Replies to post #55016 on Biotech Values

[iwfal]

That makes three of us (ghmm, you, and, I) who are onto this scheme and I’ll bet I can count PGS as a fourth. I can’t understand why the other regulars on this board are having so much difficulty figuring it out.

I suspect you put me into the 'difficulty figuring it out' camp - but this is incorrect. We just have different styles (and I had, at that point, listened to only the Rodman and Renshaw presentation):

a) I never assume malfeasance when incompetence will do (and correspondingly am not as willing to zap them.).

b) I do not make judgements as quickly. Instead I want to watch the management team over time - how do they follow through? How self consistent are the various presentations?

PS In the case of PP I would guess that they are sufferring more from over-zealousness than malfeasance - e.g. the more-than-passing comparison of their new free Cu tester to cholesterol testers in revenue stream. I can't think of any blood tester other than blood sugar that is more used in the US. Substantial hubris to assume that the Cu tester will ever get to that level of usage - or if it does, that it will do so any time in the next decade. The fit Kanzer threw in the ODAC is another example of his probable over-zealousness. (And note that I do NOT mean to downplay over-zealousness - it often results in poor judgement.)

PPS In the CC they say explicitly that they are planning to sell their dry AMD treatment assuming GRAS status (so no NDA needed) but sold via prescription. I do not understand the regulations here - are their prescription drugs (i.e. not OTC) that do require an NDA?

[poorgradstudent]

I don't understand the dust-up about PP.

Thiomolybdate compounds are very promiscuous, and they will scavenge many divalent cations, just with differing affinities. Therefore, this concept of attempting to modulate Cu levels using thiomolybdate is really hit or miss... it's a terribly blunt and nonspecific tool for the purpose proposed.

Secondly, the data for Cu / Alzheimer's are the hallmark of hypothesis generating work. In other words, seeing differing Cu levels among sick patients doesn't address the question of whether the Cu level is simply correlative, or, more importantly, if it is causative. It looks to me like PP is depending on the public not being able to discern the difference.

No more on this one from me. Companies that largely reformulate off-patent compounds aren't generally trustworthy or credible imo. I really think this looks like a vehicle for shareholders / executives to milk a paycheck.