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

Alimera Sciences, Inc. (ALIM) Message Board

  • goldhome1000 goldhome1000 Dec 8, 2010 2:25 PM Flag

    7.5x increased risk of glaucoma surgery, 3.3x increased risk of cataract surgery

    "During the first 24 months of follow up in our FAME Study, patients that were phakic (had a natural lens and no prior cataract surgery) at baseline, 50 of 121, or 41.3% of the control group and 182 of 235, or 77.4% of the low dose had cataract formation reported as an adverse event through month 24. For these same phakic patients, 19.8% of the control group and 66.0% of the low dose group underwent cataract surgery through month 24. "

    "Percentage of Patients Requiring One or More IOP-Lowering Surgeries"
    Control: 0.5%
    Low Dose: 3.7%

    SortNewest  |  Oldest  |  Most Replied Expand all replies
    • I guess that message was for someone else?

      Were you calling me an idiot? or bite boy?

    • You are a complete douchebag bro and a dunce to boot.

      You know absolutely nothing about the FDA and the likelyhood of this drugs approval. You are nothing but a moronic penny ante day trader with nothing better to do than to post messages to stock boards.

      I'm only dismissing you because you are a F---ING IDIOT. Bite me???

      Get a job and a life you worthless imbicile.

    • Not being dismissive. I disagree with the statements made because they are factually incorrect. Do you dispute what I posted? Also, I find it interesting that you defended someone else as though it was you, another AKA?

      Listen, I appreciate your comments and agree with many, but these facts are incorrect.

      Thanks for EXEL.

      Cheers Mate

    • You portray your view of ALIM as if it were an anointed vision that only those who agree with you are worthy. The rest of us who differ are unwashed and ignorant.

      You see ALIM through a prism of deception and denial of the facts. All I see coming from you is a rhetorical assertion followed by evasion of mounting evidence against these assertions.

      Anyone who opposes you, myself especially, you ridicule and dismiss as unworthy. You characterize us as short term traders or momentum players who are unable to comprehend the "science" which you bow before. You laugh when I bring up significant indicators such as volume, liquidity, institutional interest, and FDA experience. These are factors that any seasoned professional takes into account. But not you.

      All you have offered is a key hole, narrow minded, arrogant, one sided opinion, based on hopes and dreams mixed in with some clinical data to make yourself appear intelligent. You may fool some others, but not me.

      bite me.

    • Ok, we get the message. You think volume and daily activity means nothing. Wow, you leave me breathless.

      Do you view your checking account the same way? One day you have $100,000 and in a few weeks it drops to $80,000. The funny thing is you didn't even write any checks. Same thing. How do like that science?

      bite me.

    • Volume and daily activity means NOTHING with these little companies.

      ALIM is a great science story and the FDA has only asked for the additional data to confirm that great science.

      This drug will get approved and ALIM will be a huge winner. Question is, how many dunderheads remain to sell. People or institutional holders who really don't understand the nature of the FDA's request or who are looking at the TA and making stupid short term decisions.

    • You tell him. The performance of this stock says it all. He concentrates on the science and overlooks FDA mood swings. He thinks volume is a meaningless indicator. Meanwhile, his investment shrinks by the day while he has his head in the sand. I was being nice when I said it was in the sand and not up his alimentary canal.

    • so that you can buy the shares below 10 and sell them at 25? Is the idea that alim insiders who know the the product better than anyone outside the company and own millions of shares know less than Kongo, Bongo, and Hombo?

    • Retisert was approved by the FDA, yet......

      Retisert Side Effects - for the Professional
      Clinical Trials Experience - Ocular Events

      Just a few quotes:
      "The most frequently reported ocular adverse events were cataract, increased intraocular pressure, procedural complication, and eye pain. These events occurred in approximately 50 - 90% of patients."

      "Based on clinical trials with Retisert, during the 3-year post-implantation period, nearly all phakic eyes are expected to develop cataracts and require cataract surgery. IOP lowering medications to lower intraocular pressure were required in approximately 77% of patients filtering surgeries were required to control intraocular pressure in 37% of patients."

      Goldhome, would you like to reevaluate the significance of your post as it relates to Iluvien FDA approval?

    • Maybe you should read the label on Retisert.....

1.29-0.01(-0.77%)3:09 PMEDT