Hate to crash your party, but you longs are going to lose the shirts off your backs by next year. The only people excited about this stock are people who know nothing abuot prenatal diagnostics. People inside the biotech industry, especially within prenatal diagnostics, are not impressed. Clinicians are not impressed. The Sequenom cell-free DNA based technology IS NOT a full replacement of Amnio or CVS, although they would have you believe that (and have succeeded, apparently). Amnio and CVS provide the entire fetal genome in whole cell form. Sequenom's approach, while interesting and potentially somewhat viable, has limited applications, as they are relying on analyzing an aggregate amount of free-floating fetal DNA. They DO NOT gather the entire fetal genome. Their solution may be a temporary solution for Down's Syndrome on the way to a whole genome non-invasive prenatal diagnostic, but this temporary solution certainly does not value the stock this high.
Not sure if this has already been said (new to the board) but if you are short on this you are in a good position. This is what happens when financial anaylsts try to understand the biotech industry with no prior biotech experience.
you are so wrong on so many fronts that it's comical.
clinicians ARE impressed by the test. the enthusiasm will only continue to grow as more data is produced.
the diagnostics industry is extremely excited by the test. sequenom already had one buy out offer that was rejected several months ago.
and most laughable, how many amnios are done for anything other Down's? <10%. the whole genome approach is irrelevant.
trust me, it's not just financial analysts that are buying this stock. Ridgeback, RA, and Davidson Kempner are full of extremely bright and successful MD's and Biotech specialists. I just follow them around and buy when they buy up shares in healthcare stocks.
Haha, I'm glad I got a good response here, you guys may be a little sharper than your average yahoo message board.
I'm going to get into the data they released a little bit, to show you that this isn't the slam dunk case you think it is.
1) The test is not universal. There was a 24% occurance of "non-informative" results.
2) The sample set was very small and unusually enriched for T21. In a more realistic and larger sample, higher false positive and false negative rates are likely, particularly considering the ascertainment bias from the retrospective sample set.
3) As someone corrected me, the test uses fetal RNA, not DNA. This is actually a negative, as RNA is not a definitive marker like DNA. The maternal expression can be leaky, resulting in false negatives and false positives.
The test, in reality, is still a screen. Not saying that you don't realize this, but many people get confused here and think this is a diagnostic. SQNM is even marketing it as the "Quint" screen, improving upon the available Quad Screen. They are also marketing it as a stand-alone test, but this is still a replacement of SCREENS, not Amnio/CVS.
It is HIGHLY doubtful that SQNM will get 100% sensitivity in their large follow-up study. Also, in order to really be considered a diagnostic, you must use a diagnostic (definitive) marker (DNA). SQNM's test still uses a surrogate marker (RNA). I don't see how you can say this is a replacement for Amnio/CVS when its not even a real diagnostic test.
As for clinicians being impressed or not, you have your sources and I have mine. And SQNM's follow-up study will reveal to the less statistically inclined that this is not a definitive test. Don't get me wrong, SQNM's test is an improvement on the current marketplace and will most likely generate some amount of revenue, but it seems like everyone is already assuming that this is the full replacement. It is not.
Sonce Trisomy 21 appears only on a single specific place in the genome, there is no reason to collect, much less to analyze a "full genome" in order to get test results.
Do you think people here are stupid?
Do you think Ridgeback's analysts are incompetent?
Your argument is ignorant, is it not?
Did you forget about the EXPENSE, the INCONVENIENCE, and the UNRELIABLE RESULTS that derive from amnio?