Seeking Alpha


Send Message
View as an RSS Feed
View 458258's Comments BY TICKER:
Latest  |  Highest rated
  • Arrowhead Research Corp: What Am I Missing? [View article]
    What does that have to do with ARWR? Isn't that the company under discussion? ANLY is another short candidate (on valuation).
    Dec 6, 2013. 12:55 AM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Arrowhead Research Corp: What Am I Missing? [View article]
    What you are missing is ARWR licenses IP from ANLY. Can you see the conflict of interests here? ARWR is the RNAi dump. Even the indications they are pursuing don't look sexy anymore. Management is over compensated and they are wasteful spenders of shareholder cash (which means they have nice perks).
    Dec 4, 2013. 11:38 PM | 1 Like Like |Link to Comment
  • Arrowhead Research Corp: What Am I Missing? [View article]
    I understood your short thesis on SRPT and I understand your short thesis on ARWR. Keep up the good work.
    Dec 4, 2013. 02:17 PM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Zalicus' Z160 Fails, What Now? [View article]
    Have you asked your (3) PhD contacts what they think about Z944? I don't mean to sound derogatory.

    Perhaps a smaller study without a placebo comparator boosts ZLCS' chances of showing positive results for Z944. In turn saving the company. Potential partners will see through the lowered bar on the platform. Bankers will not.
    Nov 13, 2013. 02:29 AM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Clues And Controversy: Why Zalicus Shares Could Be Set For A Rally [View article]
    I like Jason's work. Those who criticize him don't understand the pressure to report new developments or insight in real-time. Investors should be thankful.

    The other side of this story is the downside risk from a double miss on both indications. Jason's initial $2.00 range under this scenario is inflated and he does appear to be backtracking on this call (understandably so). With 18M in cash and investments (as of 10/1/13) , an existing annual burn rate of two times cash on hand (three times partnered revenues), 10M in callable bank debt*, and a platform in question under a double miss provides huge risk to speculators. Going back down to pre-reverse split levels could be a best case scenario.

    *From the 10-Q "Our loan and security agreement contains a subjective material adverse change clause, which allows Oxford to declare an event of default on the loans upon the occurrence of a material adverse change as defined in the loan and security agreement."
    Nov 7, 2013. 04:35 AM | 1 Like Like |Link to Comment
  • Yes, Gilead Did It Again [View article]
    In a nutshell:

    HCV companies that fail to achieve SVR's with subgroups that lack competition are rewarded handsomely (to the tune of tens of billions of dollars) retreating patient failures.
    Sep 1, 2013. 03:47 PM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Yes, Gilead Did It Again [View article]
    So to get back to your original question animalspirit.

    Why would GILD clinically test an inferior oral combination in secondary markets?

    Piracy concerns in India and Russia is an easy-out explanation for GILD. Yet the crown jewel within the HCV space is Sofosbuvir which would have to be the backbone of any combo introduced within these countries. Withholding Ledpasvir from secondary markets due to piracy concerns is a joke considering Ledi is a mediocre NS5A at best. GILD's highest priority right now is advancing the second generation NS5A GS-5816 (Ledi's replacement).

    There's a moral hazard issue here in the U.S. (GT3) and within developing markets (GT1) where GILD isn't providing the best standard of care for HCV patients. The reason they are putting their best foot forward in the U.S. GT1 market is due to competition. There's no competition in the U.S. GT3 market at this point in time so GILD chose to limited the choices for doctors and patients.

    There's no competition in secondary markets in GT1 so GILD is moving forward with a combo which they deemed insufficient due to lack of potency here in the U.S. Even though better options exist within their pipeline.
    Sep 1, 2013. 03:39 PM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Yes, Gilead Did It Again [View article]
    From a patient health perspective, clinical testing for GT1 patients in Russia and India should be focused on Sofo/PegRiba and/or Sofo/Ledi(+/-)Riba combinations. These are the two combos GILD is seeking approval for in the U.S. (GT1). It's possible GILD has reached an agreement with the Indian and/or Russian government granting approval for Sofo/PegRiba in these countries based on positive clinical outcomes in the U.S. and/or Europe. This still doesn't explain why GILD is testing an oral combo (Sofo/Riba) in these countries when this combo has demonstrated dramatically inferior SVR rates in the U.S., compared to Sofo/Ledi, within this genotype. GILD is on record stating that this combo lacks potentcy (in GT1) when addressing the U.S. market .
    Sep 1, 2013. 03:08 PM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Yes, Gilead Did It Again [View article]
    The Sofo/Riba combo lacks the potency to be a competitive product for GT1 patients in the U.S. market. That's why GILD isn't testing it here. GILD is testing this combo in Russia and India on GT1 patients(?) as opposed to Sofo/Ledi(NS5A). Adding a NS5A inhibitor or a protease inhibitor to sofosbuvir would dramatically increase SVR rates yet GILD wouldn't be able to profit twice upon retreating patients that fail therapy in secondary markets($). Does this story sound familiar? The same strategy is being applied here in the U.S. using Sofo/Riba in GT3. GILD held back late stage testing of Sofo/PegRiba in GT3 while advancing the weak Sofo/Riba combo in this genotype. They intentionally delayed an interferon-based comparator to Sofo/Riba oral, and much better treatment option (90%+ SVR rates), while ignoring the best interests of GT3 HCV patients.

    Note: Sofo/Riba is a fine oral combo for GT2 patients specifically.
    Aug 31, 2013. 01:05 AM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • 3 Microcap Biopharma Plays For The H7N9 Influenza Outbreak [View article]
    How could you miss BOTA?
    Apr 16, 2013. 05:49 PM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Gilead And Its Competitors In The Hepatitis C Race [View article]
    You are only giving simeprevir credit for its use with Peg/Riba. And perhaps too much credit for the late-stage data on the Sofo/5885 combo.

    I'll make a prediction here. A year after approval of the ABBV and GILD combos, and the majority of warehoused patients have undergone therapy, there will be more GT1 treatment-experienced patients than diagnosed treatment-naive patients within the U.S. The majority of these patients will have failed oral therapy. This is where a sofosbuvir/simeprevir combo will find its market. GILD has an in-house protease inhibitor which they don't say much about.
    Mar 22, 2013. 12:05 PM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Gilead And Its Competitors In The Hepatitis C Race [View article]
    What you are overlooking is there will be treatment-failures using the Sofo/5885(NS5A) combo. Medivir is in position to be first to market with a two drug nuke-based combo containing a protease inhibitor. They have a best-in-class P.I. with a clear path to approval which can be used off-label with Sofosbuvir in GT1 treatment failures and/or treatment-experienced patients. Meanwhile they are collaborating with many other companies which may lead to future licensing deals. There's an advantage to having a best-in-class drug.
    Mar 22, 2013. 08:09 AM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Gilead And Its Competitors In The Hepatitis C Race [View article]
    "The Medivir drug is totally pointless"

    What's pointless is to pass judgement on the two combos before seeing the results from late-stage studies. Simeprevir and VX-135 are QD dosed. Is swallowing two aspirin at the same time more difficult than swallowing one? This will not give GILD a competitive advantage. Especially if they need to BID dose ribavirin to boost the efficacy of their combo.
    Mar 21, 2013. 06:27 PM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Large Pharma May Get Involved As Achillion Hep C Pipeline Advances [View article]
    Here's some reasons large pharma wouldn't want to get involved

    1- Late to market with an inferior combo
    2- Questionable safety profile of sovaprevir
    3-Questionable resistance profile of overall combo
    Feb 13, 2013. 11:37 AM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Who Will Win the Hepatitis C Market? [View article]
    The value here is based on the simple fact that large pharma needs a drug like INX-189 to compete with a two drug oral offering. Considering the unproven safety record of INX-189 I would say INHX is fairly valued at this level and a very high risk investment.
    Nov 7, 2011. 09:38 AM | Likes Like |Link to Comment