Actually four weeks ago:
centurycom • Jan 21, 2016 10:22 AM Remove 3users liked this postsusers disliked this posts2Reply
Mercks nside man
For M/A actovity?
Craig Granowitz, M.D., Ph.D. as Chief Medical Officer (AMRN) : Prior to joining Amarin, Dr. Granowitz was SVP and head of global medical affairs, global human health at Merck (MRK).
Who kmows, but a good posibility?
Does your doctor drive from villiage to village in a wagon peddling snake oil using you as one of his cured stooges ? Eat McDonald's junk everyday and you will need a real doctor stenting your arteries everybody, except you fool, knows that. ROOTFLMAOAYF
Edumacate yourself, Moe
From the NIH:
OM3-FA dietary supplements should not be substituted for prescription products, and prescription OM3-FA products that contain DHA are not equivalent to or interchangeable with high-purity EPA (icosapent ethyl) and should not be substituted.
" Differential effects between products containing EPA and DHA compared with a high-purity EPA product (icosapent ethyl) have clinical implications: Increases in low-density lipoprotein cholesterol associated with DHA have the potential to confound strategies for managing patients with dyslipidemia. Cardiovascular outcomes studies of prescription CM3-FA products are ongoing."
Is the NIH giving us a view into the results of Vascepa's R-it trial. I am not aware of any other pure EPA trial in association with statins currently going on other than Vascepa.
"Timely post by Zumantu on ihub. ncbi(dot)nlm(dot)nih(dot)gov/pubmed/26882630
Prescription Omega-3 Fatty Acid Products and Dietary Supplements Are Not Interchangeable.
Hilleman D, Smer A.
To provide an overview of prescription and dietary supplement omega-3 fatty acid (OM3-FA) products and considerations for clinical use.
Prescription QM3-FA products are supported by robust clinical development and safety monitoring programs, whereas dietary supplements are not required to demonstrate safety or efficacy prior to marketing. There are no over-the-counter OM3-FA products available in the United States. Investigations of OM3-FA dietary supplements show that quantities of EPA and DHA are highly variable within and between brands. Dietary supplements also may contain potentially harmful components, including oxidized OM3-FA, other lipids, cholesterol, and toxins. Prescription OM3-FA products may contain DHA and EPA or EPA alone. All prescription OM3-FA products have demonstrated statistically significant triglyceride reduction as monotherapy or in combination with statins in patients with hypertriglyceridemia. Differential effects between products containing EPA and DHA compared with a high-purity EPA product (icosapent ethyl) have clinical implications: Increases in low-density lipoprotein cholesterol associated with DHA have the potential to confound strategies for managing patients with dyslipidemia. Cardiovascular outcomes studies of prescription CM3-FA products are ongoing.
OM3-FA dietary supplements should not be substituted for prescription products, and prescription OM3-FA products that contain DHA are not equivalent to or interchangeable with high-purity EPA (icosapent ethyl) and should not be substituted for it."
Lol. For years, I only invested last summer. Do you people read what you write? Checking facts is a waste of time when all you have to do is run your mouth. Whatever you do don't let facts get in the way of anything. Pinheads.
I got in at .33 and got out at .30 about the time of the above post. Only an idiot would put $100,000 on a penny stock. I bought 1000 shares only. With the way you are selectively digging dirt you will get to China long before I ever go back. You win some, you lose some, but I don't delete my post like you do, Fudsters.
Selective posting on your part:
centurycom • Aug 8, 2011 10:04 PM Remove 0users liked this postsusers disliked this posts0Reply
Not Even Incentives Can Get China's Solar Stocks Moving 5 comments | by: Tate Dwinnell August 4, 2011 | includes: AMAT, FSLR, JKS, SOLR, SPWRA, YGE Font Size: PrintEmail Recommend 0 Share this page
Nothing seems to be working to get the China solar stocks off the ground, not even the announcement of China’s first nationwide solar FIT (Feed-In Tariff) program. Rumors have been swirling for a few days and it was announced that the government will provide developers payment of RMB 1.15 (.18 kw/hr) if approved by July 1st or completed by the end of the year and RMB 1/kWh if approved after July 1st.
Analysts are disagreeing about just how profitable solar projects would be under the new tariffs, but it would certainly spur demand worldwide for solar products. It should be noted that the tariffs won’t be awarded to projects with a competitive bidding process. By some estimates, the tariffs could double the previous estimates for 2011 solar capacity.
Many were surprised that it happened so soon, but pressure from the solar community, declining subsidies in Europe and missed solar targets in China likely pushed the government into offering it sooner. The government likely feels that if it’s going to hit its target of 50GW by 2020, national subsidies are needed sooner rather than later.
It’s great news for the solar industry and the China players in particular, but the stocks aren’t moving on the news. Some of that has do with the pressure in the overall market over the past couple weeks and some of it has to do with the lack of confidence in China ADR’s, but perhaps earnings season could be the catalyst for these stocks to move. We shall see. Le
The head Shorter has scripted responses for them that they repetitiously write leaving out just enough details to make them seem truthful but in reality they convey false information about trial results.
"the Court notes that as of March 18, 2016, more than seven months will have passed since the Court’s ruling on Amarin’s application for preliminary relief. To the extent the parties may seek further stays in this case on account of ongoing settlement discussions; the Court will expect a more fulsome explanation as to the procedural status of settlement discussions and why a further stay is necessary to enable those discussions to reach completion.” Based on Judge Engelmayer’s comments in the order, we believe it’s unlikely that another stay request will be granted. We look for additional details on AMRN’s 4Q15 conference call that is scheduled for February 25th. This appears to be AMRN & the FDA’s last opportunity for a settlement before the proceedings continue. Therefore, AMRN and the FDA need to reach a mutually beneficial settlement in the case before the March 18, 2016 deadline, as a settlement would remove an overhang from AMRN’s Vascepa promotion & reduce legal expenses. The First Amendment ruling has serious consequences for the FDA and its ability to control what the industry is able to use in promotion from peer-reviewed publications. A settlement would eliminate the possibility of a second potentially precedent-setting final ruling that could further erode the agency’s ability to enforce off-label promotion & misbranding regulations based on First Amendment considerations (the first such ruling came from the Second Circuit Court of Appeals [United States v. Caronia] in December 20"
"Amarin to Report Fourth Quarter and Full-Year 2015 Results and Host Conference Call on February 25, 2016
BEDMINSTER, NJ and DUBLIN, IRELAND -- (Marketwired) -- 02/18/16 -- Amarin Corporation plc ( NASDAQ : AMRN), a biopharmaceutical company focused on the commercialization and development of therapeutics to improve cardiovascular health, today announced that it will host a conference call with members of Amarin senior management to discuss the company's fourth quarter and full-year 2015 financial results and provide an operational update on Thursday, February 25 , at 8:00 a.m. ET . The conference call will follow the anticipated release of the company's financial results earlier that day. "
Could be too late for shorts- you never know. Lol.
Cover now, or be greedy and wait it out and get trampled by 23 million other fools scrambling to get out? Decision, Decisions ? Wish I could help, but I'll be laughing from the sidelines. ROFLMAO.
Time to cover, or you will not even have the money to buy that fake, cheap , contaminated fish oil, snake oil, Mr. Medicine Man.
FDA claims lowering Trigs provides insignificant benefit for CVEs hence Vascepa must provide no benefit and that is why Anchor was not granted. I am certain it was more complicated than that but in a nut schell that is what happened. Having just the details on total patient hours, placebo %rate, active arm %rate, and exact date of stoppage for 60% events will be able to equate a relative risk reduction ( RRR ) in the Vascepa group, if any. Also, who is not to say that a predetermined rate of efficacy at interim has not, or is not being negotiated ( more likely scenario ) between the parties to determine that Vascepa does in effect significNtly reduce CVEs. You have to agree that the science they used to deny Anchor had nothing to do with Vascepa, but two other non-related drugs ( only association was they lowered Trigs but all had different set of actions ) How could that even be considered sound science? If the parties agreed on a predetermined efficacy % why would any data need to be released to the public? DMC says it reached that percentage, or it didn't. Nothing has to be disclosed.