Headline reads, No Benefit Of Fish Oil In High Risk Patients out this evening. I did find it interesting that women had a statistically significant lower risk 18% than women on Placebo, but then they discount that number and basically say its was a fluke, lol....
Jeff, gave you a thumbs up, as I appreciate knowing what's up. I think it may present yet another sale opportunity, though I grow a bit weary of them, lol. Don't get why people always want top shoot the messenger, especially one with your long history on this board.
FOr me, flat or lower proce is okay for the next several months, as I'm, buying on spec, in anticipation of Anchor results. If they bust, there goes my spec $$. If as I suspect, they are gamechanging, I'll do my part to help the economy.
Please please please THANK the idiot that put this on the AMRN news pages. Please sell now. I really want in this stock but lower is much better. All of you who have NO knowledge of biology. Or body chemistry. NEVER look up anything before buying shares in a biotech. Blindly follow everyone around you. Bless you all for existing....
425mg EPA 425mg DHA 150mg filler fatty acids... ANCHOR would have failed if it had only used 425mg EPA... 2g was not quite enough, 4 GRAMS was double the efficacy of 2g... Image it would be 10x efficacious than 425mg.
The article that you idiots are totally discounting (but the market likely won't) that Jefferson kindly supplied for you was published in the latest May 9, 2013 NEMJ, which doesn't get any more authoritarian or respected by their peers. AF is merely referencing it. He had nothing to do with it.
The study is out of Italy and is referred to as the GISSI. It was commenced in 2004 and expanded to over 800 physicians and 12,500 participating subjects, none of whom had a heart attack before. Males and females and all were considered to be fairly high risk for a heart attack.
The results were reported on by Dr. Eric Topal of the Scripps Clinic in La Jolla, Ca.. Again...It doesn't get much more prestigious than that frankly. His conclusion of the trials was that fish oil did absolutely nothing to increase your odds of not having a heart attack versus placebo. The only oddity was apparently the fish oil was better tolerated than the placebo...LOL! His further conclusion was if fish oil did nothing for the higher risk group it would really be worthless for the lower risk (Anchor) group.
His statement...the benefits of "fish oil" to prevent heart attacks has been "fishy" for a long time!
Good luck tomorrow longs.
No one should be surprised by lack of benefit from only taking 1 gm of fish oil ---especially in a populations thats famous for its mediterrean diet . 1 gm of Vascepa , Lovaza or DS fish oil has practically no effect on ones lipid profile .
If the study was done with 3 gms of an EPA fish oil or higher with diabetic's and those with known CAD ---I would be concerned ... BUT as it is ---if theres a big sell off tomorrow it may be worth picking some up as a spec buy .
By the way --remember how I suggested you look at MBI ---sen the chart lately .?
PS I think Dr Mozaffarian ( Harvard research ) may have better cred on this topic then Dr Topol by the way.
Its funny that you are so enamored with the NEJM, lol. My Dr. laughs at it. Garbage in, garbage out. The article references 1 gram of fish oil of which 425mg is EPA. This has absolutely NO bearing on Vascepa. Shorts are going to have to try much much harder.
complain if you want, all I was doing is putting out why its down AH, that's it, and if you do not read what the other side has to say your half blind, ya gotta see where everyone is coming from and I do, im long and have been long, just putting it out there so others can see whats being said, that's it....
There is a plethora of validity issues here if this report is supposed to reflect somehow on Amarin's product. First, just how many KFC's are there in Italy? Then continue down the path of reason.