Over all, the F.D.A. estimated, about 11 patients must be treated with Benlysta for one to benefit.
Saudia Sinclair of the Bronx, who has been taking Benlysta since participating in an early clinical trial in 2003, said the drug had cleared up her skin lesions, partly relieved her fatigue and allowed her to stop taking steroids. “It was the reason I was able to get through college and grad school, and I’m now working as a social worker,” she said.
In a trial, there were more deaths and serious infections among those who received the drug compared with those on a placebo. However, this finding did not concern experts on the F.D.A. advisory committee. Side effects of Benlysta included nausea and diarrhea.
The companies said the price of Benlysta would be about $35,000 a year.
Many analysts expect worldwide sales to eventually exceed $2 billion a year. But initial sales are expected to be slow because insurers might balk at paying for the drug, at least until patients try less expensive alternatives.
It remains to be seen just how much of a blockbuster it is. First, will insurance companies pay for it? At $35,000/year, that should rule out anyone who recently lost their job or lost their health care coverage. And that is a tremendous number of people.
And, as the NYT article stated, 11 people have to be treated for one to benefit.
And, the subset of patients that are most affected with lupus don't benefit very much from the drug.
Since you are so certain that the stock is going to plummet, then selling short shouldn't be a risk, should it?
It is easy to slam a stock and tell others to sell when you have no skin in the game.
And, if you have actually followed stocks, you should realize by now that computers drive most of the trades; sentiment and emotion are not part of the equation.
"Of course, if the market had not dropped over 200 points, the movement of the stock might have been quite different."
Well, today the market conditions are quite different...but GSK price action remains the same. Why? You just had BLOCKBUSTER news...right? Additioally, why did you use the word "hopefully" at the very same moment in time BLOCKBUSTER hope was supposedly being realized?
Rather than daring me to short 20k [what are you 12?] shares...why don't you explain [to yourself] the puzzling behavior of the stock considering how contrary it is to your greatest hopes?
First, comprehension may not be one of your strong points. I did not make a time specific prediction, only that it will probably reach into the 40's, while some others were posting 50's and higher. This is what I actually stated:
"Hopefully, this will allow the stock to trade in the 40's, unless management does something stupid again, and they are totally capable of doing so."
But if you are so certain the stock is going to collapse, there is no risk to selling short.
And you don't need the 'jing' to cover all 20,000 shares; just meet the margin requirements. And since you are so sure it will drop, then there shouldn't be any risk.
But even 100 shares would net you a quick $200, although brokerage fees would probably eat up that.
Of course, if the market had not dropped over 200 points, the movement of the stock might have been quite different. Percentage wise Pfizer dropped three times as much, Lilly twice as much, Merck four times as much, and Astra Zeneca about twice as much.
And in the meantime, Glaxo is still filled with incompetent people...who have been screwing the company up for years...and who will certainly next pay up for HGSI...thus diplaying their never ending skill for screwing things up.
The claim that GSK is full of incompetent people has existed since the merger of SKB and GW. And what has happened since? Mistakes, but GSK still continues to pay dividends, makes huge amounts of money, and keeps moving along, with new products.
So your drumbeat gets a bit tedious unless you can show new information.