That article puts a question mark in the minds of the market on the efficacy of all fish oils, including Vescepa, and how they will be preceived by the medical community. The fact that this article basicly questions whether test that show lowering trigs has any medical benifits based on the drugs that have been used or the faulty retrospective review showing no benifits using OTC fish oils certainly is damaging to the prospects for a multibillion dollar buyout. In order for Vescepa to overcome such negative publicity and not sell for a price cheaper then they should, a co-marketing agreement may be necessary, something Joe C hoped to avoid. Any such agreement would boost the stock price and would have to be contracted until the conclusion of the "Reduce It" trial. A positive outcome could mean a huge buyout buy the Big Pharma company contracted as the co-marketer, kinda like Pfizer did with Lipator and Warner Lambert. Such an agreement would provide the dollars to get the advocates to support Vescepa and clear the misunderstandings between Vescepa and the rest of the fish oils, including Lavosa. Of course this article is one man's opinion and the market may in fact not really preceive test showing lowering Trigs has no clinical benifit because that conclusion is contrary to what every doctors training has been throughout their career.
Forbes writer Matthew--is a very incompetent Journalist.
1) He says--Jelis was only one study that proved its effectiveness for reducing Cardiac events.
2) He never bothered to read the study--18,000 people studied for 6 years in Japan.
3) He mingles product like Vascepa and Epadel with studies for Lovaza and Fish Oils that contain over 50% of DHA. EPA helps-DHA hurts Lipid profile. Lovaza may lower triglycerides but by raising LDL--most important Lipid profile--it causes problems with Heart.
He wrote an article in 2008--"One Supplement that works"-he was refering to FISH OIL and LOVAZA-based on FAULTY STUDIES.
IMHO the co-marketing approach is actually the best to bridge the short term need for the large funding of marketing, sales and supply to launch and build both supply and market share quickly while allowing the product to show its potential thus making the company value greater for eventual sale. One of the concerns about GIA is how much supply of API Amarin has available to meet
a potential large demand on introduction.
For GiA I am concerned that:
- There does not seem to be any current action in the approval of suppliers beyond NSK and that could be viewed as a negative for both GIA and BO.
- It does not make much sense that the company is not engaged in massive obvious preparations to launch while they are burning exclusivity. GIA activity to be a credible lever for BO negotiaions it would be visable action not just talk.
- The company is perpetuating an atmosphere of uncertainity with its silence and lack of obvious
direction toward some successful goal. That supports the rumor mill and all the wild assertations
from the pseudo experts who just want a lightning round result.
"There does not seem to be any current action in the approval of suppliers beyond NSK and that could be viewed as a negative for both GIA and BO."
-That is disastrous for GIA, BO AND "partnership".
- It does not make much sense that the company is not engaged in massive obvious preparations to launch while they are burning exclusivity. GIA activity to be a credible lever for BO negotiaions it would be visable action not just talk."
-Why would they be engaged in massive preparations when there are no real API supply available (only 9 million in API after Q3)?
Can't sell very much without API..
It can take years before API supply in addition to ultra small capacity Nisshin is approved by the FDA.
Dude- the Forbes article is blatantly inaccurate. Do you think physicians are so dumb that they will ignore the clinical data that clearly shows a benefit in lowering triglycerides but focus on "perceptions of fish oils". Herpes inaccurately analyzed ARNA and is doing the same here