Seeking Alpha

Jonathan Novak

View as an RSS Feed
View Jonathan Novak's Comments BY TICKER:
Latest  |  Highest rated
  • Notes From One-On-One Meetings During San Fran Biotech Week - Day 1 [View article]
    The whole idea that any of these patients are "stabilized" is ridiculous. They put patients on Suboxone for "at least 3 days" before they were assigned to either Probuphine, Suboxone, or placebo.

    The idea that you could assess the true needs (in terms of dosage) of any of those patients is ridiculous. If that is the case, then it makes no sense to require a trial for 8mg when it has been demonstrated that it works just as well for 12-16mg. The odds are that a lot of those patients would have been fine on 8mg of Suboxone, but they were forced into 12-16 mg. If you really dig into the data on Suboxone, in terms of receptor coverage, it appears that anything over 12mg is really overkill. Most patients really don't need more than 6-8mg. It's really all mental (for a good portion of the patient population) after that.
    Jan 23 09:30 PM | 1 Like Like |Link to Comment
  • Inovio Overextended At $2? [View article]
    They structured the licensing agreement is such a way that INO benefits if Merck uses their technology. Merck has only had to pay INO $4 million since 2004, so it makes sense for them to structure the deal the way they did. Why would they pay INO a huge flat rate if they aren't sure how much use they will get out of the product?

    A partnership is when you share costs. As in, this project is going to cost $100 and I'll pay 40% and you take the other 60%. It is more of a positive because it locks both parties in.

    The deal INO has with Merck does not do that. Merck has the ability to pick and choose what they want to do with the technology that they licensed. If they don't develop it, they don't pay. You can't have those type of terms in a partnership.
    Aug 6 08:18 PM | 1 Like Like |Link to Comment
  • Inovio Overextended At $2? [View article]
    This is from the PR from Inovio:

    "Under a 2004 license agreement, Merck & Co. holds worldwide non-exclusive rights to use Inovio's electroporation technology for intramuscular delivery...."

    Chill out and make sure you're right before you accuse someone else of being wrong.
    Aug 6 07:51 PM | 1 Like Like |Link to Comment
  • Inovio Overextended At $2? [View article]
    It's a licensing deal. You guys are so caught up on the positives of a "partnership" that you want to lump everything into the category.

    A partnership means two companies share the costs to develop another company or product.

    A licensing deal is when you pay for the work of someone else. It can be in the form of an upfront payment and royalties, or it can be in the form of a flat fee.

    Both can be positive, but the term partnership does not apply in this situation.
    Aug 6 07:49 PM | 3 Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Inovio Overextended At $2? [View article]
    Well, no, that is exactly what I just said. Merck isn't there to advance a common goal. They are using INO's technology for their own personal gain.

    It's a licensing agreement, not a partnership. Thanks for proving my point.
    Aug 6 07:05 PM | 3 Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Inovio Overextended At $2? [View article]
    Mark, you mean the same Seeking Alpho that the company linked to on its official twitter account?

    And what partners? Merck isn't a partner, they licensed the technology to use on their own, right?
    Aug 6 06:29 PM | 2 Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Arena Pharmaceuticals: Current Prescription Rates Aren't The Real Issue [View article]
    That's not how the market works.

    If they did sales of 500 million in the first year (which won't happen) the market cap would be higher than 1.6 billion. The market is forward looking and assumes that profits will continue to accumulate.

    Look up what a P/E ratio is and you'll understand.
    Aug 6 03:21 PM | 2 Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Implant Sciences: Sometimes Facts Lie [View article]
    Rob, by that logic, none of the other competition would stand a chance. Plus, I don't think GE is a direct competitor, right?
    Aug 2 01:54 PM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Navidea Biopharmaceuticals' Lymphoseek Faces 3 Near-Term Catalysts [View article]
    It's a bit of a stretch to say they are actively developing RIGS.

    It has ALOT of potential to be huge for Navidea, but they have really dragged their feet on it. It is an expensive program, but they need to get the ball rolling at some point.
    Jul 21 10:14 AM | 1 Like Like |Link to Comment
  • Why I'm Betting Big On Implant Sciences [View article]
    This is absurd. Fully diluted is 100 million shares. How many people are going to try and argue that is wasn't discussed in the article? Those people are either misinformed (commenting on something they haven't read) or they have an obvious agenda...
    Jun 20 09:19 AM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Why I'm Betting Big On Implant Sciences [View article]
    40 million in debt is not that big of an issue if they are able to sell their product. The good news is that people have to buy it and there is a list they have to choose from. Like you pointed out, there is a strong possibility that there will be only one name on the list.

    This stock has more naysayers than i've ever seen.
    Jun 16 05:39 PM | 3 Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • FDA Rejection Of Probuphine Hits Titan Hard [View article]
    What patent law Jimmy? Know what you're talking about before you comment. There are clear advantages to Probuphine.

    The deal with Braeburn is good IF they decide to stick around. If it is estimated that the FDA won't approve by January 1, 2015, Braeburn can walk away.

    So, if that happens, how can you say fair value is 98 cents and then go on to say they will dilute 40 million shares at 40 cents per share? I know you are referring to your DCF model, but it still doesn't make sense. It can't be worth 98 cents today when they are going to sell 40 million shares at 40 cents in 3-6 months.

    Does that make sense?
    May 1 04:41 PM | 1 Like Like |Link to Comment
  • FDA Rejection Of Probuphine Hits Titan Hard [View article]
    The issue isn't the FDA, the issue is that the Data2000 requirements make it impossible for doctors to refer patients to specialists for the procedure.

    Outside of that, this is a clear case of the FDA moving the goal post. Yeah, 60% of patients (a figure that has got to be skewed by the dropouts) needed Suboxone for an average of 5 days. That is enough to deny it?

    Why not remove the rescue meds and let 100% of the placebo group drop out? The comparison is Probuphine vs. Placebo, but the FDA is trying to make it Probuphine vs. Suboxone.

    Remove the rescue meds and I'm willing to bet the Probuphine results don't change all that much. Offering extra drugs to an addict is going to lead to them taking the extra meds. If they weren't offered, I bet the results would be similar.
    May 1 04:29 PM | 1 Like Like |Link to Comment
  • BioDelivery On Track For Mid-Year NDA Filing [View article]
    How will they compete with the giant that is Reckitt Benckiser when they plan on selling the drug on their own? It's not the exact same treatment, but it is pretty close to a "me too" drug.

    They've already said pricing will be the same, so where is the competitive advantage? Going on the cheek, as opposed to under the tongue, doesn't seem like something that will get many patients to change their treatment.
    Apr 10 10:50 AM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Titan's Probuphine: An Effective And Promising Treatment Option [View article]
    As the article mentions, I am long Titan.

    The facts of this article should stand on their own, but a good demonstration of the reason to remind doctors of the real Suboxone comparison can be found here:

    http://bit.ly/YvtGW7

    Once reminded of the true clinical trial results for Suboxone, half of this doctors objections to Probuphine were dismissed.

    Here is a quote to illustrate:

    "Yes, you are right. After reading your comment, I went back and re-read some of the biggest studies of sublingual buprenorphin. That data is close to data from the studies of Probuphine. It’s a great example of how my work prescribing sublingual buprenorphine can bias my impressions and memory! (Schottenfield, et al, 1997, Archives of General Psychaitry, Fudala et al, NEJM, 2003)
    In one of the biggest studies, about 44% of subjects in a Suboxone study dropped out of treatment at 6 months, and around 50% of the subjects were negative for opioids, and only around 65% were negative at one year. This, of course , is not the same as saying only 8% of patients had 80% or more negatives urine drug careen as seen with Probuphine,So but different measurements were used.
    So you are right – drop- out data isn’t that different, and efficacy isn’t that different, between Probuphine and Suboxone. Still, I have issues with the mechanics of placing the Probuphine and getting patients to come for counseling."

    From there, all you need to do is get the doctor to the training course and mention the need for a small amount of rescue medication and she is probably sold on at least trying it on a few patients. After that, it all comes down to Probuphine.
    Apr 3 08:51 AM | 2 Likes Like |Link to Comment
COMMENTS STATS
28 Comments
31 Likes