Replies to post #338 on Insmed Inc (INSM)

[rfoable1]

Deewar,
I would not be so confident that FDA could not make such an oversight. It's completely possible. FDA just did not see the slightly different wording as a big deal - they saw the phrase as simply clarifying that they recognize the meaning of the acronym "IGFD". We may think it's a big oversight - but so what? It's moot since the exact same wording was issued to both companies by FDA. The two public companies dare not state a single word different from what FDA stated in their published approval letters, so they replicated exactly what they were given in their respective press releases. No difference/no advantage for either company.

They are clearly two different cuts of the IGFD market. "severe primary" is just a subset of "primary". No complex science in that. Tercica has, I think, rather clearly stated the difference, exactly as you have stated - growth velocity outside 3SD's is "severe". Outside 2SDs is not "severe". FDA as well as Dr Underwood and several other experts would have jumped all over Tercica if they saw that Tercica was publicly mis-identifying the statistical basis of the indications.
hang in.

[Deewar25]

Ok....labelling is the only area that 'seems' to make sense - while I took severe primary IGF-1 (primary IGFD) to mean those are two interchangeable terms, it does look like this implies severe primary IGF-1 = severe primary IGFD. I only go on to say that since in the indications and usage part, INSM proceeds to say out of the blue "severe primary IGFD is defined by"....in which case, obviously same thing.

Oh well, I know I'm not the only one confused as I know there was an analyst that also put a 1.2 billion market value on. I guess the 240million is the true current market for these approvals.

Thus, we trade at $2.60, and not $5....not like that explains why TRCA is still at $7 though!