Replies to post #158939 on Biotech Values

[JJM760]

Don send me your address so I can send you a new keyboard. Between twitter and here, I'm pretty sure you pounded the letters off of your's today.

[DonShimoda]

Claiming Iclusig is "dirty drug" based solely on AEs seen in a 3/4 line setting is a really weak bear thesis (and poor journalism, imo).

I'd like to clarify this statement. Not only do I not have a problem listening to the other side of a trade I'm involved in, it is one of the things that makes this forum so valuable. You don't have to look very far to find smart folks who may have a different view. The problem with most message boards is that the bear thesis is often given short shrift.

I guess what bothers me most about Adams article is that the "dirty drug" comment was allowed to go completely unchallenged and, as a result, AF lent it credibility that, imo, it didn't deserve.

Also it is my understanding (as reported on bloomberg) that there was a vendor reporting issue with this weeks IMS data. I have no way of knowing whether AF knew about the scrip issue and didn't include it in the article or he didn't know about it in the first place. In either case, I don't think this was his best work.

[jq1234]

Claiming Iclusig is "dirty drug" based solely on AEs seen in a 3/4 line setting is a really weak bear thesis (and poor journalism, imo). What matters as much to me as total scrips is the composition of those scrips. For example, how many are CP vs AP vs BP? What line of therapy? How many have the T315I mutation?

Look at his title, he is a columnist, not a reporter. There is distinction there. Columnist is to offer opinion even though he was just reporting someone else's opinions in this case. Why do people suddenly have problem with anonymous source? I hear news reporting based on anonymous source everywhere and everyday. It is the norm, not exception.

I haven't changed my opinion on Iclusig since approval even though I took a small position yesterday, mainly along the line of a baseket of small to mid biotechs with approved drugs.

I agree composition of scripts and duration of treatment are the most important items. You are not going to get clarity on these, for a few more months, so the stock would be volatile as I expected, and continue to expect because large present and future revenues are baked in share price. I wouldn't mind adding more if there would be further weakness. I am not expecting quick profit though.

"Dirty drug" may sound terrible, but it is my main concern - I don't question its efficacy. I wasn't sold, still not sold on the AEs entirely due to 3/4th line patients in trial even though I am a shareholder now. Patients typically don't do as well in real world as in clinical trial setting. It is a mistake to dismiss that possibility entirely. For example INCY's Jakafi, I wasn't too worried about tolerability issue at launch based on clinical trial data. It did become issue after launch. Only one year after launch, INCY realized they dosed patients too aggressively.

I don't agree with the anonymous opinion 1st line trial would fail. That's not reason to dismiss everything in the article. On the other hand, no one questioned/challenged the other analyst's opinion in the article - I guess because it wasn't negative LOL:

but highlighted 40% of front-line EU patients treated with 2nd -generation TKI's.

I seriously question this number. According to ARIA's own presentation, Sprycel isn't reimbursed for 1st in EU except Italy mainly due to pricing. If Tasigna by itself got almost 40% 1st line patients in EU, Tasigna revenue should be much higher IMO.