Replies to post #217885 on Amarin Corp Plc (AMRN)

[sharinky]

On what grounds ? On the grounds that it is not natural. It does not occur in nature. It has to be altered to get to that composition.

[sts66]

Plus EPA ha[s] been marketed for decades

How do you know that? Did you use the Wayback Machine to go back in time to find the first time Plus EPA was ever mentioned on the internet? Wait a second - "decades" means the 90's, which is before the world wide web really existed as we know it, so you won't be able to prove when it was first marketed, unless they disclose it on their website somewhere (but why would they?).

In a similar vein - don't know if this has been discussed here or not because I've decided I cannot keep up with the rate of new posts on this board anymore and have skipped probably a thousand posts in the last 4-5 days - MRC rebuttal to AMRN's response to his CP #2 where he claims EE-EPA is a DS, so V should be a DS - he says a DS called "SuperEPA" was sold in 1987 containing EE-EPA, a year before any INDs were filed with the FDA to investigate it's use as a drug:

http://www.regulations.gov/contentStreamer?documentId=FDA-2019-P-3266-0012&attachmentNumber=1&contentType=pdf


Start at page 104 for this SuperEPA discussion - not clear to me whether he's correct or not, or even if it's true should SuperEPA have been classified as an unapproved new drug (which AMRN claims) because it contains EE-EPA, a synthetic molecule that doesn't exist in nature.