leedow is correct. If you go to market watch and get a quote on srpt you will find tweets from adam feuerstein regarding that the shorts have put out a rumor that the photos of dystrophin appearing in the annals of neurolgy are fradulent and that Cowen is investigating by E-mail. Just FYI. AF does not believe it!
That would be a very very stupid statement ....the 2 drugs are different ,gsk/prosensa's drug are having off target effects being that it is second generation antisense and sarepta's is ''third generation antisense..most investors do not know the difference .......do not get off target efects.
Who is this Cowen? Appears he has published something that is not helpful to SRPT.
What else is new? Seems like this is done on a regular basis. sigh.....
Sarepta Therapeutics slides on dystrophin/ clinical benefit questions
Shares of Sarepta Therapeutics (SRPT -6.3%) are notably lower on the session.The stock traded up on Friday as the market took a decidedly negative stance on data from a trial of Prosensa (RNA -1%) and GlaxoSmithKline's (GSK -0.2%) drisapersen (an eteplirsen competitor).Today's weakness in SRPT shares may be attributable to a note from Cowen which suggests the drisapersen data highlights the debate regarding dystrophin as a surrogate endpoint.The drisapersen data "underscores [the] point that no correlation can be drawn currently between dystrophin and clinical benefit," Cowen says.Adam Feuerstein's take: "SRPT bears sticking to script. We knew they'd link poor drisapersen dystrophin data to eteplirsen."Note: Cowen is still "bullish on SRPT shares."
So this guy Cowen is basically implying that the distrophyn produced by kids is non functional.
So neither the GSK nor SRPT drug would be effective. So why are the kids performing well on the 6MWT ? Just an illusion too? I'd like to hear from this guy. I think he doesn't even know about statistics.
Prosensa is also down 2% on high volume. I don't remember Cowen at any of the Sarepta conferences asking questions. If there's no correlation with dystrophin, then the whole natural history of Duchenne is wrong. Apparently lack of the dystrophin protein is not a problem if an increase in dystrophin has no correlation to Duchenne. Analysts write $hit for there own reasons. They like to be reviled.