>>This sliding scale of arguments is actually very valid. I laugh when investors think that such questions signify increasing levels of desperation by those evil hedge funds.<<
All of this is a matter of degree. In DNDN’s case, some of the bearish arguments have been quite reasonable, but some have been downright silly, as walldiver highlighted.
In a sense, DNDN’s situation is the reverse of INGN’s. If a drug extends overall survival, TTP loses most of its allure as a metric. This is especially true when there is a plausible medical hypothesis for why Provenge ought to have a weak impact at best on TTP.
We saw some of this same kind of silliness when OSIP launched Tarceva. Do you recall the analysts who used the median survival, instead of the average, to model sales? Or the ones who insisted that only EGFR+ patients or only non-smokers would get Tarceva? Those analysts may have reached the right conclusion –that the Tarceva sales ramp would be slow— for the wrong reason. In my view, the main reason for the slow Tarceva ramp is Alimta.
Market Data 
Markets 
AI
