Recent

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

Keryx Biopharmaceuticals Inc. Message Board

  • billydbaseball billydbaseball Nov 8, 2013 7:02 AM Flag

    AF's Main Point

    He is picking at KERX's intellectual property claims. He has no argument for how well Zenerex works so now he changes from scientist to patent lawyer and tries to bail himself out.

    Has he ever posted why Zenerex will not get a patent?

    SortNewest  |  Oldest  |  Most Replied Expand all replies
    • Here is a great response to AF in the comments section from Mudshsrk:

      Your point regarding IP is conclusory. You have no expertise that I am aware of and are repeating the points made by self-interested individuals whom I presume you rely on for content. Actually, that's no longer a presumption, given the article you pastiched using the voice of your source.

      The PropThink interview with Scott Chambers should effectively settle the myriad points surrounding the exclusivity argument. NCE, PTE, and multiple patents, all would have to fail in order for your "prove a negative" perspective to have value. It is effective in discouraging individuals who don't have access to an IP lawyer - who clerked for the Chief Judge of the Circuit Court of Appeals and was an assistant solicitor at the PTO - from investing in a stock with a 17% short position. Patents extend to 2030, potentially. I actually think that the IP protection is great. BTW - AMRN didn't fail because of IP, it failed because of lack of traction selling in a largely primary care setting. And their effort to get approved on a surrogate bio-marker seems to have failed. By the way, I agreed with you that it would. Nice call.

      Moving on to PA 21. It's a chewable. You might have mentioned that. Also, why is PA21 different than Fresenius' interest in Phos-Lo? Are you telling me that none of their patients take Renagel or other generic phosphate binders? Fresenius doesn't prescribe phosphate binders as I understand it - but even if they did, I think that their economic savings under the - now soon to be reduced - bundle would trump any interest they have in pushing their chewable, if the savings are greater. Big if - but then that has been demonstrated with a strong level of statistical significance in the long-term Phase III. The simple fact is that ESA is expensive. IV iron is not as expensive but is associated with serious adverse events and is expensive to administer. Dealing with the associated AE's is even more

      Sentiment: Strong Buy

      • 1 Reply to playthrough2001
      • Continued with some overlap...

        Your point regarding IP is conclusory. You have no expertise that I am aware of and are repeating the points made by self-interested individuals whom I presume you rely on for content. Actually, that's no longer a presumption, given the article you pastiched using the voice of your source.

        The PropThink interview with Scott Chambers should effectively settle the myriad points surrounding the exclusivity argument. NCE, PTE, and multiple patents, all would have to fail in order for your "prove a negative" perspective to have value. It is effective in discouraging individuals who don't have access to an IP lawyer - who clerked for the Chief Judge of the Circuit Court of Appeals and was an assistant solicitor at the PTO - from investing in a stock with a 17% short position. Patents extend to 2030, potentially. I actually think that the IP protection is great. BTW - AMRN didn't fail because of IP, it failed because of lack of traction selling in a largely primary care setting. And their effort to get approved on a surrogate bio-marker seems to have failed. By the way, I agreed with you that it would. Nice call.

        Moving on to PA 21. It's a chewable. You might have mentioned that. Also, why is PA21 different than Fresenius' interest in Phos-Lo? Are you telling me that none of their patients take Renagel or other generic phosphate binders? Fresenius doesn't prescribe phosphate binders as I understand it - but even if they did, I think that their economic savings under the - now soon to be reduced - bundle would trump any interest they have in pushing their chewable, if the savings are greater. Big if - but then that has been demonstrated with a strong level of statistical significance in the long-term Phase III. The simple fact is that ESA is expensive. IV iron is not as expensive but is associated with serious adverse events and is expensive to administer. Dealing with the associated AE's is even more expensive. Margins at the dialysis providers are under extreme pressure. This isn't going to happen, but I did a back of the envelope calculation that if all of of DVA's patients were on Zerenex in Q4 2012, their adjusted EPS would have been up 25%. Again, 100% is certainly not going to happen, but ponder that for a second.

        Also, weren't you struck by the fact that patients on Zerenex in the long-term trial had fewer deaths, SAE's, infections, vascular disorders, and cardiovascular disorders than patients on standard of care? That isn't a coincidence.

        It was also striking to see, in the Phase II trial in CKD, that patients on Zerenex had fewer AE's than placebo! When was the last time you saw that? The reason is because Iron Deficiency Anemia is such a pernicious, and unfortunately relatively undertreated / untreated medical need. I won't even go in to the FGF-23 correlation with cardiovascular outcomes but that is important, too. FGF-23 may still be considered a bio-marker. I personally think it has a mediator role but that is still being determined.

        What is beyond doubt is that anemia is decidedly not a surrogate endpoint. You should, I think, know better.

        To sum up:

        1) Your IP remarks are conclusory and un-substantiated. But just as impossible to disprove as it is for me to prove that the sun will rise tomorrow.

        2) The pharmaco-economic benefits of Zerenex are compelling in and of themselves with respect to ESA sparing and IV iron sparing and even more so when one calculates the attendant cost savings in terms of additional care that arises primarily through the over-use of IV iron in the current system.

        3) Anemia is a large unmet medical need in and of itself. It is also associated with disease progression Treating anemia with oral iron simply doesn't work as well as it should. Achieving comparable amelioration of hemoglobin versus IV iron without the attendant inflammation and other issues that a bolus of iron cause is a big, big deal.

        Sentiment: Strong Buy

    • AF , is a dangerous sob , if Cramer told hinm to bring down this company you will see several bashing articles , I see where cramer is putting all bio's in the same box and saying they ran up to much , guess he wants to buy in, but will get the pps down first . I saw AF destroy a company with an approved product .

      Janet

    • In no way shape or form am I defending Adam F$#%face........ BUT during the Perifosine debacle I do recall him posting that he believed that Zerenex will receive approval BUT it was only worth about $3 a share. So to answer your question I do believe he has said it. I think that may be why he hasn't said anything in a while about KERX. Don't know why he is bashing it now, other than the fact he's an #$%$!!!

      Sentiment: Strong Buy

 
KERX
5.86-0.34(-5.48%)Jun 24 4:00 PMEDT