Replies to post #112577 on Biotech Values

[jq1234]

I'm not entirely following your points or the numbers in the table you posted.

That's why you are so fixated to believe what RIGL said. RIGL said the initial blood pressure increased only 2-3mm after on R788, let's assume this is true (use 3mm), the statistics I posted showed they dropped 16mm and 20mm for two treatment arms, thus mean blood pressure should have dropped at least 13mm, 17mm from baseline at 6-month for these patients. We also know overall mean blood pressure went up from baseline to 6-month for about 1mm. Combining these two data together, there are only two possibilities: 1. other patients' blood pressure went up dramatically to offset the drop of 13 and 17 to cause overall mean increase of just 1mm; 2. the 3mm increase cited is not true, thus the increase of blood pressure initially after taking R788 went up much much higher than 3mm.

Would you agree that if this miniscule increase in blood pressure at the end of 6 months remains constant over time (and I realize there's a risk it may not) that there is not a strong likelihood that the fostimatinib arms will show a statistically significant increase in cardiovascular events relative to placebo (as is the case to date)?

The small increase over 6-month didn't tell the full story of sharp rise and drop during the course of the treatment cycle as mentioned above. I don't know or anyone else knows what long term effect will be.

Also, would you agree that the market is effectively pricing in clinical, regulatory, or otherwise commercial failure for fostimatinib given RIGL's roughly $400M market cap?

Market is pricing the uncertainty - they don't believe what RIGL said. I happen to agree with the market pricing in this case at this stage.