% | $
Quotes you view appear here for quick access.

Neurocrine Biosciences Inc. Message Board

  • pinvestment pinvestment Jul 1, 2006 5:20 PM Flag

    i still cannot believe it - nerd

    that one man at the FDA just wiped away the cancer risk without solid data to support that action


    that same person said that lunesta was no better than alternatives


    seems strange doesn't it?

    SortNewest  |  Oldest  |  Most Replied Expand all replies
    • you make bernstein sound like they divine carnal knwoledge from a stone - what i am saying is that it is all probablistic BS devoid of a concrete scientific reason

      BTW - you should just give it up - you have lied enough for one weekend that noone will ever believe you - change your ID and come back and give it another try

      and this time try to link one source IF you decide that you might actually use a shred of data

      othwise keep up the BS posts without any scientific merit and be prepared to have another one kick you in the teeth just like ELN did - once again that one a stock that bernsteins probablistic BS had all wrong - all you have to do is listen to the question those analysts ask to understand that they no almost no relevant science - kind of like you

    • OK, now, who do you work for? I am concerned about stuff that may cause me cancer. That's why I don't consume many of the products that put me at risk. The only way you can not be concerned about Lunesta causing cancer is if you have a vested interest in the drug. But as someone previously state, a sharp lawyer will find these date and have the judicial system show that there is a risk with Lunesta.

    • all of Bernstiens Biotech equity research uses MEDACorp medical and regulatory consultants data/input. MEDACorp provides significant clarity on all medical, marketing, and regulatory issues, they are the premier medical consulting group to the investment community. The next post we all will be reading from you will be that MedaCorp doesn't have a clue on the indiplon issues. You sir, are so full of shit, its running out your mouth when you state "Berstien reports are based on zero science", you sir, are a fucking little liar who pulls fiction out of his asshole, what are you on your 300th fluff post on this mssg board since middle of May. you are a clueless dishonest POFS.

    • i think we've heard the last from spongebob.

    • I understand the game we are playing - you make some wild allegations I prove you wrong - no matter how many times I prove you wrong you just keep making up more and more false reports

      lets change the game for a bit - why don't you provide the data that supports your idea on side effects with 20mg indiplon MR and efficacy on 15mg indiplon MR

      there have been 2-3 15 mg MR studies, possibly one more I have to look up ( i didn't put the dose in my spreadsheet) - and at least one or more new studies that were sent into the FDA during the review cycle or completed after the FDA review cycle

    • I have looked at the more recent bernstein reports and I was quite shocked to see that it is based on ZERO science - it is just a probablistic analysis of what would happen given static conditions

      bernstein does not have a clue about the scientific side of the story - so i don't gain much from them

      if you are going to use the publically released analyst non-scientifically generated commentary as gospel you might as well not try to talk to me - analysts just don't have a clue and have a different agenda - analysts like elise wang would have you buy at 70 and sell at 10 - that is not my style - I aim to know much much more medically and scientifcally important data than a probablistic analysis

    • spongebob - this is a serious allegation and you need to post a citation. Otherwise you risk a call from the SEC asking for it and a history of your positions in NBIX.

    • I read that concern in an analyst report from I beleive ML, they did not file for 20mg becuase of safety issues,and stepped it down to 15mg for filing doing a crossover study from 20mg to 15mg. Got non-approvable for 15mg not enough data on safety and efficacy. So how do we know it will get approved second time around? we don't, just have to wait 2 years to get the answer. New trials equate to new results.

    • Well if you have access to Berstien Research why don't you list the comparison they did via their 3/02/06 research report page 31 and adjust the data for pfizer dropping indiplon and the 15Mg debacle, looks to me lunesta has the advantage. If their is no 15Mg dose their is no real Indiplon franchise just a me too $150M in annual sales drug via IR.

    • Lunesta is approved, been on the market for over a year will be on the market for over 3 years if the 15Mg version is ever approved by 08/09, The FDA has no concerns on cancer its not an adverse event, the Street has no concerns, investors, even the shorts have no concerns, you are the only fool who is concerned, get over it. lets talk about the Hallucination adverse events of Indiplon MR20Mg, 30Mg, a serious serious safety issue.

    • View More Messages
40.00-2.72(-6.37%)Oct 6 4:00 PMEDT