl was 70-80.

sts66

07/17/18 12:57 PM

#133577 RE: Whalatane #133549

My issue with the design of R-IT was that they should have enrolled only Category 1 ( prior events ) patients ....That would have increased chances of success.



May have given better results, but would have left unanswered a more critical question - how can you prevent the first CVE from occurring? If stats are good for that, especially for diabetics, the roof will blow off.

Why is MD biased beyond the fact that he's knowledgeable about how EPA works? You'd rather have some idiot who thinks V is fish oil be interviewed? AMRN ain't paying him a penny to run EVAPORATE:

https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT02926027



Sponsors and Collaborators
Los Angeles Biomedical Research Institute
Intermountain Research and Medical Foundation