Seeking Alpha
View as an RSS Feed


View EnhydrisPECorp's Comments BY TICKER:

Latest  |  Highest rated
  • Celladon: A Good Deal, And A Rare Buy-Write Opportunity [View article]
    Reading is fundamental. All this talk about ejection fraction is way off base.

    The point is that the high dose in CUPID-1 showed stabilization of EF compared to placebo. And the P-value was extremely close to significance (p = 0.057). Higher sample sizes mean lower variance, which typically translates into higher p-values. So CUPID-2 should report a significant result on this important biomarker.

    And the talk about patient imbalances is moot. They did post-hoc tests showing that imbalances were not the primary factor driving these results in CUPID-1. So stop it.
    Apr 22, 2015. 10:52 AM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Celladon: CUPID-2 Is Likely To Fail [View article]
    Just to flesh this out a bit more so non-scientific readers understand this issue.

    Some authors, such as this one, have tried to make a big deal about some minor "imbalances" regarding the patient sub-populations across Mydicar's dosages in its Phase 1/2 trials.

    If you look at the SD's, however, you will quickly realize that they all overlap significantly in baseline characteristics. Yes, the mean is different, but what matters from a statistical viewpoint is that they have significant overlap. They are statistically similar populations!

    Again, if these imbalances were such a big deal, CUPID-2 would not have earned multiple accolades from top-notch journals.

    I personally have no idea if CUPID-2 will work out as planned, but to say that it's "likely to fail" based on a superficial look at the mean values emanating from CUPID-1 is a giant leap of faith.

    What seems to confuse lay authors is the wide variance due to the small sample size. That is to be expected in such a small trial because variance itself is affected by sample size. In effect, the spread goes down as sample size goes up.

    CUPID-1 had some heterogeneity issues, no doubt, because of its small sample size, but this issue was statistically controlled through the appropriate data transformations in the analysis.

    So your conclusions based on raw mean data values are way off base. And your failure to discuss the SD's and their significance is a huge blow to this article.
    Apr 22, 2015. 10:30 AM | 18 Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Celladon: CUPID-2 Is Likely To Fail [View article]
    You make a mountain out of a molehill regarding minor "imbalances" and claim that CUPID-1 is "inconclusive" based on quite literally nothing.

    Do you know more than Editors at Nature or the American Heart Association? Both of whom called CUPID-1's results unprecedented?

    Sorry, the scientific community disagrees with your neophyte analysis..and so does big pharma. Weak results wouldn't have grabbed their attention, as you claim.
    Apr 22, 2015. 10:01 AM | 12 Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Celladon: CUPID-2 Is Likely To Fail [View article]
    This article should be pulled ASAP. It's straight up wrong in so many regards I don't know where to begin with the criticism.

    Cutting to the chase, why would 4 major pharmas (Pfizer, JNJ, Novartis, BMY) invest millions in CLDN and QURE if it had a high chance of failure? And why are multiple funds loading up on shares ahead of the topline data readout?

    This is a blatant attempt at stock manipulation and a misrepresentation of the clinical trial data to date.

    CUPID-2 may fail because this is an extremely difficult indication to treat, but the clinical data so far has been so impressive that it made headlines around the world and was featured in Nature of all places.

    Glad you know more than professional scientists, hedge funds, and big pharma combined. Good job.
    Apr 22, 2015. 09:52 AM | 9 Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Trevena Inc: Profitable To You And Disruptive To Everyone Else [View article]
    Earnings are worthless for stocks like this one. Just keep an eye on their cash levels and the rest is all about the data.
    Mar 17, 2015. 09:57 PM | 4 Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Trevena Inc: Profitable To You And Disruptive To Everyone Else [View article]
    @ SR - also a nice piece! Good work!
    Mar 17, 2015. 11:37 AM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Trevena Inc: Profitable To You And Disruptive To Everyone Else [View article]
    SB-Fantastic article! I already own 1200 shares but want to buy more after reading this piece.
    Mar 17, 2015. 10:20 AM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Sunesis Pharmaceuticals, Inc. Offers A Moderate Risk 80% Return On The Short Side [View article]
    Over an 80% drop in the last few days. Damn good call if I do say so myself.
    Oct 6, 2014. 11:26 AM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • How Johnson & Johnson Is Helping Me With My Coca Cola Investment [View article]
    JNJ underperformed? When factoring in dividends reinvestments, I have this stock being a better than average performer for at least the last 15 odd years. And management even states in their 10-K that they have beaten the DJI for 10 years running on an annualized basis. I guess if you look at short time periods like a year or so you can make this argument. But JNJ is a stock you buy for a lifetime and even multiple lifetimes by passing it on to your children.

    To drive this point home, an investor that bought JNJ in the 1980's and used a DRIP would be looking at close to a 5000% ROI! The DJI, by contrast, would have returned less than 1700% in the same time period. And JNJ would have also crushed KO over the same time period as well...just saying.

    Great stock that everyone should own, in my opinion. Growth outside of pharma is suspect, however.
    Aug 25, 2014. 02:50 PM | 1 Like Like |Link to Comment
  • Enanta Pharmaceuticals Is Simply Too Cheap To Ignore [View article]
    See my comment above. It will be either by formulation (28.5%) or by therapeutic contribution. There might be more info out there on the specifics but I haven't come across it. The way it is worded in the SEC filings, it sounds like the royalty structure isn't set in stone yet.
    Aug 14, 2014. 04:11 AM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Enanta Pharmaceuticals Is Simply Too Cheap To Ignore [View article]
    Thanks for the stellar comments everyone! I really learned a lot by reading them.
    Aug 13, 2014. 02:45 AM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Enanta Pharmaceuticals Is Simply Too Cheap To Ignore [View article]
    Hi Barry,

    Thanks for the excellent comments! Here are my quick thoughts...

    1. While this therapy is supposed to compete directly with Sovaldi, it's important to remember that Sovaldi is an effective pan-genotypic treatment. My understanding is that AbbVie's therapy is indicated primarily for genotypes 1a/b.

    2. Your calculation of the second, less bullish, scenario is definitely important to consider. However, I haven't seen a press release where the two companies have agreed upon either royalty calculation. And the word "allocable" could mean a couple of different things and I wasn't sure how they were defining it quite frankly.

    Namely, they could define it based on formulation--most straightforward and this appears to be what you are referring to. By contrast, they could be defining it based on the protease inhibitor's contribution to the the overall therapeutic effect (perhaps hard to define but critical to consider).

    For example, Enanta's protease inhibitor is arguably the most important component of this therapy. In that case, Enanta would be doing a major disservice to its shareholders by agreeing to a deal that amounts to a paltry 5% of net sales. And if you consider the substantial premiums paid for Sovaldi and Idenix's experimental hep C drugs, I have a hard time believing Enanta would agree to such a deal.

    Based on the data I've seen for ABT-450, it looks like the star of the show. Glossing over some of the details, the clinical trial data would seem to indicate that ABT-450 is the main component, whereas ABT-267 and 333 act to make the drug more effective across a broader range of patient subtypes. And even then, that's not always the case.

    In short, ABT-450 looks like it does about 80-85% of the "work", but it's only 28.5% of the formulation by weight. Complicating matters, genotype 1b patients appear to respond better to treatment with simpler DAA regimens containing a protease inhibitor--giving Enanta all the more reason to argue for a royalty rate based on "effect" rather than "weight".

    Honestly, these are issues I'm still not clear on, but am glad you brought them up in the comments section. If you have a press release that sheds more light on the royalty structure, it would be greatly appreciated!

    I fully concede that I may be in error in how "allocable" is being defined in this deal, but the formulation scenario would make this the cheapest licensing deal for a next generation hep C drug to date. In that case, I am even more bullish on AbbVie. Food for thought.
    Aug 11, 2014. 09:51 PM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Zeiher Study Likely Predicts The Outcome Of NeoStem's AMR-001 Trial [View article]
    Sort of surprised the market is so bearish on NBS. Nice article. I'll probably take a spec position in the near future.
    Mar 10, 2014. 01:11 PM | 4 Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • IGI Laboratories: Management Has Delivered And The Pipeline Is Building [View article]
    Thanks for this article. Fundamentals are improving, management looks top notch, and a galaxy of ANDA's that give the company deep value.
    Mar 7, 2014. 05:44 AM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Forget The Sideshow Distractions And Focus On Galena's Pipeline [View article]
    This article contains multiple factual errors. First off, there are MULTIPLE lawsuits filed against GALE right NOW for this "insider selling nonsense" as you put it, with more on the way. That could close the company down given their cash position. Danger.

    Secondly, NeuVAX FAILED its clinical trials but GALE failed to alert shareholders to the truth. Read the peer-reviewed articles, or at least my summary. Stating otherwise is more misinformation. I gave the p-values proving this point. Where is your proof that it works? You only use what the company is stating, and I have clearly shown that to be a falsehood.

    You are dangerously misleading investors with your article that fails to cite primary sources, and is based on propaganda from GALE. They can't even be bothered to report correct statistics in their SEC filings, and you believe what they are saying for a single second?

    Finally, I caught Mr. Ahn red handed telling a fib to investors on SA, and cited the SEC filings to back up my assertion. If anything, investors need to be protected from his misinformation.

    Either cite primary literature backing your assertions, or state them as opinion.

    7 law firms do not believe Galena's story.
    Mar 4, 2014. 09:06 AM | 10 Likes Like |Link to Comment