Comments on Thomas Barnard's articles RSS Syndication from SeekingAlpha.com http://seekingalpha.com/author/thomas-barnard/articles http://seekingalpha.com/article/147364-big-pharma-where-s-the-risk-management?source=feed#comment-607567 607567 Thu, 30 Jul 2009 03:11:32 -0400 Agree with you 100%.
"Great Potentials" count the most
for any company.]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/147364-big-pharma-where-s-the-risk-management?source=feed#comment-597274 597274 Tue, 21 Jul 2009 18:52:30 -0400
Sour grapes is no way to run a business. Pfizer should have locked up the rights to this a year ago because it works, and (more importantly), patients will use it.]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/147364-big-pharma-where-s-the-risk-management?source=feed#comment-583473 583473 Quote me properly, dear mentally deranged individual. I understand > misquoting and the twisting of facts is how you make money for your > masters, but I will not lie down and take it. This stock is about > potential breakthroughs and applications of delivery mechanisms. > If the mouth-absorption technique proves effective it could be implemented > in nearly every type of heart disease medicine, they require the > fastest blood absorption rate possible. Currently earnings is not > a reason to buy this company, but future potential blockbuster drugs > and deliver mechanisms are.]]> Sat, 11 Jul 2009 10:29:36 -0400

On Jul 10 01:40 PM Shiftless wrote:

> Quote me properly, dear mentally deranged individual. I understand
> misquoting and the twisting of facts is how you make money for your
> masters, but I will not lie down and take it. This stock is about
> potential breakthroughs and applications of delivery mechanisms.
> If the mouth-absorption technique proves effective it could be implemented
> in nearly every type of heart disease medicine, they require the
> fastest blood absorption rate possible. Currently earnings is not
> a reason to buy this company, but future potential blockbuster drugs
> and deliver mechanisms are.]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/147364-big-pharma-where-s-the-risk-management?source=feed#comment-582479 582479 Fri, 10 Jul 2009 13:40:18 -0400 http://seekingalpha.com/article/147364-big-pharma-where-s-the-risk-management?source=feed#comment-581374 581374 > > "...GNBT is a pump and dump dream which I have never invested]]> Thu, 09 Jul 2009 18:41:00 -0400
For example, see this announcement of Oral- Recosulin to be sold in India,
www.biospectrumasia.co...
but Shreya's website doesn't list it...
www.shreya.co.in/?q=no...

Can someone show me revenue?

Now on to salaries....
Ms. Anna E. Gluskin $729,000
Ms. Rose C. Perri $576,000
Dr. Gerald Bernstein M.D $200,000
Mr. Mark A. Fletcher Esq. $433,000

These seem pretty high to me for a 9 year old company with few results to show for it, i.e. no phase 3 in any developed country, and teetering on the edge of bankruptcy. The yearly fix of new issue keeps these dogs hunting. On the other hand, these people do have less than 2% stake in the company which was mostly acquired through options for ZERO dollars per share.

Good Luck!








On Jul 08 11:42 AM Shiftless wrote:

>
>
> "...GNBT is a pump and dump dream which I have never invested]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/147364-big-pharma-where-s-the-risk-management?source=feed#comment-581352 581352 i wished this article was posted 1 month ago when GNBT was .36cents]]> Thu, 09 Jul 2009 18:23:32 -0400

On Jul 09 08:27 AM singh wrote:

> i wished this article was posted 1 month ago when GNBT was .36cents]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/147364-big-pharma-where-s-the-risk-management?source=feed#comment-580240 580240 Thu, 09 Jul 2009 08:27:32 -0400 http://seekingalpha.com/article/147364-big-pharma-where-s-the-risk-management?source=feed#comment-579220 579220 Sorry not impressed, either with oral-Lyn data that has been presented or the concept of a metformin chewing gum. Based on PhII results, PhIII will not get approval fro Oral-Lyn. ************************************************************************* Recent Oral-lyn Phase II results: ADA Scientific Sessions 2008 "Insulin Analogue (Basal + Pre-Prandial Injection) vs. Human Insulin (Basal Injection + Prandial Oral Insulin (Generex Oral-lyn™) in Type-1 Diabetes Mellitus: A 372-Day Comparison" Conclusion: "A regimen consisting of basal BID s.c. NPH and prandial orally-absorbed regular insulin (Generex Oral-lyn™) attained lower pre-meal glucose, HbA1c and Fru concentrations, than a regimen using basal and pre-prandial insulin analogue injections in Type-1 DM during a 372-day period." http://professional.diabetes.org/Abstracts_Display.aspx?TYP=1&CID=70786 ADA Scientific Sessions 2007 "Comparison of Pre-prandial s.c. Regular Insulin vs Prandial Oral Insulin (Oral-lyn) in Adult Type-1 DM Subjects Receiving Basal s.c. Twice Daily Isophane Insulin (NPH)" Conclusion: "Near normalization of parameters of DM metabolic control was achieved in all subjects. Direct comparison of HbA1c concentrations during CP demonstrate a superior effect of Generex Oral-lyn™ over subcutaneously injected regular insulin." http://professional.diabetes.org/Abstracts_Display.aspx?TYP=1&CID=54183 "It is not like the inhaled insulin, so it doesn't get into the lungs,” said study investigator Philip Raskin, MD, professor of medicine at The University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center in Dallas. “People seem to like it, and it does seem to lower the blood sugar [the way] it is supposed to.” Dr. Raskin is among the researchers involved in an international phase 3 study of 750 patients. http://www.renalandurologynews.com/Oral-Insulin-Spray-Showing-Promise/article/121107/]]> Wed, 08 Jul 2009 14:04:02 -0400
> Sorry not impressed, either with oral-Lyn data that has been presented or the concept of a metformin chewing gum. Based on PhII results, PhIII will not get approval fro Oral-Lyn.
**********************...

Recent Oral-lyn Phase II results:

ADA Scientific Sessions 2008 "Insulin Analogue (Basal + Pre-Prandial Injection) vs. Human Insulin (Basal Injection + Prandial Oral Insulin (Generex Oral-lyn™) in Type-1 Diabetes Mellitus: A 372-Day Comparison"

Conclusion: "A regimen consisting of basal BID s.c. NPH and prandial orally-absorbed regular insulin (Generex Oral-lyn™) attained lower pre-meal glucose, HbA1c and Fru concentrations, than a regimen using basal and pre-prandial insulin analogue injections in Type-1 DM during a 372-day period."

professional.diabetes....

ADA Scientific Sessions 2007 "Comparison of Pre-prandial s.c. Regular Insulin vs Prandial Oral Insulin (Oral-lyn) in Adult Type-1 DM Subjects Receiving Basal s.c. Twice Daily Isophane Insulin (NPH)"

Conclusion: "Near normalization of parameters of DM metabolic control was achieved in all subjects. Direct comparison of HbA1c concentrations during CP demonstrate a superior effect of Generex Oral-lyn™ over subcutaneously injected regular insulin."

professional.diabetes....

"It is not like the inhaled insulin, so it doesn't get into the lungs,” said study investigator Philip Raskin, MD, professor of medicine at The University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center in Dallas. “People seem to like it, and it does seem to lower the blood sugar [the way] it is supposed to.”

Dr. Raskin is among the researchers involved in an international phase 3 study of 750 patients.

www.renalandurologynew.../]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/147364-big-pharma-where-s-the-risk-management?source=feed#comment-578957 578957 in short or long ..." Obviously you are lying your face off, if you didn't have some sort of incentive to comment on GNBT you would not be posting here. I thought paid bashing of stocks was limited to the yahoo message boards.]]> Wed, 08 Jul 2009 11:42:57 -0400

On Jul 08 10:59 AM Jolly_Rancher wrote:

"...GNBT is a pump and dump dream which I have never invested
> in short or long ..."

Obviously you are lying your face off, if you didn't have some sort of incentive to comment on GNBT you would not be posting here. I thought paid bashing of stocks was limited to the yahoo message boards.]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/147364-big-pharma-where-s-the-risk-management?source=feed#comment-578870 578870 You seem to be mixing up information. The Metcontrol gum is not the > same as Oral-Lyn. The gum is not insulin, it is a new way of delivering > Metcontrol which is different from insulin (but sometimes used in > combination with it). There is no chewing of 10 pieces... A mere > two pieces of the gum was found to be interchangeable with one tablet. > Interchangeable means you can use either because the results are > the same. > > Additionally many small biotech firms have money problems until they > put out a winning product. > > Lastly, no I do not wonder why Generex's sales are negligible in > Peru because they're not sold in Peru. But I do often wonder why > people who have nothing but negative comments about a company/stock > follow along with the blog posts. I think it's because you lost a > lot of money in it by timing a trade poorly and want to see what > the stock does next, or maybe just whine. When speculating on stocks > you win some and you lose some.]]> Wed, 08 Jul 2009 10:59:23 -0400

On Jul 08 12:45 AM Oil wrote:

> You seem to be mixing up information. The Metcontrol gum is not the
> same as Oral-Lyn. The gum is not insulin, it is a new way of delivering
> Metcontrol which is different from insulin (but sometimes used in
> combination with it). There is no chewing of 10 pieces... A mere
> two pieces of the gum was found to be interchangeable with one tablet.
> Interchangeable means you can use either because the results are
> the same.
>
> Additionally many small biotech firms have money problems until they
> put out a winning product.
>
> Lastly, no I do not wonder why Generex's sales are negligible in
> Peru because they're not sold in Peru. But I do often wonder why
> people who have nothing but negative comments about a company/stock
> follow along with the blog posts. I think it's because you lost a
> lot of money in it by timing a trade poorly and want to see what
> the stock does next, or maybe just whine. When speculating on stocks
> you win some and you lose some.]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/147364-big-pharma-where-s-the-risk-management?source=feed#comment-578304 578304 Sure buccal absorption works. Absolutely. But how much insulin is > required to lower blood sugar level? The answer is about somewhere > between 5 and 10 times the amount consumed using injection. Have > you bothered to read the studies? Haven't you wondered by now why > "sales" in Peru are negligible? The answer is people have tried Oral-lyn > gum and are tired of chewing ten pieces of gum to reach desired blood > sugar level. The cost in money and time is too much. GNBT is a company > constantly on the edge of bankruptcy spered time and again by pumpers > who help the company issue new shares to feed the extremely overpaid > upper management. Good luck!]]> Wed, 08 Jul 2009 00:45:28 -0400
Additionally many small biotech firms have money problems until they put out a winning product.

Lastly, no I do not wonder why Generex's sales are negligible in Peru because they're not sold in Peru. But I do often wonder why people who have nothing but negative comments about a company/stock follow along with the blog posts. I think it's because you lost a lot of money in it by timing a trade poorly and want to see what the stock does next, or maybe just whine. When speculating on stocks you win some and you lose some.


On Jul 07 10:59 PM Jolly_Rancher wrote:

> Sure buccal absorption works. Absolutely. But how much insulin is
> required to lower blood sugar level? The answer is about somewhere
> between 5 and 10 times the amount consumed using injection. Have
> you bothered to read the studies? Haven't you wondered by now why
> "sales" in Peru are negligible? The answer is people have tried Oral-lyn
> gum and are tired of chewing ten pieces of gum to reach desired blood
> sugar level. The cost in money and time is too much. GNBT is a company
> constantly on the edge of bankruptcy spered time and again by pumpers
> who help the company issue new shares to feed the extremely overpaid
> upper management. Good luck!]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/147364-big-pharma-where-s-the-risk-management?source=feed#comment-578243 578243 Generex has additional factors in it's favor. It's bioequivalent > study has shown their "Metcontrol" chewing gum to be interchangeable > with Metformin tablets. Article here; http://finance.yahoo.com/news/Generex-Sees-Favorable-pz-1617531701.html?x=0&.v=1 > Metformin according to research is the 2nd most prescribed drug for > type 2 diabetes. Generex plans to begin applying for approval in > first quarter 2010. Also the wholly owned subsidiary Antigen Express > claims to currently have the technology to vastly out produce the > traditional method of vaccine production. Article; http://www.telegram.com/article/20090623/NEWS/906230410/1116 > > > To upndown1313, This article does not compare Generex to Pfizer. > The article simply suggests an opportunity for a big company to buy > or license from Generex. And mentions the big company's failures > in the insulin market. Also it's probably reckless to say Oral-Lyn > will "never" get approval in a major market because the delivery > method is highly variable and unreliable. If clinical trials are > going well then it's hard (foolish?) to argue with results.]]> Tue, 07 Jul 2009 22:59:16 -0400

On Jul 07 06:51 PM Oil wrote:

> Generex has additional factors in it's favor. It's bioequivalent
> study has shown their "Metcontrol" chewing gum to be interchangeable
> with Metformin tablets. Article here; finance.yahoo.com/news...
> Metformin according to research is the 2nd most prescribed drug for
> type 2 diabetes. Generex plans to begin applying for approval in
> first quarter 2010. Also the wholly owned subsidiary Antigen Express
> claims to currently have the technology to vastly out produce the
> traditional method of vaccine production. Article; www.telegram.com/artic...
>
>
> To upndown1313, This article does not compare Generex to Pfizer.
> The article simply suggests an opportunity for a big company to buy
> or license from Generex. And mentions the big company's failures
> in the insulin market. Also it's probably reckless to say Oral-Lyn
> will "never" get approval in a major market because the delivery
> method is highly variable and unreliable. If clinical trials are
> going well then it's hard (foolish?) to argue with results.]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/147364-big-pharma-where-s-the-risk-management?source=feed#comment-577960 577960 Generex has additional factors in it's favor. It's bioequivalent > study has shown their "Metcontrol" chewing gum to be interchangeable > with Metformin tablets. Article here; http://finance.yahoo.com/news/Generex-Sees-Favorable-pz-1617531701.html?x=0&.v=1 > Metformin according to research is the 2nd most prescribed drug for > type 2 diabetes. Generex plans to begin applying for approval in > first quarter 2010. Also the wholly owned subsidiary Antigen Express > claims to currently have the technology to vastly out produce the > traditional method of vaccine production. Article; http://www.telegram.com/article/20090623/NEWS/906230410/1116 > > > To upndown1313, This article does not compare Generex to Pfizer. > The article simply suggests an opportunity for a big company to buy > or license from Generex. And mentions the big company's failures > in the insulin market. Also it's probably reckless to say Oral-Lyn > will "never" get approval in a major market because the delivery > method is highly variable and unreliable. If clinical trials are > going well then it's hard (foolish?) to argue with results.]]> Tue, 07 Jul 2009 18:58:39 -0400

On Jul 07 06:51 PM Oil wrote:

> Generex has additional factors in it's favor. It's bioequivalent
> study has shown their "Metcontrol" chewing gum to be interchangeable
> with Metformin tablets. Article here; finance.yahoo.com/news...
> Metformin according to research is the 2nd most prescribed drug for
> type 2 diabetes. Generex plans to begin applying for approval in
> first quarter 2010. Also the wholly owned subsidiary Antigen Express
> claims to currently have the technology to vastly out produce the
> traditional method of vaccine production. Article; www.telegram.com/artic...
>
>
> To upndown1313, This article does not compare Generex to Pfizer.
> The article simply suggests an opportunity for a big company to buy
> or license from Generex. And mentions the big company's failures
> in the insulin market. Also it's probably reckless to say Oral-Lyn
> will "never" get approval in a major market because the delivery
> method is highly variable and unreliable. If clinical trials are
> going well then it's hard (foolish?) to argue with results.]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/147364-big-pharma-where-s-the-risk-management?source=feed#comment-577940 577940 Tue, 07 Jul 2009 18:51:56 -0400 finance.yahoo.com/news... Metformin according to research is the 2nd most prescribed drug for type 2 diabetes. Generex plans to begin applying for approval in first quarter 2010. Also the wholly owned subsidiary Antigen Express claims to currently have the technology to vastly out produce the traditional method of vaccine production. Article; www.telegram.com/artic...

To upndown1313, This article does not compare Generex to Pfizer. The article simply suggests an opportunity for a big company to buy or license from Generex. And mentions the big company's failures in the insulin market. Also it's probably reckless to say Oral-Lyn will "never" get approval in a major market because the delivery method is highly variable and unreliable. If clinical trials are going well then it's hard (foolish?) to argue with results. ]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/147364-big-pharma-where-s-the-risk-management?source=feed#comment-577472 577472 Tue, 07 Jul 2009 14:29:58 -0400 http://seekingalpha.com/article/140670-this-is-where-sisyphus-starts-huffing-and-puffing?source=feed#comment-527519 527519 Once again P/E ratios are a function of interest rates. With the > average non-financial company in the S&P 500 having a BAA credit > rating, that rate (currently around 8%) implies a P/E of about 12.5 > (100/8). It's no coincidence that in 1981 the P/E of the S&P > was around 7 - because interest rates were around 13% (100/13 = 7.7). > > > If you want to know what an appropriate P/E ratio is use an appropriate > interest rate. As for valuations, use your imagination as to what > the earnings component should be....I would suggest that 10 year > trailing earnings isn't it.]]> Mon, 01 Jun 2009 22:52:01 -0400
1919 4%
1932 3.5%
1942 1%
1949 1.5%
1974 8%
1980 11.5%

It looks like your relation holds for the periods 1974 and 1980, but otherwise, no.


On Jun 01 12:34 PM pslater wrote:

> Once again P/E ratios are a function of interest rates. With the
> average non-financial company in the S&P 500 having a BAA credit
> rating, that rate (currently around 8%) implies a P/E of about 12.5
> (100/8). It's no coincidence that in 1981 the P/E of the S&P
> was around 7 - because interest rates were around 13% (100/13 = 7.7).
>
>
> If you want to know what an appropriate P/E ratio is use an appropriate
> interest rate. As for valuations, use your imagination as to what
> the earnings component should be....I would suggest that 10 year
> trailing earnings isn't it.]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/140670-this-is-where-sisyphus-starts-huffing-and-puffing?source=feed#comment-527494 527494 I still think P/E is a worthless metric for valuation if any of the > companies in the index are losing money. It means that the "value" > of the index increases if you eliminate all the companies losing > money. How does that make any sense? A stock can only go to zero, > so it can't have a negative value to an investor.]]> Mon, 01 Jun 2009 22:22:32 -0400

On Jun 01 03:02 PM thiazole wrote:

> I still think P/E is a worthless metric for valuation if any of the
> companies in the index are losing money. It means that the "value"
> of the index increases if you eliminate all the companies losing
> money. How does that make any sense? A stock can only go to zero,
> so it can't have a negative value to an investor.]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/140670-this-is-where-sisyphus-starts-huffing-and-puffing?source=feed#comment-527490 527490 Your conclusion seems right on, Thomas, but the market has a mind > of its own. I am staying with positions a bit longer (probably too > long). The trend is your friend until it isn't.]]> Mon, 01 Jun 2009 22:19:33 -0400

On Jun 01 10:58 AM Larry House wrote:

> Your conclusion seems right on, Thomas, but the market has a mind
> of its own. I am staying with positions a bit longer (probably too
> long). The trend is your friend until it isn't.]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/140670-this-is-where-sisyphus-starts-huffing-and-puffing?source=feed#comment-527488 527488 Interesting article. I am not sure where Robert Schiller got his > data from. However, both Barron's and Ockham Research have recently > come out with very different estimates of the S&P500's current > PE. Barron's estimates it at 123x. Ockham Research estimates it at > 46x. Given the fact that the S&P500 earnings were 30+% lower > in Q1 2009 than in Q1 2008, I find it easier to believe the other > groups than Robert Schiller.]]> Mon, 01 Jun 2009 22:17:40 -0400

On Jun 01 09:24 PM David White wrote:

> Interesting article. I am not sure where Robert Schiller got his
> data from. However, both Barron's and Ockham Research have recently
> come out with very different estimates of the S&P500's current
> PE. Barron's estimates it at 123x. Ockham Research estimates it at
> 46x. Given the fact that the S&P500 earnings were 30+% lower
> in Q1 2009 than in Q1 2008, I find it easier to believe the other
> groups than Robert Schiller.]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/140670-this-is-where-sisyphus-starts-huffing-and-puffing?source=feed#comment-527456 527456 Mon, 01 Jun 2009 21:24:15 -0400 http://seekingalpha.com/article/140670-this-is-where-sisyphus-starts-huffing-and-puffing?source=feed#comment-526904 526904 Mon, 01 Jun 2009 15:02:30 -0400 http://seekingalpha.com/article/140670-this-is-where-sisyphus-starts-huffing-and-puffing?source=feed#comment-526717 526717 ]]> Mon, 01 Jun 2009 13:21:48 -0400
]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/140670-this-is-where-sisyphus-starts-huffing-and-puffing?source=feed#comment-526669 526669 Mon, 01 Jun 2009 12:56:15 -0400
As per S&P consensus data top down/operating earnings of $43 for '09 and $46 for '010; PE for '09 is 21 and 20 for '010. These are way way higher than historical averages of 16. An of course much higher than bear market PEs of around 10.]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/140670-this-is-where-sisyphus-starts-huffing-and-puffing?source=feed#comment-526623 526623 Mon, 01 Jun 2009 12:34:56 -0400
If you want to know what an appropriate P/E ratio is use an appropriate interest rate. As for valuations, use your imagination as to what the earnings component should be....I would suggest that 10 year trailing earnings isn't it.]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/140670-this-is-where-sisyphus-starts-huffing-and-puffing?source=feed#comment-526404 526404 Mon, 01 Jun 2009 10:58:10 -0400