I completely agree with that idiotic assessment: I sincerely hope politicians get out of the way of cannabis research, which apparently has the power to greatly reduce many illnesses and the effects of disease.
However, investing (which is what we ARE talking about - not some stupid quote from 1912) in a company, whose medicine is easily replicated and whose source is a plant, is possibly a bad mistake.
Eh, but GWPH stock price is up - my call options are working out!
I better buy some puts as a hedge...
Why are you hoping big corporate monopolizes cannabis?
You did not address this:
Epidiolex vs. Charlotte's Web.
Heck, even GWPH refused to release the drop out rate. Why? Because parents with children with epilepsy want what works best. Char Web works best, especially compared to Epid.
Which one works better?
What is the drop out rate for the Epidiolex study?
Why do people drop out?
Do people who drop out return to using something else, like Charlotte's Web?
If they go back to Charlotte's Web because they see it works better for their child, is this because of the entourage effect, i.e. traces of other compounds like THC or other CBDs are needed, not just the one GWPH has isolated?
If parents of children with Dravet syndrome find equal if not better success with a complete extract, and any medical facility could make the extract, as they are now in Colorado, why would someone pay thousands of times more for Epidiolex?
Why would insurance pay for expensive treatment, even if the one compound works?
"Cannabinoid-containing plant extracts as neuroprotective agents
The invention relates to the use of cannabinoid-containing plant extracts in the prevention or treatment of neural degeneration. In particular, the invention relates to use of one or more cannabinoid-containing plant extracts in the prevention or treatment of neural degeneration, wherein the one or more cannabinoid-containing plant extracts comprise: i) a cannabinoid-containing fraction; and ii) a non-cannabinoid containing fraction. "
vivasquat et al:
Regarding the last few words and item, What is ii)? I think that means that while GWPH has a patent on THEIR extract which includes ii), they do not have a patent on THE cannabinoid extract.
And again, even if they did, the extract is easily extracted. They would become a patent troll and have to sue and shut down every #$%$ company on the planet, OR, make Epid so cheap, no one would compete. In either case, GWPH as a stock is worth not much, IMO.
Dude, not even remotely funny. Just plain dumb. Cannabis greatly reduces many illnesses including epilepsy in children. What's your point?
GWPH most certainly does NOT have a patent on the compound in the plant.
Even if they did have a patent on "using" it, extracting the compound is so easy, any medical facility could do it. So why pay GWPH $9,000?
You really think GWPH is going to travel around the world suing everyone in every country who is extracting the compound?
Moreover, Epid should by tested virtually against itself, which is moronic but true: why test it against a placebo or another drug when GWPH does not own the rights to the plant and it's material? THAT is why the phase trial may fail... not because cannabis doesn't work, but because Epid is no more effective than another compound containing the exact same molecule - an extract.
Cannabis is unlike any other drug you're bring up.
GWPH has not patented any part of cannabis. They have patented the extraction method they use to extract the medicine.
Anyone can extract the same medicine without violating the patent. In fact, anyone can use an almost identical process by just changing something small, like the amount of CO2 used, etc.
Re: inflation: there can be deflation also. If cannabis is legalized, we could grow enough to produce all drugs derived from it for free because no one can patent the plant, with virtually free input costs, meaning the plant and the equipment to extract it.
My political views are that some sectors should be a lot cheaper, like healthcare. Except that we have to pay huge amounts towards drugs and to the people that prescribe them.
So, if cannabis is legalized, our healthcare costs will eventually plummet.
GWPH cannot make money from cannabis for very much longer.
I am buying deep OTM puts and calls. Unfortunately, both sides are expensive, so I can only go a month out, i.e. May 20s. BUT, one day GWPH will announce positive results. Cool! GWPH doubles. And then someday, their cash will run out. Cool! GWPH goes to zero.
The problem I have is with your very last sentence:
" If Epidiolex is approved by the FDA then parents/patients will have the ability to use insurance to assist with the cost."
Insurance is a large pile of money everyone contributes to in some form or another (out of pocket, via taxes, etc.), minus insurance company expenses. When one of us gets sick, the money is paid to doctors and medicine so that no one person has to go bankrupt.
I describe insurance because many if not most people fundamentally do not know the mechanics of all insurance.
So, to your point: How long are WE going to pay $9,000 per patient for Epid?
Charlotte's Web. no need for anything else right now.
GWPH has a USE patent, on the extraction method they use to extract CBD. However, the method is easily replicated with small changes and hence their patent is basically unenforceable.
GWPH cannot charge enough for Epid to return any revenue to shareholders.
GWPH would certainly soar if they announce any kind of positive results.
But their "medicine" is easily extracted from a plant.
And then went from 130 to 30, by the way.
And then went from 30 to 90, by the way.
And? So what.
Everything in the article is still true... and happening: burning cash, no marketable product, too much competition, and the medicine is from an easily grown plant using easily replicated extraction methods.
Re: your second paragraph.
I am pro marijuana legalization for any use for adults.
GWPH has a patent on the METHOD of extraction, not the compound.
"Extraction of purified CBD from cannabis flowers is a nearly identical process to extracting purified caffeine from coffee beans. Both are done via supercritical CO2 extraction (among various other methods), and neither chemical compound is patentable as they are both naturally occurring. Instead, GWPH is patenting the METHOD of growing cannabis and extracting CBD under a descriptive set of operations for CO2 extraction. These methods can be very easily recreated to extract CBD in a manner that does not breach GWPH’s patents. "