Congratulations! After accusing me of inventing this article several times, you have finally read it!
You are saying that the trials data on plecanatide, which is so often cited here, is worthless?
Write your rebuttal and send it to the Journal of Gastroenterology. I'm sure that they'll withdraw the article in deference to a distinguished researcher such as yourself.
A commentator on CNBC yesterday referred to the possibility that in their library of anti-virals, Gilead may already have a drug which is effective against Zika. I can find no reference to this in the news. Anyone?
Were Shah, Pimentel, and Kim also on the Ironwood payroll? And the editors of the Journal of Gastroenterology, too? If so, they should be made to disgorge their huge payoffs since their findings were not nearly as favorable to Ironwood as I would have hoped.
This is shocking. You are implying that there is an institution of higher learning with standards so low that they allow an illiterate to teach graduate courses.
You should submit this brilliant analysis to the Journal of Gastroenterology, where the study was published. You could even get nitabosco to coauthor it. No doubt they will withdraw the offending article in the face of criticism from distinguished statisticians such as yourselves.
To this point, i have six thumbs down. And I will bet that none of these naysayers has even read the presentation. Ignorance is bliss.
No, I post verifiable facts, often to the discomfiture of some. You are posting fantasies. The point which the GI presentation makes is that on the basis of the present data, the two drugs perform about the same. And that the supposed superiority of plecanatide in regard to diarrhea doesn't stand up to statistical examination.
This was not my opinion. This is a presentation by four coauthors, vetted by the GI community. Are you so inept that you can't find it even when I supply the presentation number? As usual, your response is intemperate and semicoherent.
I supplied the number of the presentation (Mo1641); look it up yourself, you lazy dolt. There are four coauthors, and they obviously disagree with your expert interpretation of the data. I actually gave you more credit than you deserved, since I assumed that you had to know something about stastistics to graduate from med school. Apparently not. Your mangled understanding of "market cap" demonstrated that you know nothing about investing. Your ignorance apparently knows no bounds.
Incidentally, I posted the same information on the IRWD board. With the added observation that if I were a large pharma contemplating putting a billion or more into Synergy, the fact that plecanatide was essentially a "me too" drug might give me pause.
This is an impartial scientific analysis of the data which is not sponsored by either company. It does not support my belief that linaclotide is more efficacious nor the belief of many here that plecanatide causes less diarrhea. If I am confusing you with factual material, I apologize. If I had posted some fabrication about an impending $15 a share buyout, I would have had five thumbs-up by now.
Neither. A study of the efficacy and tolerability of the two drugs to be presented at this weekend's GI conference (Mo1641) concludes: "Based on this analysis, linaclotide and plecanatide have similar efficacy and there is no significant difference in odds of diarrhea adverse events in IBS-C or CIC patients." If the FDA reads the data the same way, their only motive for approving plecanatide might be to induce price competition. In any event, Synergy should not be able to sell plecanatide on the basis of less diarrhea. If I were a large pharma company contemplating a billion dollar investment in Synergy, this might give me pause.
Neither. One of the presentations at the GI conference this weekend (Mo1641) examined all the evidence to compare the efficacy and tolerability of the two drugs. The conclusion: "Based on this analysis, linaclotide and plecanatide have similar efficacy and there is no significant difference in odds of diarrhea adverse events in IBS-C or CIC events." In other words, I was wrong when I assumed that linaclotide was more efficacious. And many on this board were wrong when they insisted that diarrhea was more of a problem with linaclotide. If the FDA reads the data the same way, their only motive for approving plecanatide would seem to be to encourage price competition.
This is self-delusional. The fact is, according to NASDAQ, institutional ownership of SGYP is an astoundingly low 35.73%. If we allow for Paulson's recent doubling up, this may now be more like 41%. However, the dilution of roughly 50% with this year's issuing of 65 million new shares means that in order to maintain their stake in the company, institutions would have had to add about 50% more shares to their holdings. Other than Paulson and the outliers mentioned in the post above, almost no one did. Vanguard and Blackrock added because they hold the stock in price-weighted index funds. As the stock goes lower, they have to add more shares to maintain the same relative weighting.
IRWD's institutional ownership is 109.56%. This is possible because the figure includes both long and short positions. If you take the short positions into account, institutions probably hold about 30% of SGYP shares.
When asked what he missed most about the old gueriilla days in the Sierra Maestra with Raul and Che, Fidel Castro said, "the sense of commieraderie".
IRWD advanced strongly today in the face of a general decline in pharma stocks. Rumors are circulating that John Paulson has not bought any Ironwood shares. Shares of the Paulson favorites, VRX and MNK, were each down 1.60 today on the news that he had added to his positions.
Yes, here in the Shortsellers Federal Prison in Short Hills, they just told us that we're going to be doubling up soon. This probably means that I will have to share my Bloomberg terminal with a new cellmate.