Replies to post #373936 on Amarin Corp Plc (AMRN)

[Whalatane]

gg thx for the update
Kiwi

[rosemountbomber]

GG thanks for that. Makes one feel a tiny bit better but with Amarin we are always worried another shoe will drop. Appreciate the dd.

[Skipperdog11]

Now that is an example of company value! Well communicated reply by Lisa. Thanks for sharing ggwpq

[studythosestocks]

Appreciate you sharing your DD GGWPQ,
Finally had a chance to read the entire recommendation and yes, UK is trying to force us to give it to them for peanuts.
As NS, TK and others have said, the negotiations are ongoing but UK knows they have us in a tight spot.

. The ERG’s base case included a 10-year treatment
reduction after discontinuation effect and its base-case ICER was £22,609 per QALY gained. The committee preferred the scenario with a 10-year
treatment effect reduction after discontinuation and the treatment effect of icosapent ethyl was reduced by 7%. This resulted in a committee preferred ICER of £34,067 per QALY gained. The committee recalled from its first meeting that the company’s own ICER for the primary
prevention subgroup was much higher than what NICE normally considers
an acceptable use of NHS resources. It therefore concluded that the
primary prevention subgroup was very unlikely to be cost effective in any
additional analyses. The company did not submit any analyses for the
primary prevention subgroup after consultation. The committee concluded
that icosapent ethyl is not cost effective in the primary or secondary
prevention populations.

I'm tired of the entire world stealing from Amarin. They are basically trying to strangle hold us into agreeing that the placebo lowered the Reduce-IT results by 7%. That's foolish and they know it. Someone else trying to rob our pockets. If we agree with these terms then that will wipe out 9 figure profits IMO because it will effect the
negotiations with the other countries we are working with over the next 8 plus years.
As either I posted here or to a fellow poster privately, I figured AMRN would compromise to 3% model at the highest, UK would come down to 7% and hopefully we can sign a deal closer to the 3% but not more than 5%.
If running the numbers shows we are giving it to UK for $100-120/month (I haven't seriously run the numbers but some here probably are smart enough to do it), then we need to seriously just say, "You fools. If you don't want a lifesaving medication for your people at $175-$200/month, then you've made your bed. Let us know if you change your mind." Just my Monday night irrational rant.

[Birdbrain Ideas]

If I recall right, Amarin might have failed to adequately dismiss the fake mineral oil controversy for what it was, an attempt by short sellers to salvage positions that were blown up by the announcement of the Reduce It results. I might be wrong about this, but I think Amarin told the UK folks that "Oh yeah, well it's possible that the mineral oil at worst might have been responsible for a 4 percent error in the results" or something to that effect. That was the company line when the controversy first was promoted by that fake "health consortium" and others with biased interests in 2018 before additional studies showed that mineral oil really had virtually no effect.

The problem with opening the door even slightly to the possibility that mineral oil corrupted the results is that the folks in UK and elsewhere will assume that Amarin itself is too biased to tell the truth. So if they hear 4 percent, they surely double it to 8 or 10 percent, meaning the Reduce It results would be as low as 15 percent reduction of chance of heart attack or stroke. That would still be great, but if you lower it to that, then the UK might question whether a 15 percent reduction is worth the cost and encouraging people to take so many more fat pills a day.

In his last lecture on the subject, Dr. Bhatt called the mineral oil controversy silly. And he's openly spoken of the short sellers interest that drives it. Amarin should do the same and take a hard-line approach against refuting it rather than offering up a mealy-mouthed vague repudiation that allows the UK and others to imagine that the fake mineral oil debacle has a basis in fact.