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

Zalicus AŞ Message Board

  • scistats scistats Nov 4, 2013 6:13 PM Flag

    Rul6t2 give us your take on the post hoc analysis of the Merck (NMED160/MK6721) data.

    From Justin Renz February 2013 talk: "We knew from a post hoc analysis, again admittedly with all the caveats, that the Merck study had some patients who had over 400ng/mL; they had analgesia.”

    How does this translate to our new Z160 dose and bioavailability? We have some absolute proof here that Z160 does work in man. Again, I think third molar extraction was the indication. How does this indication differ from our indication of Lumbosacral Radiculopathy (LSR) and post-herpetic neuralgia (PHN). Does this matter. It looks like Corrigan stacked several variables in our favor. Why is Napodano avoiding this known data?

    Sentiment: Strong Buy

    SortNewest  |  Oldest  |  Most Replied Expand all replies
    • Wish 2 of the smart guys on the board who have a handle on the science would quit fighting ! I admit i didn't pay attention is in school, far too much fun. I think I found a diamond in the ruff. I think we may have a pain killer which will replace most of the current one's with their downsides on the market in the future. Surely if your a doctor who prescribes strong pain relievers to your patients would you not try Z160/ Z944 even for off-label application to keep the DEA off your butt . I don't have the science knowledge to back it up,But i think this very well may be a game changer!

      Sentiment: Strong Buy

      • 1 Reply to jccfw524
      • Don't lump me in with sci, please. Whatever smarts he has, he uses just as often to BS the board. He posts things like "Merck has struck out with their new molecule."

        And then when I look into it, it turns out to be they just hit one snag in development and already completely fixed it. Not even close to "striking out." Just the opposite. They're making good progress.

        He does that a LOT.

        Not to be trusted. Anyone with a real science background who has worked in biotech can see he's a fake. He loads his posts with chunks of copy and paste blocks from papers he doesn't understand (because he knows you can't follow it) and then injects a nonsense conclusion at the end that he wants you to buy into.

        Again, not to be trusted.

    • Source the quote for me, please. Is this from a transcript?

      • 2 Replies to rul6t2
      • Rul, it was the Justin talked at BIO CEO conference. I emailed him to confirm what he said some patients had pain relief on 400ng/ml. He replied that "I stand by my comments at the BIO CEO and for a full, up to date disclosure on Z160 and other Zalicus programs please read our 10K which was filed on Thursday, March 7 with the SEC." But he did not tell me how many patients and how much pain relief.

        Sentiment: Strong Buy

      • This information comes from Zalicus Inc at BIO CEO & Investor Conference
        Tuesday, February 12, 2013 9:00 a.m. ET
        Justin Renz spoke in the place of Dr. Corrigan

        Search for Wild's post: "During Merck PII study, Z160 had analgia in 400ng/ml" he was the first to post about this data.

        I listened to the conference when it was available and typed the transcript of what Renz said:
        "We knew from a post hoc analysis, again admittedly with all the caveats, that the Merck study had some patients who had over 400ng/mL; they had analgesia.”

        I think everyone would appreciate an additional take on this. Thanks!

        Sentiment: Strong Buy