OK, let's be REALISTIC: If someone bought $100 of SAPX at .22 when Seantheidiot called it an 'easy doubler', you'd have less than 7 cents of that original $100 left. What an arseclown....now THAT'S realistic.
Speaking of realistic, I went back over the company presentation on everything dated Jan. 2013. Having looked at many of these, you have to think the benefit/risk is well in favor of another agent to treat CINV. The questions the FDA raised were all safety issues and the main one, which the company tried to get waived was the QT prolongation. As expected the FDA said no way. That's a must. So, having said all that, and unless we aren't seeing certain data, there is no real reason not to approve it.
I disagree. I looked at the March 28 CRL and the concerns were minor administrative concerns. None of the concerns was about the safety concerns of the medication. One was to change the labeling. Another part was to create the syringe using a commercial process- vice a proto type? But APPA would have to start factory operations to do that. One was to separate the info in the study between people who vomited more ofter and people who vomited less. and the other was facility discrepancies. We don't know what they were. They could be any small number of nitpicking items. None of the concerns were about the safety profile of the medication. This med will be approved. I have 100k shares. I would buy 1 M if I could.